Amtrak train schedule layover question

[CJones]

I'm doing some speculative trip planning for a week-long trip in early May. We can leave as early as Saturday, May 9 from Iowa and need to be back in Iowa by Saturday May 16.

I was looking at Amtrak since we've always wanted to do a trip on the train. On our last big trip, I convinced her to let us fly ourselves to Vegas. We had mixed results. So this time, I'm going to see if a train trip is viable.

I was looking at heading down to Florida for the possibility of seeing a shuttle launch that week. There are a couple of route options available. One puts us in Washington, DC with a 6 hour layover on the way down and in New York City with a 4 hour layover on the way back. I know this isn't enough time to see 'everything', but is it even enough time to see 'anything'? Or would we simply be stuck in the station waiting for our connecting train? I've never been in the any further northeast than Morristown, TN and she vaguely remembers going to Washington, DC when she was little.

I also looked at heading out to Seattle to visit some friends out there, but 60hrs on a train - one-way - is too much for my patience at this point.

 

[gprellwitz]

My experience with Amtrak is that they frequently run late. As in hours late. I'd recommend factoring that possibility into your plans.

 

[mikea]

My experience with Amtrak is that they frequently run late. As in hours late. I'd recommend factoring that possibility into your plans.

Hours? Amtrak considers it on time if you arrive within a day of the scheduled time. DO NOT plan with a tight schedule.

 

[kkoran]

Traveling across country on AMTRAK is like traveling across country VFR...you need to plan for schedule changes. From what I've seen, the trains are often delayed, so you can't count on any sightseeing.

That said, Washington's Union Station is within walking distance of the Capitol and the Mall with all of the Smithsonian museums. New York's Penn Station is within walking distance of Times Square.

 

[ausrere]

Trust me, never travel by Amtrak if you have to be somewhere by a certain time. My mother recently did the trip from Fort Worth to Austin. It was supposed to take 5 hours. 14 1/2 hours later she arrived in Austin. It was crazy.

I've taken the Amtrak several times and it has NEVER arrived on time. Once we had to take a bus back to Fort Worth from San Antonio because of a derailment in another state. It's tough to bring in another train to substitute for one that's not there if the tracks are blocked. Not exactly like flying in a substitute aircraft.

But, I have to say I really enjoyed the train trips..when I wasn't in a hurry that is.

 

[Skip Miller]

Traveling across country on AMTRAK is like traveling across country VFR...you need to plan for schedule changes. From what I've seen, the trains are often delayed, so you can't count on any sightseeing.

That said, Washington's Union Station is within walking distance of the Capitol and the Mall with all of the Smithsonian museums. New York's Penn Station is within walking distance of Times Square.

...and the Intrepid Air and Space Museum.

In case you think Amtrak is cheap, I recommend looking at the fares.

With regard to their on time performance, I have taken Amtrak maybe a half a dozen times from New York as far as Boston and Washington DC. Always on time. The last time I took it back from Boston the weather was dreadful and I beat the plane I would have taken by 6 hours.

-Skip

 

[astanley]

My mom did BOS-RIC in late November last year. Scheduled 9hr train trip.

She arrived in 17 hours, after a mechanical, delays, and a train swap in DC.

Cheers,

-Andrew

 

[CJones]

Yuck.. This is not what I was looking forward to. If I wanted to be stranded in the middle of nowhere in a small cylindrical tube, I would fly commercial.

The only thing that would make this trip worthwhile would be the fact that we could see a little of DC and NYC on the way, but if the schedule can't reasonably guarantee any time for sightseeing, it isn't worth it to me. As Skip mentioned, it's not the cheapest way to travel, either.

Oh yeah, I *have* to be back by Sunday evening as I start a new job on Monday morning. I assumed the train schedules were more reliable than other forms of transportation mostly because they aren't nearly as dependent on weather and/or other traffic. That's what I get for assuming.

Let's see.... unbelievably slow, unreliable schedule, relatively expensive (compared to driving/flying yourself), chance of being stuck on a BUS for part of the trip.... Yeah, I think it has lost some of its romance.

 

[EppyGA]

I've done two Amtrak trips in the past couple of years. One was one the Southwest Chief from Chicago to Los Angeles. It was a trip to relive one I took with my dad as a kid. We had a sleeping compartment and enjoyed the experience. Train arrived in LA ahead of schedule.

Last summer my wife and I took my grand son on Amtrak from Charlotte, NC to Richmond, VA about a 7 hour trip. The trip was quite disappointing. Restrooms didn't work, the snack bar was out of many items, etc. We were also a couple of hours late. I wrote to Amtrak to express my displeasure and at this point in time am still waiting for a response. (Actually I gave up waiting months ago)

Seems like it might be a crap shoot.

 

[SteveinIndy]

My mom did BOS-RIC in late November last year. Scheduled 9hr train trip.

She arrived in 17 hours, after a mechanical, delays, and a train swap in DC.

Cheers,

-Andrew

On a trip from Michigan to Indiana (via Chicago)- 6 hour drive vs. 16 hour trip- both ways the train I was on HIT A CAR!

 

[mikea]

On a trip from Michigan to Indiana (via Chicago)- 6 hour drive vs. 16 hour trip- both ways the train I was on HIT A CAR!

You mean the train left the tracks and JUMPED ON A ROAD!!!!
More like a car got in the way of the train.

 

[Ted]

My mom and I used to ride Amtrak a lot. I've never found it to be a really good experience. Basically, it's slower than driving while generally being more expensive than flying.

You want romance of trains, go to Europe and ride the trains there. Or New Zealand. Much better.

If you can't convince her on another trip in the RV, maybe a road trip?

 

[Everskyward]

I took Amtrak from Denver to San Francisco and back once on a whim. Of course you can't take the train all the way to San Francisco, they bus you from Oakland. While it was barely OK in the "checked that box off" kind of way, I'm not looking to repeat the experience. I would much rather drive myself. Instead of 21 hours driving time it took at least a day and a half each way, if not more.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

I took Amtrak from Denver to San Francisco and back once on a whim. Of course you can't take the train all the way to San Francisco, they bus you from Oakland. While it was barely OK in the "checked that box off" kind of way, I'm not looking to repeat the experience. I would much rather drive myself. Instead of 21 hours driving time it took at least a day and a half each way, if not more.

21 hours driving time! It takes that long to go from NJ to Lincoln, NE (Driving time). Denver is ~1/2 way to the west coast from here. The mountains slow you up that much?

 

[Everskyward]

21 hours driving time! It takes that long to go from NJ to Lincoln, NE (Driving time). Denver is ~1/2 way to the west coast from here. The mountains slow you up that much?

Denver is no way near 1/2 the way to the west coast from Lincoln, NE, LOL. Besides, you can't really go on the interstate in a straight line from Denver to SF. You either go through the mountains in a convoluted way or you go up to Wyoming on I-80.

 

[SCCutler]

OK, I have to tell this story, and please understand: I really want Amtrak to succeed, because I love rail transportation, and recall some very good rail trips from my childhood.

Last fall, my nephew needed to head from Austin up to NYC to start law school, and Amtrak seemed a logical choice based upon the stuff he needed to bring, etc., as well as the adventure of it all.

Indeed!

He bought the ticket, and only after calling the day before, to check on details, did he discover that, while you can board the train at Austin (a major city by any measure), you cannot check bags there- if you want to travel with anything other than a carry-on, you have to entrain at San Antonio. Awrighty, then.

So, they get up early and his sweety drives him all the way to San Antonio, where he boards the train, which leaves the station a couple of hours late. He got all settled-in and prepared to enjoy his cross-country trek to Chicago, where he'd change trains for Nueva York.

Fat Chance.

The train got as far as ... ummm... Austin, at which point a derailment (another train) made them wait for several hours, after which they were (brusquely) informed on the almost-understandable PA that they'd be getting on buses to Ft. Worth, where they'd join-up with another train.

The bus driver kept trying to stop so they could "rest," but the passengers were all more interested in, like, getting to the train.

So.

They finally make Cowtown, where, after another interminable wait, they board an actual choo-choo headed north.

As they rolled into St. Louis, another helpful PA announcement told them that everyone who was scheduled to connect at Chicago for points east would miss their connection, and so, at St. Louis, they'd be placed on (you guessed it) buses, which would take them to meet their train. Somewhere... sometime...


...which worked out to be Indianapolis, where they re-entrained on a train headed for New York... no, wait, it was headed to Washington, DC, which it reached successfully, and where they retrained to a shuttle of some sort (on rails) which delivered them to Penn Station at some time which was so laughably late, it cannot be calculated without higher-order equations.


Oh yeah, about the bags.

He got 'em three days later.

 

[EppyGA]

Unfortunately this is all just another indication of what happens when you let the government try and run something instead of private enterprise. After all these years the government will never let it fail they will only continue to pour more money (our money) into it.

 

[wsuffa]

The long-hauls can be tough. Real tough. Partly because passenger rail rides on freight tracks... and therefore gets second priority (sorta like VFR going into many class B's).

That being said, some of the routes have scenery you just can't see anywhere else. Most is out west, but some of the runs through the appalacians can be great, too.

The northeast corridor runs pretty well, especially the Acela. FAR more reliable than the airline shuttles. I usually take Acela - only once has it been significantly late... due to a mechanical they put us on the next train out (an hour later). It ran on-time. If weather is marginal, you're far better on Acela.

But as I said, the rest of the system is pretty tough. Allow extra time.

As for the layover: what time of day would they be scheduled? If daytime in DC, check out Capitol Hill, the nearby museums, etc. At night - you'll need to go a bit further afield. In NYC, there's the garment district, shopping, the Intrepid, and Empire State.

In either case, you'll need to make sure your bags are safely stowed - don't drag 'em along.

 

[CJones]

Ohhhhhhhhkay... So train trip is definitely out of the question.

A road trip is a possibility. We were contemplating taking the Jeep somewhere for some 'wheelin, but then I got a wild-hair idea about the train trip. I guess we're back on the drive vs. fly decision - to a destination that is yet to be determined.

 

[etsisk]

holy matilda! I was looking at going to OKC by train - which would go from Rocky Mount, NC to DC (arriving at 8something a.m.) and then from DC to Chgo (leaving DC around 4something p.m., giving me the whole day to sightsee) and arriving in Chgo around 8something a.m.. I would have 4 hours in Chgo and then leave for Ft. Worth arriving the next morning. I'd be in a sleeper compartment for the two long legs and would switch to coach in Ft. Worth to get to OKC.

Y'all are NOT leaving me feeling good about this trip! I'm not much interested in spending damn near $700 just to ride on a freaking bus.

hmmm...

 

[CJones]

Unfortunately this is all just another indication of what happens when you let the government try and run something instead of private enterprise. After all these years the government will never let it fail they will only continue to pour more money (our money) into it.

Wow.. Less than 5 hours. That might be a record.

Yay for PoA where any possible question can be spun into blow-hard political talk with just a simple flip of the wrist.

 

[CJones]

holy matilda! I was looking at going to OKC by train - which would go from Rocky Mount, NC to DC (arriving at 8something a.m.) and then from DC to Chgo (leaving DC around 4something p.m., giving me the whole day to sightsee) and arriving in Chgo around 8something a.m.. I would have 4 hours in Chgo and then leave for Ft. Worth arriving the next morning. I'd be in a sleeper compartment for the two long legs and would switch to coach in Ft. Worth to get to OKC.

Y'all are NOT leaving me feeling good about this trip! I'm not much interested in spending damn near $700 just to ride on a freaking bus.

hmmm...

LOL! Actually, your thread about taking the train is what got me started thinking about taking the train in the first place! ha!

 

[etsisk]

yeah - I shoulda posted here instead of on the fly baby thread!

 

[wsuffa]

Unfortunately this is all just another indication of what happens when you let the government try and run something instead of private enterprise. After all these years the government will never let it fail they will only continue to pour more money (our money) into it.

Like the private enterprise airlines always run on time.

The trains in Switzerland run like clockwork. And they are state-subsidized.

Maybe we can blame the unions, too.

 

[flyersfan31]

Like the private enterprise airlines always run on time.

The trains in Switzerland run like clockwork. And they are state-subsidized.

Maybe we can blame the unions, too.

Well, AMTRAK is also state-subsidized. We're not getting the same bang for the buck.

 

[flyersfan31]

Ohhhhhhhhkay... So train trip is definitely out of the question.

A road trip is a possibility. We were contemplating taking the Jeep somewhere for some 'wheelin, but then I got a wild-hair idea about the train trip. I guess we're back on the drive vs. fly decision - to a destination that is yet to be determined.

Don't rule it out, just accept the limitations. AFA your original question, about layovers - the nice thing about train travel is the lack of bogus security requirements. You can get there 5 mins before departure (note, not necessarily SCHEDULED departure). Yeah, they run late as a rule. Longer haul = longer delays. Still, it can be a neat way to see the country, and as they say, leave the driving to someone else. Might want to get a sleeper compartment just for the sake of having a little refuge.

That, and bring some food and beverages. Never know if they'll have stuff in stock or not. Booze makes the trip easier. Don't think I'm kidding!

Oh, man, does our railroad experience lag behind Europe. Like night and day.

 

[Keith Lane]

At work I have ridden Amtrak quite a bit. I also ride a lot of freights. As long as Amtrak has to run as the orphaned stepchild on the tracks that are OWNED and MAINTAINED by the freight haulers, the scheduling will suck. Freight haulers hate Amtrak. Period. The northeast corridor is the only track Amtrak owns and they are the only passenger trains that run anywhere near something like a schedule.
The tracks, more specifically the curves, are engineered for the speed that the most trains using that track are capable of running. Freights = slower. The fastest freights in the US run 60 mph.Amtrak runs 79 everywhere but the Acela, which is faster =, but it doesn't run as fast as it can. Additionally, as long as stupid people are allowed behind the wheel of cars, and there is a single railroad crossing left in the US, trains will continue to thin the herd. The company I work for investigates train accidents, both train vs. car/truck and derailments. Unless a train derails and then hits a car, there ain't much way it can be the train's fault.
If you've got a very flexible schedule, and won't get too worked about the Average MPH/$$ ratio, train travel via Amtrak can be a nice change. Unfortunately, the track maintenance in the US has gone to hell, and the freight railroads are constantly patching the system back together. That interferes with the "scheduling" of passenger rail. The Alaska Railroad has a very nice excursion from Anchorage to Denali. The sightseeing cars are actually owned by the cruise lines that pull into Anchorage. Those cars run $2 million plus, with domes, wood paneling, elevators and open rear decks. As well as a wet bar, restaurant etc. I had a chance to run their entire railroad last year (albeit in the winter) and it was pretty spectacular.

 

[gprellwitz]

I was hoping you'd chime in, Keith! Thanks!

 

[Trapper John]

Wow.. Less than 5 hours. That might be a record.

Yay for PoA where any possible question can be spun into blow-hard political talk with just a simple flip of the wrist.

Trapper John

 

[EppyGA]

Longer haul = longer delays.

That definitely was not my experience. Long haul Chicago to LA was early.
Short haul Charlotte to Richmond over an hour late.

It is nice to not have to be strip searched to board the train for sure.

 

[Ted]

Europe has its trains much better figured out than we do. Part of the reason is that in Europe, it's actually considered a means of transport. Also, it's still economically viable. I took the train from Brussels to Zurich in the summer of 2006, and the price was significantly cheaper than flying. I enjoyed it and got to see some beautiful scenery. In America, trains are more used as commuter networks. To use them for actual travel, they end up costing the same as flying (sometimes more) in a number of cases, and it's still slower than driving.

I'd like to do a train trip, but it would have to be with a private sleeper cabin and on some setup where I didn't have to think about taking the bus. Pretty much I'll do it through Europe.

 

[ScottM]

Oh, man, does our railroad experience lag behind Europe. Like night and day.

Ever take the trains in Japan?? They run to the second!! I love getting into Tokyo Narita airport and grabbing a Shinkansen (bullet train) to Kyoto or Osaka!! Cheap, fast on time, and comfortable. It beats catching a domestic airliner to make the same trip.

 

[jmaynard]

Oh, man, does our railroad experience lag behind Europe. Like night and day.

Europe has the population density to justify the train service they have. We don't, outside the northeast. Guess where the trains work in the US?

 

[wsuffa]

Well, AMTRAK is also state-subsidized. We're not getting the same bang for the buck.

The airlines are not subsidized. 2 of my last 4 flights have been over 45 minutes late (including a 3 hour de-tour to ORD to fix a lav).

 

[ScottM]

Unfortunately this is all just another indication of what happens when you let the government try and run something instead of private enterprise. After all these years the government will never let it fail they will only continue to pour more money (our money) into it.

Like the private enterprise airlines always run on time.

The trains in Switzerland run like clockwork. And they are state-subsidized.

Maybe we can blame the unions, too.

Very true Bill

Keith states the real problem with Amtrak. It is not that it is government run it is that it runs on a shoe string budget and is a low priority to the freight haulers who are somewhat forced toa llow Amtrak trains onto their freight tracks.

At work I have ridden Amtrak quite a bit. I also ride a lot of freights. As long as Amtrak has to run as the orphaned stepchild on the tracks that are OWNED and MAINTAINED by the freight haulers, the scheduling will suck. Freight haulers hate Amtrak. Period. The northeast corridor is the only track Amtrak owns and they are the only passenger trains that run anywhere near something like a schedule.
The tracks, more specifically the curves, are engineered for the speed that the most trains using that track are capable of running. Freights = slower. The fastest freights in the US run 60 mph.Amtrak runs 79 everywhere but the Acela, which is faster =, but it doesn't run as fast as it can. Additionally, as long as stupid people are allowed behind the wheel of cars, and there is a single railroad crossing left in the US, trains will continue to thin the herd. The company I work for investigates train accidents, both train vs. car/truck and derailments. Unless a train derails and then hits a car, there ain't much way it can be the train's fault.
If you've got a very flexible schedule, and won't get too worked about the Average MPH/$$ ratio, train travel via Amtrak can be a nice change. Unfortunately, the track maintenance in the US has gone to hell, and the freight railroads are constantly patching the system back together. That interferes with the "scheduling" of passenger rail. The Alaska Railroad has a very nice excursion from Anchorage to Denali. The sightseeing cars are actually owned by the cruise lines that pull into Anchorage. Those cars run $2 million plus, with domes, wood paneling, elevators and open rear decks. As well as a wet bar, restaurant etc. I had a chance to run their entire railroad last year (albeit in the winter) and it was pretty spectacular.

I have been saying we need to build some high speed passenger rail systems for years. Just to allow competition with the airlines to keep them on the up and up. I am glad to finally see that may be starting. I love taking the train and when I travel overseas I take it a lot. Even the People's Republic of China has great rail service! I often would take the Beijing to Tianjin train. The only part that was bad was getting to the train once I got to the station. You see a first class ticket for the trip was about $14. The taxi drivers would try to stop foreigner from taking the train so that they could get a $100 taxi fare for the same trip. They would literally surround you in the train stations to impede your progress to the train in the hope that you would miss it and then have to take their taxi. I have had to physically force my way through them telling them 'bu-shi, mayo' , which means 'no want, no'.

 

[AuntPeggy]

Hubby and I had a wonderful Amtrak experience. We went from New York City to near San Diego and back. We had a sleeper berth and really enjoyed the luxury and relaxation and beauty of the US. I would not trade the experience for anything. Glad we had the time and money and inclination to take this near-honeymoon one year.

 

[Ted]

Europe has the population density to justify the train service they have. We don't, outside the northeast. Guess where the trains work in the US?

It also comes down to a distance/time issue. Even if you're averaging 100 mph on your trip, that makes New York to San Francisco roughly 30 hours, whereas if you fly there commercially you'll leave after breakfast and get there in time for dinner. In Europe, Brussels to Zurich is an 8 hour train ride. When the price is similar, most people are going to take the option that's faster.

If they made a high speed rail system that hit pretty much any city with a Class B airport that could realistically cruise at around 150 mph, and would hae competitive prices with planes, I think you'd get a lot more interest, especially given everyone's frustration with TSA. I just can't see that happening in this country, but maybe that would be a good use of some of that $787 billion. I definitely can't see it happening without some subsidy from the government.

 

[Keith Lane]

I have been saying we need to build some high speed passenger rail systems for years. Just to allow competition with the airlines to keep them on the up and up. I am glad to finally see that may be starting. I love taking the train and when I travel overseas I take it a lot.

I get asked all the time about why the US doesn't build HSR in this country. Primarily it's the infrastructure cost. Imagine the cost to acquire the land to build a HSR line from Atlanta to Los Angeles. As soon as the route gets announced, the land values skyrocket. Happened in the 1800's, it would certainly happen again. The current fiscal bailout looks cheap by comparison. Any HSR line could have NOT ONE SINGLE highway grade crossing on it. (look at the Deusche Bahn's ICE trains, as an example). That means thousands of bridges and underpasses. Also, say there is a 250 MPH "bullet train" from ATL to LAX. Every city of any significance along the route understandably wants service/access to the train. So, Birmingham, Al, Shreveport, La, Dallas etc, etc, all have stops. Now what it the average speed of your HSR line now? Because of sparse population, HSR from Dallas to LAX makes sense, sort of, but still, the costs of building it would be paid off about the time teletransportation becomes widely accepted.

 

[gprellwitz]

I could certainly see a midwest network with lines connecting (some of) Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, and some others. But it would require government involvement because you'd need the right of eminent domain, and I'm not at all convinced it would be economically feasible. You could not get it to work effectively on the freight tracks for the reasons Keith mentioned earlier. It might work from a public policy standpoint, though.

Edit: I posted before Keith's latest post. Listen to him, not me!

 

[mikea]

It also comes down to a distance/time issue. Even if you're averaging 100 mph on your trip, that makes New York to San Francisco roughly 30 hours, whereas if you fly there commercially you'll leave after breakfast and get there in time for dinner. In Europe, Brussels to Zurich is an 8 hour train ride. When the price is similar, most people are going to take the option that's faster.

If they made a high speed rail system that hit pretty much any city with a Class B airport that could realistically cruise at around 150 mph, and would hae competitive prices with planes, I think you'd get a lot more interest, especially given everyone's frustration with TSA. I just can't see that happening in this country, but maybe that would be a good use of some of that $787 billion. I definitely can't see it happening without some subsidy from the government.

It won't happen now that every American has the patriotic duty to buy an airline ticket - even for a 45 minute flight that requires 4 hours padding - and undergo the TSA security theater.

It has always been a distance proposition. For me, I'll drive 6-8 hours, and have my car with my stuff in it already when I get there. I do have the 4+ hours lost without moving for any flight so the airliner flight distance has to be long enough to make up for that. We're talking 1000 miles or more.