Amtrak Upgrades Wi-Fi

I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say... by Crimey+McBiggles · 2013-05-17 05:07 · Score: 5, Funny

It's about time!

--
Crimey

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Art+Challenor · 2013-05-17 05:11 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think it's still true that Amtrak carries more passengers in the Washington, Boston, New York travel corridors than do the all the airlines combined. Those are the "high-speed Acela lines". Of course, it's just a coincidence that the lines that carry the most politicians are actually funded and effective, while the rest of the country languishes due to underfunding.

It's a new definition by LeadSongDog · 2013-05-17 05:12 · Score: 3, Funny

... for "high speed trains"

--
Oh, I'm sorry sir, I thought you were referring to me, Mr. Wensleydale.

Re:It's a new definition by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:34 · Score: 0

Indeed, it goes something like 'our high-speed [internet] trains'[*]
[*] for low values of 'high'

Relevant by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:14 · Score: 0

"It's going to space, can you give it a second?"

funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by iggymanz · 2013-05-17 05:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

amtrak has a couple places they'll go to 110 MPH, and mostly 80 MPH is the limit. On good old 18th and 19th century style rails-on-wood-in-pebble ballast. I could drive my dodge caravan around at 100MPH too and call it a high speed sports car....

Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by RevDisk · 2013-05-17 05:41 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's optimized for freight, not passenger service. US has the most advanced freight railroad system in the world. Passenger service makes sense in some area, in others it will always be break even at best. 15,000 tons of coal is not something you need or want to move at 80+ MPH.

It doesn't receive a lot of attention (folks often want high speed rail for mass transit), but our rail network is pretty good for what makes economic sense.
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by Type44Q · 2013-05-17 05:41 · Score: 1

On good old 18th and 19th century style rails-on-wood-in-pebble ballast. I could drive my dodge caravan around at 100MPH too and call it a high speed sports car....
However, it'd be far more entertaining for the rest of us if you drove it around at 100mph (on good old 18th and 19th century style rails-on-wood-in-pebble ballast) and called it a train... :p
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by Seumas · 2013-05-17 05:48 · Score: 1

Don't worry, the idiots keep pushing for european style "high speed rail" in America, too. They're somehow convinced it's the economical solution to pollution and traffic while they put their heads in the sand about the actual corruption and incredible expenses it will actually have (not to mention, it own't be high-speed at all, if they ever get around to it... you know.. you do have to actually stop and let people on and off after all).
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by whitroth · 2013-05-17 05:49 · Score: 1

The problems are that a) Congress has consistantly underfunded Amtrak for decades, leading to slower maintenance, and b) in just about all of the rest of the country, Amtrack goes over leased trackage from other railroads... who do no, or almost no, passenger, and all freight... and so they maintain the trackage to *freight* standards (trains hitting 80mph are *very* rare - 55 or 60 is full speed, and slower for long, heavy trains.
Note that in 1915? 25? a Pennsy E6 Atlantic (passenger steam loco) was clocked in Indiana pulling the Broadway Limited at 115mph. Again, the trackage was to *passenger* standards.
And, of course, Congress let the railroads prioritize Amtrack, on the leased trackage, *lower* than the frieght traffic, leading to frequent *long* delays of schedule.
mark "why, yes, I do like trains...."
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by Salgak1 · 2013-05-17 06:01 · Score: 1

The problems are that a) Congress has consistantly underfunded Amtrak for decades, leading to slower maintenance, and b) in just about all of the rest of the country, Amtrack goes over leased trackage from other railroads... who do no, or almost no, passenger, and all freight... and so they maintain the trackage to *freight* standards (trains hitting 80mph are *very* rare - 55 or 60 is full speed, and slower for long, heavy trains.
OR, you **COULD** note that Passenger Rail was effectively killed by the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s, and Congress funds AMTRAK primarily to keep the only viable lines going: the Northeast Corridor, and to a lesser extent, the San Francisco-San Diego corridor. Highways and airlines have effectively obsoleted railroads for most passenger applications in the vast majority of the US. . .
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 06:22 · Score: 0

On good old 18th and 19th century style rails-on-wood-in-pebble ballast. I could drive my dodge caravan around at 100MPH too and call it a high speed sports car....
However, it'd be far more entertaining for the rest of us if you drove it around at 100mph (on good old 18th and 19th century style rails-on-wood-in-pebble ballast) and called it a train... :p
Done by Top Gear
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by betterunixthanunix · 2013-05-17 06:33 · Score: 2

It is hard to talk about what makes "economic sense" here, since the passenger rail business was killed by competition from heavily subsidized alternatives: the interstate highway system, and airplanes. Had no federal money been spent promoting cars and airplanes -- had the government instead allowed competition between businesses determine how Americans travel -- passenger railroads would probably remain a viable business (but I doubt we would see high speed rail, for the same reasons that private Internet services are slower than the government-run services in other countries).

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by dkleinsc · 2013-05-17 06:34 · Score: 2

And, of course, Congress let the railroads prioritize Amtrack, on the leased trackage, *lower* than the frieght traffic, leading to frequent *long* delays of schedule.
Not exactly. What happened was this:
- In the early days of Amtrak, railroads were required by law to prioritize Amtrak over freight traffic.
- In the 1980's, Congress quietly slipped in a provision at the behest of railroad lobbyists that said that while railroads were still required by law to prioritize Amtrak, Amtrak no longer had the power to sue the railroads to enforce that rule. This of course allowed the railroads to ignore the law, since no one could enforce it.
- George W Bush of all people got through a repeal of that provision. I'm unclear why or how this happened, but I'll take it.
- Trains sped up noticeably on leased track after that provision went through. For instance, in 2002 the Chicago-Boston route was frequently 4-6 hours late in both directions due to freight traffic. By 2009, it was mostly on time again. (I mention this route just because I've taken it many times over the years.)

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by gsnedders · 2013-05-17 06:39 · Score: 1

In most countries with 250km/h (155mph) plus high speed rail, it's taking back marketshare from the airlines --- because it tends to be quicker, by virtue of not having to arrive at an airport an hour before departure, not having the hassle of security, etc.
To use the typical North Eastern corridor example, it'd be far from impossible to build a line from New York to Washington DC, with one stop in Philadelphia, that would run in under two hours. This is half the time of driving between the two, and only half an hour slower than a plane (and quicker than that once you consider airport security, etc.).
A broad statement like cars and planes making trains irrelevant is untrue: certainly I wouldn't want to do a transcontinental journey by train, but there's no reason why trains can't better compete with air, instead of just competing (time-wise) with cars.
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by betterunixthanunix · 2013-05-17 06:47 · Score: 1

certainly I wouldn't want to do a transcontinental journey by train
Speaking as someone who has done exactly that...it is not really so bad, as long as you have time for it. The biggest problem was not with being on a train (it is far more pleasant to spend 4 days on a train than one hour on an airplane), but with delays caused by freight railroads prioritizing their traffic. If Amtrak were running on its own right-of-way rather than leasing, the journey would probably face far fewer delays, and the trains could run much faster (though not as fast as Japanese trains).

--
Palm trees and 8
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by Miamicanes · 2013-05-17 06:51 · Score: 4, Interesting

That's part of the reason why FEC (Florida East Coast Railroad) has never been actively *hostile* towards passenger trains, compared to railroads like CSX(*). FEC runs mile-long trains hauling limestone at 60mph on glass-smooth welded-rail tracks that are maintained to higher standards than some stretches of track in the NEC itself. FEC's one non-negotiable mandate for voluntary passenger service on their tracks has always been that someone else had to pay to lay down a second track, maintain it to FEC's no-compromise high standards, and equip every train that runs on them with in-cab signaling and the kind of automation rarely found outside of Japan(**).
Once Amtrak, Florida, and a federal funding act or two cleared the way for the feds to pay most of the bulk cost of double-tracking FEC from Jacksonville to Miami, FEC announced that Amtrak was welcome with open arms (Amtrak itself is still trying to scrape up funding for the trainsets themselves, or come up with a good way to split & join NY-Florida trains in Jacksonville so half can proceed straight down the east coast to Miami, and the other half can run to Orlando & Tampa (historically, Amtrak has always resisted splitting/joining trains anywhere besides an endpoint).
(*)About 15 years ago, FDOT approached CSX with a request to double-track it from Auburndale to Tampa for Tampa-Miami passenger rail. CSX refused. FDOT offered to TRIPLE-track it... and CSX still refused. Exasperated, FDOT offered to elevate a ~12 mile segment running through Lakeland, and CSX told them that the only way they'd voluntarily allow it is if FDOT agreed to let CSX refund the purchase price and demolish it at will if it later decided that the support columns or track structure were in the way of whatever they felt like doing. That was the turning point when FDOT decided that any future rail route between Orlando and Tampa simply *had* to run along I-4 instead of CSX... CSX was impossible to deal with in any sane way, and taking the corridor via eminent domain would have ended up costing more than building it down the middle of I-4 instead (I-4 was planned for complete reconstruction over the next 10-20 years anyway, and FDOT owned a fairly wide corridor that was straight and flat, so they just designed the empty space into the new road and bridges so it would be there when the day came to build the new tracks).
(**)FEC is a HUGE proponent of cross-training and automation, and because it operates entirely within a single state, it can get away with telling its union to go to hell over things that would get CSX crucified. For example, FEC requires all engineers and conductors to be cross-trained and capable of serving either role as needed (sensible and efficient, but *vehemently* opposed by railroad unions because it means the conductor can operate the train while the engineer takes a break, instead of having to staff a second engineer while the conductor twiddles his thumbs). I believe it also requires engineer-conductors to have college degrees.
Re: funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 06:56 · Score: 0

Well, we could put our heads in the sand and pretend the highway system isn't a hotbed of corruption and graft, not to mention the automotive industry.
Hey, did you catch that Tesla story about North Carolina?
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by moeinvt · 2013-05-17 07:30 · Score: 1

The problem is that the federal government killed the railroads by subsidizing the automobile and petroleum industries. Rail didn't stand a chance when government was funneling billions into projects that boosted their competitors. Then, when, government nationalized the railroads during WW1, they never recovered.
Automobiles and all the associated problems (emissions, urban sprawl, accidents, etc.) are the "central planning" solution to transportation. If the auto and petroleum industries had been forced to compete against rail on a level playing field, the transportation system in the USA would have evolved much differently.
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by slimjim8094 · 2013-05-17 07:39 · Score: 1

Actually most of the NEC is continuously-welded rail on modern concrete sleepers and I've got a GPS snapshot of going 125MPH, not even on the Acela, just the normal trainsets. Still a joke compared to other countries, but you can do Philly-Newark, about 100 miles line of sight, in 58 minutes (real-world and experienced), for $51. For one person, you beat the cost of driving, and for two, you beat the cost of driving and time (especially when you include comfort).

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by iggymanz · 2013-05-17 07:51 · Score: 1

for the movie "running scared" in 1986 there is a car chase scene where the cars ride with one side on the ties. Interview about making that scene reveals producers went through a mountain of tires to make that short sequence because of tires bursting every few seconds.
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 08:21 · Score: 0

CSX is a freight railroad. Any QOS (to put it in our terms) will shit on their bandwidth, and they're unwilling to allow that. Would you allow someone to come disrupt your core business? Also, the union challenges, buried in the bottom,are significant. Further, by allowing passenger traffic on the line, they're saddled with a huge set of Federal Railway Administration rules that will cost them dearly.
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by geekoid · 2013-05-17 08:55 · Score: 1

Yes, and the rail companies would still be killing people to take their property.
Cars are far better then trains, mostly becasue they aren't on a track.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 09:18 · Score: 0

While passenger rail is great in Europe and many other places, it is rarely mentioned that freight rail in Europe and elsewhere is in awful condition. For the majority of freight, 50mph is just fine, faster and fuel consumption is problematic, slower and things aren't getting there fast enough. Most Amtrak trains are limited to 80mph, because that is the limit unless cab signaling is implemented, guess what, not really a high priority for 50mph freight.
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by DerekLyons · 2013-05-17 14:08 · Score: 1

It is hard to talk about what makes "economic sense" here, since the passenger rail business was killed by competition from heavily subsidized alternatives: the interstate highway system, and airplanes.
Um, no. Passenger rail was always a money losing proposition, maintained by the railroads despite this for prestige and as a loss leader for their freight services. But the railroad's physical plant were beat to hell after nationalization in WWI, a decade declining revenue of the Great Depression, and extraordinarily high traffic levels during WWII.. So when faced with huge capital modernizations costs and declining freight revenue due to competition from the interstate.... passenger service was thrown overboard. Air travel in the US was largely irrelevant to the issue as during the time frame in question (mostly the 1950's), air travel wasn't widespread and was *very* expensive.
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by PrimaryConsult · 2013-05-17 19:13 · Score: 1

Automobile accidents are the leading cause of transportation death though.
Today we had a train wreck between two rush hour commuter trains in Connecticuit. Worst Metro-North has seen since 1988. No deaths.
Re:funny comparing to "high speed rail" elsewhere by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-18 00:39 · Score: 0

The Acella hits 150 between Boston and Providence.

So what? by bistromath007 · 2013-05-17 05:16 · Score: 1

They don't even have wifi on all of their trains yet. They need to do that before they worry about how good it is.

Re:So what? by Stormy+Dragon · 2013-05-17 08:40 · Score: 1

Having Wi-fi on some of the lines would be pointless, because there's no infrastructure around for the train to connect to. If you're taking the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seatle, you're not going to get broadband internet out in the North Dakota wilderness.
Re:So what? by PrimaryConsult · 2013-05-17 19:20 · Score: 1

It doesn't need to work continously. Even on the trains that have it now, it only works reliably while in towns. If you're taking a 3 day cross country trip, having 10 minutes of internet every 2 hours is still an improvement.

rest of the country has lots of freight by Joe_Dragon · 2013-05-17 05:16 · Score: 1

rest of the country has lots of freight

Re:rest of the country has lots of freight by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:33 · Score: 1

rest of the country has lots of freight
Amtrak is a commuter service, not freight.
Re: rest of the country has lots of freight by mrvook · 2013-05-17 05:43 · Score: 1, Interesting

Amtrak is a commuter rail *car* that often times is accompanied by freight. As an experienced Amtrak user myself, on long trips, the train regularly will stop, back up, and pick up freight cars. Sometimes the majority of the train, including the engine, is of the freight variety, with only a few Amtrak cars along for the ride.
Re: rest of the country has lots of freight by kriston · 2013-05-17 07:08 · Score: 1

This is simply not true and I'm baffled trying to understand what you're referring to.
First, Amtrak is not and has never been a commuter service. It's a passenger rail service.
Second, please show us where the Amtrak "commuter rail car," as you put it, is accompanied by freight. Amtrak did have a mail and express freight business but it was stopped decades ago.

--
Kriston
Re:rest of the country has lots of freight by PopeRatzo · 2013-05-17 07:14 · Score: 2

rest of the country has lots of freight
Wait, are you calling me fat?

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re: rest of the country has lots of freight by AJH16 · 2013-05-17 07:39 · Score: 1

In the north east, Amtrack has many dedicated "commuter" targeted services that bring people in and out of New York and DC. I've never seen freight cars on those trains or even those rails, but it wouldn't surprise me that the rest of the country lacks higher speed rail due to the presence of freight on the lines, where as there is enough commuter traffic in the North East to justify dedicated passenger rail lines and higher speed trains.

--
AJ Henderson
Re: rest of the country has lots of freight by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 07:44 · Score: 0

I think they are talking how coal and freight get priority vs the passenger line. those delays are included into the route and it is still less stressful then driving or taking the plane.
Re:rest of the country has lots of freight by tlhIngan · 2013-05-17 07:45 · Score: 2

Amtrak is a commuter service, not freight.
The only difference is whether the cargo is self-loading or not.
Re:rest of the country has lots of freight by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 11:05 · Score: 0

Amtrak is a commuter service, not freight.
The only difference is whether the cargo is self-loading or not.
AND whether it's demanding faster wifi service in the train cars.
Re: rest of the country has lots of freight by kriston · 2013-05-17 12:55 · Score: 1

I still have to differ with this comment. Amtrak does not run any commuter services. For some lines where applicable, like out of Washington DC, they offer "$10 step-up" fares for those trains that are inbound or outbound during rush hour but they can't really be called commuter services.
There are extensive commuter operations run by state transportation agencies. None are operated by Amtrak but a very small handful are operated by Amtrak crews under contract for the state agencies, like certain MARC lines.

--
Kriston
Re: rest of the country has lots of freight by AJH16 · 2013-05-18 04:50 · Score: 1

I'm not talking about commuter rail in the sense you generally think of commuter rail (like subways and such). I'm talking about commuter rail in the same sense as commuter flights (we have those too). I cross over the rail line every day on my way to work. One such route is the $40 ticket from Albany to NYC or vice versa. There are actually people who commute to and from the city to upstate. The rail to DC from NY operates similarly.
Our airport here (Albany, NY's capital) also has service that goes to White Plains and DC as a commuter flight route that is really cheap and specifically designed for the Albany/NYC/DC traffic. It's the cheapest flight out of the airport.

--
AJ Henderson
Re: rest of the country has lots of freight by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-05-18 08:17 · Score: 1

Amtrak did operate the Boston-area commuter rail services for a while, under contract with the MBTA. That contract expired in 2003, and a newly formed company, MBCR, took over running the service. Amtrak also operated commuter oriented trains (the Clocker service) on the New York-Philadelphia route until 2005.
So far as I know, Amtrak is not currently operating any pure commuter rail services, but they may still have some operating agreements with regional transit authorities as they used to with the MBTA. Commuters ride some of their Northeast Corridor trains as well as the Downeaster service between Maine and Boston, and probably some trains in other parts of the country.

broadband technologies? by gl4ss · 2013-05-17 05:16 · Score: 1

they're not really moving to transferring the data through the tracks or something like that, are they, is it that they're switching to faster cellular technology?

what's amusing in the article is that someone complained that she had to use her own mobile data connection to keep working. well, doh, that's what it's for. which gets us to the point that the networks should just build better coverage so patrons wouldn't need the train as the proxy between the network and their machine..

of course, americans should just get on the all you can eat data for seven bucks a month or whatever train that the rest of the world is getting on - 10mbyte download size limits, HAHA WTF? they're probably running some http proxy in between too? how the hell does anyone work with that?

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Re:broadband technologies? by hypergreatthing · 2013-05-17 05:39 · Score: 2

They set up a captive portal on the trains, put the antennas on the outside. Probably just upgrading from a 3g cell card to one that supports 4g. The cell signal outside the rail car is much better than trying to get a signal inside a metal can. You're also assuming that everyone has a phone. What about wifi only devices? There's many a laptops that benefit from using the wifi/cell service they're providing.
Re:broadband technologies? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:53 · Score: 0

of course, americans should just get on the all you can eat data for seven bucks a month or whatever train that the rest of the world is getting on - 10mbyte download size limits, HAHA WTF? they're probably running some http proxy in between too? how the hell does anyone work with that?
Eh, some people are just made of tougher stuff, I guess. Some of us, as hard as it may be for you to imagine, don't collapse into tears and shakes at the mere thought of temporary interruption of a supermodern first-world convenience. That's how in the hell we work with that. I, for one, have never paid for internet service on an airplane or train. I also don't consider free wifi to be a selling point as to where I get lunch. I don't get nervous when my cell phone loses its signal, either, nor is my cell phone's battery dying a life-threatening-crisis-level problem. Yet, I'm still a software engineer, computing is my major hobby and a very large part of my life, and I've done a lot that wouldn't have been possible without the internet.
I dunno. Maybe I'm just living life wrong? Should I be worrying over every nuance of 24/7 internet connectivity? Did I miss the part where I was supposed to get the heart plugs installed that self-destruct if they're disconnected from the internet for too long? Well, whatever the case, I'm certain I'll find some way in the hell to work with that.
Re:broadband technologies? by hoboroadie · 2013-05-17 08:28 · Score: 1

I regularly go weeks at a stretch without internet access. I get enough news from John Stewart to bridge the gap.
It is actually a long bike ride, uphill both ways, to the school library for research, I do miss it.

--
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.
Re:broadband technologies? by gl4ss · 2013-05-17 11:06 · Score: 1

They set up a captive portal on the trains, put the antennas on the outside. Probably just upgrading from a 3g cell card to one that supports 4g. The cell signal outside the rail car is much better than trying to get a signal inside a metal can. You're also assuming that everyone has a phone. What about wifi only devices? There's many a laptops that benefit from using the wifi/cell service they're providing.
we have same kind of system here on trains. only problem is that your average modern phone gets just as good connection if it's by the window - and it's not shared with hundred other people. and my point was partially that she chose to first use the crappy train connection even though she already had perfectly good working private connection to the same data transfer system.
(most internet sharing from phones is nowadays done over wifi-hotspot functionality even if bluetooth would make more sense for it..)

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by PhotoJim · 2013-05-17 05:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

The US northeast is the busiest rail transportation corridor in all of North America. It makes far more sense cost- and speed-wise to take the train between most destinations there.

We recently vacationed in the area (a year ago) and took Amtrak from Washington to Baltimore and back, from Washington to Philadelphia and from Philadelphia to Manhattan. It was reasonably quick, comfortable enough, and super convenient. I can't overstate how much nicer it is to walk on a train instead of having to pass through airport security. (As a nice bonus, flying home from Newark instead of Philadelphia or Washington saved us about $150 each.)

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:25 · Score: 0

I think it's still true that Amtrak carries more passengers in the Washington, Boston, New York travel corridors than do the all the airlines combined. Those are the "high-speed Acela lines". Of course, it's just a coincidence that the lines that carry the most politicians are actually funded and effective, while the rest of the country languishes due to underfunding.

Population density, dude.

Most politicians fly private jets "loaned" to them by "concerned" parties. Or are married to centi-millionaires who can just give them their own jet.

Joe Biden was the only politician who road Amtrak and then when he became VP, he got a brand new Trans-AM - the rich get richer!

Kansas City to New York by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:37 · Score: 0

I considered taking an Amtrak from Kansas City to New York but it was going to take 34 hours!
A quick calculation told me that the train would average 40mph. Not very impressive!

Re:As a frequent Amtrack "flyer"... by Salgak1 · 2013-05-17 05:37 · Score: 1

Hey, it beat the older semaphore interface all hollow. . . .

All ten of them will no doubt be thrilled to hear by Type44Q · 2013-05-17 05:37 · Score: 1

A bit of good news for American travelers

All ten of them will no doubt be thrilled to hear this.

Reliability by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:38 · Score: 0

The reliability of Amtrak Wi-Fi is the same as the reliability of anything Amtrak runs...

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2013-05-17 05:39 · Score: 0

You'd think that with all the federal money that Amtrak gets that they would already have better services available. But then again, when does a program work out well that federal money supports? Airlines may be the only success.

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:40 · Score: 0

As a resident of suburban Philadelphia, while a train is a comfortable way to get to NYC, it certainly doesn't make more sense cost- or speed-wise vs. simply driving there, even with parking rates in NYC being what they are. Now, you can take a series of regional rails to dramatically reduce your cost, but it will almost double your travel time.

Doubtful ... by tgd · 2013-05-17 05:42 · Score: 1

Unless they did the upgrades and left them off the entire time, and then flipped this on in the last week, it hasn't made a damn bit of difference on the Acela trains.

Upside, its a good excuse to not be productive for a few hours.

Behind on more than one metric by damn_registrars · 2013-05-17 05:46 · Score: 3, Insightful

I'm not sure why we should be so worried about lack of Wi-Fi when most of us don't have access to high speed rail, period. The only current high-speed line on the Amtrak system is on the east coast, which connects the biggest east coast cities but does nothing for anyone else. We can't really start comparing Amtrak to actual high speed rail until we start connecting more cities at speeds greater than what the average Hyundai can achieve. There is plenty of demand from passengers tired of requisite anal probes at the airports, it is time to produce a real plan and go forward. NYC->Chicago would be a great start for one.

--
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.

Re:Behind on more than one metric by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-05-17 05:53 · Score: 1

Exactly. I'm on the west coast- the Pacific Coast Starlight goes over 1500 miles with NO wifi access at all. And I can drive to Seattle faster in a Prius than on either the PCS or the Cascades.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Re:Behind on more than one metric by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 06:22 · Score: 0

Sad thing is when I commuted to NY from DC, the Acela would save me only 30 minutes of travel time and it would cost $91 more. Not really high speed savings there. Means I napped for 30 minutes more.
Re:Behind on more than one metric by CannonballHead · 2013-05-17 10:54 · Score: 1

You mean this one, the description of which specifically mentions "Sleeping car passengers can experience a full range of exclusive services and amenities on the Coast Starlight, including complimentary onboard internet access via AmtrakConnect and an exciting alternative meal service, both available in the Parlour Car."
It's restricted to select passengers and only in one car, apparently, but it IS there.
Re:Behind on more than one metric by Jeremy+Bowman · 2013-05-17 12:24 · Score: 1

It is installed, but it's turned off for long segments of the trip (I recently took it from LA to San Jose). I overheard one of the other passengers ask about it, and they were told by one of the Amtrak staff that there were restrictions on when they could turn it on due to some military facilities that the train passed near. I've read multiple accounts of other people being similarly disappointed in the Wi-Fi availability on that route in the one car that has it, and having been given various reasons for it.
It was a great trip, the scenery was wonderful, and the service was overall quite good, but the Wi-Fi was unavailable pretty much every time I tried it, so it may as well not have been there. Upgrades to the network availability and performance on Amtrak trains in general would be greatly appreciated; for some people, having good internet access during the trip makes the difference between taking the time to enjoy the train or taking a faster (but no cheaper) flight in order to minimize the time spent unable to communicate/work/whatever.
Re:Behind on more than one metric by Ford+Prefect · 2013-05-17 18:46 · Score: 1

I vaguely recall the WiFi working when I went from Seattle to Vancouver BC. Not terribly fast, but enough to email friends and family about the delays. (A swing-bridge had got stuck in the 'open' position, and the train had to wait for half an hour or so. The driver had then disappeared somewhere to get a sandwich, causing another ten minutes delay.)
Amtrak is great fun (some of the announcements on that Vancouver trip were gloriously surreal) but it's hardly an efficient means of transportation. I got the train from Seattle to Portland once, and realised it's a similar distance between the two cities as it is from Brussels to Paris. I used to catch the Thalys between Brussels and Paris - in the time it took to go from Seattle to Portland (including a freight-train-induced pause in sidings), I could have gone from Brussels to Paris to Brussels then back to Paris again.

--
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?
Re:Behind on more than one metric by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 21:42 · Score: 0

Take the Cascades between Portland and Seattle.
Re:Behind on more than one metric by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 21:45 · Score: 0

haha, I was on that train.
I actually used the throw-away AT&T sim card in my iPad for internet for most of the trip south of the border because the WiFi wasn't even operating at HSPA speeds, it was operating at like EDGE speeds.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Dutchmaan · 2013-05-17 05:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

But then again, when does a program work out well that federal money supports?

You're communicating on it right now...

who pays for this? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:47 · Score: 0

i assume the price is baked into the ticket prices?
trains are prohibitively expensive.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Art+Challenor · 2013-05-17 05:48 · Score: 5, Insightful

Amtrak gets very little money compared to the airlines. All the airports are built and staffed with public funds. The airlines pay "landing fees". The FAA including controllers are on the public payroll.

Part of the problem with trains is there's very little political graft involved. You get an airport, you get tax money to build it, maintain it, etc. etc. etc. Looks good on your political resume. With a train, you get a (relatively) small station and then 600 miles of track - most of which is not in your district. The only reason you'd ever support that is if you put the public good first, and that's not about to happen.

Meh. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:48 · Score: 0

I ride Amtrak (Acela) all the time. I've never had a real issue with the networking (even before the recent upgrades). Sure, they blocked streaming video and Netflix, but for most reasonable purposes it was more than adequate. I could e-mail, update docs on google drive, chat at reasonable speeds. I couldn't video conference, but color me surprised if they get this reliable enough for that even with the upgrades.

There are tons of things I'd spend money on before this if I were Amtrak.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-05-17 05:50 · Score: 1

> a dozen people

At a cost of (more per person than those people will spend on phone, Internet, and cable TV in their lifetimes), no doubt.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Marxist+Hacker+42 · 2013-05-17 05:50 · Score: 1

I'm on the West Coast, you insenstive clod. The rolling stock of the Pacific Coast Starlight hasn't been upgraded in over 30 years.

--
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.

Who cares? by Bugler412 · 2013-05-17 05:52 · Score: 1

Amtrak is more expensive than airlines on the same route, is usually slower than both airline and intercity express bus (including airport security times) to the same destination. And offers both worse service/schedules and en route service than either. Why would anyone ride Amtrak other than for nostalgia? (not that it can't be made better, but that will take tons of investment that it appears no one is willing to make)

Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 06:20 · Score: 1

No groping and nude-o-scopes for Amtrak (yet)
Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 06:27 · Score: 1

I've had to commute from Boston to NYC multiple weeks in a row before. I'd take Acela over the airlines most times. When you add in getting to the airport, dealing with security, getting down to LaGuardia, then cab into the city, the times ended up being about the same, and I'd be more comfortable on the train.
Re:Who cares? by squiggleslash · 2013-05-17 06:56 · Score: 1

Well, I actually fit in an Amtrak coach seat (I'm 6'2", which, as I understand it, is ridiculously tall in America, nobody could possibly be that tall, and that's why airline seats are designed for people no more than 4' high, which is presumably normal.)
That's a good reason to begin with.
Also: the ability to get up and walk around, the view out the window, and the fact I can arrive at my destination relaxed. Show me someone who says they're relaxed after a long distance bus or air trip, and I'll show you a liar.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Re:Who cares? by dkleinsc · 2013-05-17 06:58 · Score: 1

And offers both worse service/schedules and en route service than either.
The en route service is actually significantly nicer than buses or planes: You get about 2-3 times as much leg room, on some routes there's a full-service diner on board, and there's almost always a lounge / cafe car with very comfortable seating and snacks for sale. Some of the Europeans I've run into say that Amtrak's on-board experience compares favorably to what they get in their countries, even if the trains are slower.
For long distance trains, part of the appeal for some is seeing the country from what is in effect a moving hotel room. Neither buses nor trains really offer that.
Also, quite interestingly, it's the standard way to travel long distances for Amish and Mennonites.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Who cares? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 07:44 · Score: 0

1) If you're travelling from Boston to New York, for instance, and you are going anywhere near Penn Station, then it can be a lot faster and convenient to just take Amtrak, 2) Amtrak is generally more comfortable; you can get up, walk around, etc. It makes the trip a lot more pleasant, and 3) (last and least) you can tell your earthy-crunchy friends about all the carbon emissions you saved.
Re:Who cares? by slimjim8094 · 2013-05-17 08:24 · Score: 1

Not in the Northeast. It's cost and time competitive with planes from Boston to Washington (even better for points in between, like PhillyNYC) when you include security (and sometimes without). And it's miles more convenient, since it takes you right into the middle of the city. And miles more comfortable.
Some comparisons - from Amtrak website and Expedia, for June 3
Bos - DC - $70 for 7h40, $251 for 6h40. 18 trains between 5AM and 9PM
Bos - NYC - $49 for 4h (faster than you can drive it), $107 for 3h25, 19 trains between 5AM and 9PM
NYC - Philly - $36 for 1h20 (much faster than you can drive it), $97 for 1h5, 48 trains between 3AM and 11PM
NYC - DC - $49 for 3h12 (faster than you can drive it), $144 for 2h44, 38 trains between 3AM and 10PM
Philly - DC - $35 for 1h50 (faster than you can drive it), $127 for 1h33, 39 trains between 12AM and 11PM
vs (adding 2 hour minimum "arrive early time" and Google Maps center city to airport, and from airport to center city, by public transit time and cost)
Bos - DC - $79 for 1h26+2h+30 (bos) + 1h30 (DC) = ~5h30
Bos - NYC - $90 for 1h10+2h+30 (bos) + 1h (NYC) = ~4h40
NYC - Philly - $159 for 6h stopping in Charlotte, $265 for nonstop, 55m = stupid idea to fly
NYC - DC - $67 for 1h36+2h+1h (NYC) + 1h30 (DC) = ~6h
Philly - DC - $188 for 8h via Boston, $315 for nonstop, 55m = stupid idea to fly
The only place airlines are even competitive is the Bos-DC route, and even there it's close to a wash considering the hassle of public transit transfers, security, and how uncomfortable planes are by comparison - not to mention their propensity for delays. In reality most of those "to the airport" times need another 20-50% on top to account for the fact that the bus or subway/etc doesn't leave exactly when you'd like to be there in time to get through security. You could take a cab of course but then you have to add another $60-$100 to the costs, and you wouldn't save much.
The cheapest planes aren't competitive with trains on price, in some cases because they've given up (NYC-Philly and Phil-DC) and in some because planes are just more expensive, even for the longer routes (Bos-DC). And the cheapest planes are at times like 6AM. In all cases, the cheapest trains are spread throughout the day (obviously rush hour is more expensive, but if you can leave 10A-3P or after 7P you're probably going to find one).
So no, "Amtrak is more expensive than airlines on the same route, is usually slower than both airline and intercity express bus (including airport security times) to the same destination. And offers both worse service/schedules and en route service than either.". Amtrak is cheaper and either marginally slower in the best case (about even in the average) or faster, sometimes by a lot, and it has more options at those prices. I didn't even bother with bus because in all cases Amtrak beats the optimal driving distance, and buses are hardly optimal ever.
Admittedly this only counts the northeast Boston to Washington area, but there's rather a lot of people and cities there, so I think it's more than sufficient to counter your claim. There's a lot of the country where trains, properly executed, would be the best option - pretty much anywhere under 400 miles, which incidentally is almost precisely the line of sight DC-Boston distance. The faster the trains go, the longer that distance gets.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:Who cares? by Bugler412 · 2013-05-17 08:58 · Score: 1

Definitely not in "the corridor" however, someone explain to me how Amtrak can justify can charging $54 for a trip from Pittsburgh to Philadelphia (a 4.5 hour drive, yes, that's typical for me, about $45 with tolls/gas) that takes Amtrak 7 hours and 25 minutes to arrive? And only one departure a day at 7:30am on weekdays. Oh, and Bolt or Megabus can get there in 6 hours nonstop for as low as $15, with better legroom than the airlines and better Wi-Fi than Amtrak or the Airline, yes, a bus beats the train even when the train has it's own private right of way. I would love to use the train, if it were timely and efficient financially and time wise, it simply isn't if you're outside the corridor. And that will never change with pricing and service like this since ridership will never justify it with these price/service levels.
Re:Who cares? by geekoid · 2013-05-17 09:15 · Score: 2

What about leg room over time? I spend 4 hours in the air with little leg room, and then I get all the leg room I want. During that same distance on a train, you get adequate legroom for 2 days.
frankly, I would rather be uncomfortable for 4 hours then on a train for 2 days
and I've seen most of the country, and most of it is blah. the rest is interesting for 10 minutes.
"Also, quite interestingly, it's the standard way to travel long distances for Amish and Mennonites."
no, that's' not interesting at all. it's what we call 'expected'.
moving hotel room? yeah, if you spend about 800+ per night. I was thinking of taking my family from PDX to Los Angels(then renting a car and going to disney)
total train cost? 1500 dollars.
flight? 1000 dollars.
driving 750 dollars.
so of the three option trains was the most expensive and the slowest.
.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Who cares? by slimjim8094 · 2013-05-17 10:34 · Score: 1

My brother goes to school in Pittsburgh and has taken the buses back east, and you're full of shit. First of all, Bolt doesn't even go from Pittsburgh to anywhere. And Megabus most certainly isn't nonstop to Philadelphia, it's got a stop in Harrisburg. It is indeed cheaper and has more options (3 vs 1) to take the bus, but Amtrak is almost always on time or early (last time about half an hour) and Megabus is in his experience laughably late. He's taken Megabus a few times to Philadelphia en route to our grandmother (in a suburb) and the time/price difference would be about 40m/$20, plus the SEPTA time back to where he wants to be (40 mins and whatever the wait is) except that there's a closer stop (Paoli) on Amtrak to his destination that means it's about an hour faster to take the train.
To NYC, which he's done more frequently, the time is even better, since he lives in northeast NJ and the train stops at Newark (9hr) and even if Megabus is on time to NYC it still takes about 30-45 minutes back to the house, so the time works about the same, with a lot less comfort. And that's assuming the bus keeps to their schedule.
First time he took Megabus (to NYC, not Philly), the driver was new and went the wrong way (west) out of Pittsburgh despite the passengers telling him he was going the wrong way. Eventually he was convinced to start following somebody's phone, at which point he bottomed out the bus trying to make a U-turn and ended up about 6 hours late because the bus was ruined and they had to wait for another one to transfer everybody on to, and then make it back an hour towards Pittsburgh to even get started. The next time, he was 4 hours late due to traffic and leaving 45 minutes late from the stop at State College, so instead of getting in at 9PM he got in at 1AM (to Midtown Manhattan!), and I had to drive in to pick him up from a street corner. The few other times he tried, it was miserable - either the wifi or power didn't work or the bathroom was out of order (so they had to keep stopping every hour) or some other incompetent problem, and every time they were just plain late by at least 2 hours. He's taken Megabus 6 times, and the service was so bad that 5 of those times he's gotten a refund. Which I suppose helps the price argument, but it seems like a pretty shitty way to save a few bucks.
Due to Megabus' demonstrated and utter incompetence, he looked into taking Greyhound instead, which should be more professional and does stop in Newark, but is barely any cheaper ($10 or so) and in fact slower - even as scheduled, let alone traffic, since it makes 3 other stops.
So despite Amtrak's suckitude (which I don't dispute) west of Harrisburg, mostly due to having to run over Norfolk Southern trackage past Harrisburg (and so limited to diesels and about 40mph), it still is a more pleasant and easier way to travel. He has plenty of room, usually a seat next to him to take a nap (comfortably), hot meals, etc. And Amtrak's working with NS on upgrading the Harrisburg-Pittsburgh route.
Sure you can do better by driving (about 6 hours to our house), but we're talking about public transit here. He doesn't have a car, and somebody driving out to get him doubles the time and cost overall.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:Who cares? by Ford+Prefect · 2013-05-17 18:54 · Score: 1

Some of the Europeans I've run into say that Amtrak's on-board experience compares favorably to what they get in their countries, even if the trains are slower.
As someone who's travelled on more than his fair share of trains in Europeland - at least on the west coast, Amtrak trains are super-comfy. Big seats, loads of legroom, decent food (on the last trip - previous trip a few years ago involved a fossilised, tepid space-burger).
Best of all, there's often a carriage specifically for viewing the scenery going past. Of which there is a lot. Possibly including someone describing the scenery going past. I learned a lot about Mount Saint Helens that way. (Main reason for choosing trains - I fly a fair amount also.) Way better views than, say, the Eurostar - where you never even glimpse the sea you've been under.

--
Tedious Bloggy Stuff - hooray?

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by sconeu · 2013-05-17 05:54 · Score: 1

The WiFi on the Pacific Surfliner (SantaBarbara-SanDiego) sucks.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by milbournosphere · 2013-05-17 05:55 · Score: 3, Informative

Amtrak doesn't do horribly in the southern coast region, either. With the upgraded wifi, the only real argument against taking the train is the time required to move anywhere. From LA to San Luis Obispo is around 6 hours, vs 4 at the most via automobile. From SLO to San Diego, the end of the line, can take almost 10 hours at times. I can drive there in a little over half the time.

That said, the seats are comfortable, the cars are relatively quiet, the wifi seems to be improving, and I've had worse free coffee. It beats driving on cost, and beats flying on both cost and convenience in that I don't need to give up my civil rights to get on the train (yet). I yearn for the day that CA and other places have high speed rail.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 05:55 · Score: 0

wat? I can't speak for the rest of the locations but BostonNew York the train is a terrible option from a cost efficiency standpoint. I do it anyway because I prefer the comfort of it, but I don't know how you compare a $100 ticket to a $15 bus ride that takes the same amount of time.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by AnalogDiehard · 2013-05-17 05:56 · Score: 2

it's just a coincidence that the lines that carry the most politicians are actually funded and effective, while the rest of the country languishes due to underfunding.

Not just coincidence. It's fact. In the early days of Amtrak in the early 1970s, most of the routes catered to whomever was in a position of power in elected office. Ten years prior to Amtrak, railroads were in dire financial condition and federal regulators required them to run the passenger trains even if they were empty. Railroads were so anxious to get out of the moneypit passenger hauling business that they deferred maintenance on passenger cars and right of way to drive passengers away, even to the point of replacing dining service with impersonal vending machines. By the time Amtrak took over, there was no money to replace the 30-year-old badly neglected rolling stock. Most of the distribution of equipment was subject to the whims of politicians.

Today the northeast corrider still gets the bulk of the revenue and service upgrades, but at least the other routes now travel with modern clean well riding equipment.

--
Eternity: will that be smoking, or non-smoking? I Corinthians 6:9-10

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Capt+James+McCarthy · 2013-05-17 05:56 · Score: 1

Good point dutchmaan.

--
There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by alen · 2013-05-17 05:57 · Score: 2

i've flown the delta shuttle NYC to Boston pre-911 and it was FAST. we would take the 7am to boston and be back by 5 for dinner. arrive 20 minutes before the flight and just get on the plane

post 9-11 you have to get to the airport early to stand in line, wait around and sit in your chair and wait
might as well take the train with wifi, better seating, LTE access since its outside and a power outlet by your chair so you can charge your phone

same travel time

Outside Boswash, there isn't much Amtrak by tepples · 2013-05-17 06:01 · Score: 1

rest of the country has lots of freight

Amtrak is a commuter service, not freight.

I took Joe_Dragon's comment to mean that the vast majority of rail service outside Boswash is freight, not commuter service.

Re:Outside Boswash, there isn't much Amtrak by PopeRatzo · 2013-05-17 07:17 · Score: 1

I took Joe_Dragon's comment to mean that the vast majority of rail service outside Boswash [wikipedia.org] is freight, not commuter service.
By design.
What's surprising is that passenger rail continues in the US despite the efforts of some very powerful lobbying groups to kill it.
People just like trains, and if they had just left more lines intact, the number of riders annually would be a lot more than the current 35 million. It boggles my mind that I cannot ride the train from Chicago to Memphis and back without some ridiculous routing.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.
Re:Outside Boswash, there isn't much Amtrak by geekoid · 2013-05-17 08:44 · Score: 1

if anyone is attacking the train industry, its the train industry.
They do stupid things. However I don't think the number would increase that much, sure people like trains...until it take 3 days to get somewhere they could fly to in 3 hours, and usually cheaper.
If I could take a train from Portland to Las Vegas I would do so, probably every couple of years. but I am in the minority.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Re:Outside Boswash, there isn't much Amtrak by hedwards · 2013-05-18 00:35 · Score: 1

It's the politicians, there are a few routes where high speed rail would be profitable, the Boston to Washington line is one; Vancouver, BC to Portland would be another one. And a lot of those delays that people complain about are the direct result of not having enough spare equipment to allow for a proper turn around. Last trip I took was delayed by a huge amount because the train hadn't been winterized, even though it was December and the route went through Montana and North Dakota.
I'm not really sure why it's just that New England corridor that gets all the funding when there are other corridors that could be profitable as well. I don't understand why they're adding improved WiFi when last I checked there wasn't any wifi at all on most of their routes.
And people wonder why folks out west complain about the East Coast bias.
Re:Outside Boswash, there isn't much Amtrak by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-05-18 08:25 · Score: 1

The California Corridor (San Diego to San Francisco) is also getting substantial funding now. Vancouver to Portland OR is worthy but would require international cooperation; it could be done as far as Seattle without that. Transcontinental trains probably won't catch on until we're ready to build even higher speed rail service (250mph or so); at that speed people might be willing to take a cross-country train instead of flying.
The Northeast Corridor gets the most funding because it's the only place where Amtrak makes money running trains. There are enough passengers, and they will pay high enough fares, to produce an operating profit. All the train fares are higher than bus fares, and the Acela Express is up in the same neighborhood as air fares.

Great news! by Phoenix666 · 2013-05-17 06:02 · Score: 5, Insightful

Train travel far exceeds air travel in the experience, especially if you get a sleeper compartment. You get your own TV, outlets, desk, toilet in your compartment, complimentary drinks, and access to all the first-class amenities. It's like travelling around in your little apartment or office. And there's something about working while the scenery flashes by that is mentally and creatively stimulating. When you get tired, you can lay down on a real bed. When you want to stretch your legs, you can walk the whole length of train if you want, without squeezing through the forest of elbows on the cattle cars they call "jumbo" jets.

You also get to go from city center to city center, so the connections to the train station are always easier and cheaper than getting to the airport and getting your anal probe from the TSA. Japan and Europe have had high speed train travel forever, on land masses roughly the scale of the US (Japan, for example, is longer that California, Europe is bigger than the continental US), so it can be done.

--
Do what you can, with what you have, where you are.

Re:Great news! by Bugler412 · 2013-05-17 06:32 · Score: 1

oh yes, it's great if you want to spend $300 a night for a fold down bed in a closet with a bathroom down the hall that you need to reserve months ahead of time. What a great deal!
Re:Great news! by kamapuaa · 2013-05-17 10:39 · Score: 1

Right, only Europe has nearly three times the population density, and Japan has nearly ten times the population density. Have you ever been in a train? They're slightly better than a cheaper airline, but I just can't imagine comparing the cramped quarters to an actual office.

--
Slashdot: providing anti-social weirdos a soapbox, since 1997.
Re:Great news! by gl4ss · 2013-05-17 11:13 · Score: 1

Right, only Europe has nearly three times the population density, and Japan has nearly ten times the population density. Have you ever been in a train? They're slightly better than a cheaper airline, but I just can't imagine comparing the cramped quarters to an actual office.
high speed trains have worse seating than the old trains over here.. because the seats are weight optimized and cheap(not much cushion..), this is in europe with european made trains(italians though, so they break every fucking winter).
taking a train with complimentary drinks is bound to be more expensive than flying anyways, it only makes sense if you can get the company to pay for both the trip and your time spent doing the trip(provided train trip lenght would be more than 2 hours, at less than 2 hours it's superior to flying).

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by squiggleslash · 2013-05-17 06:05 · Score: 5, Interesting

Historical accident, not politics. The NEC is the only part of the national rail system Amtrak actually owns.

Amtrak exists because a giant railroad company that operated most trackage in the North East called Penn Central was going bankrupt. In the early seventies it went to Nixon and said, essentially "We might survive if we can get rid of passenger service. which costs lots of money and isn't covering its costs for us. Hey, whatsay we make passenger service a government program, and then you guys can screw it up even more and close it down after two years? Then we can sell all the track we no longer need, cover our debts, and just do nice profitable freight in future."

(You probably think I'm doing a dig at Amtrak there with the "government program" and "screw it up" bit, but actually, that really was the plan. I'm not kidding. A few years after Amtrak's creation, Louis W. Menk, the then chair of the Burlington Northern, actually blurted it out in public, saying that the government was making a mess of screwing it up. Look it up.)

So, anywho, the other railroads were also invited to join, as most (but not all) were having similar problems. Amtrak was formed. Penn Central went bust anyway.

The bankrupt Penn Central was then reconstituted as Amtrak and Conrail. Amtrak got the NEC. Conrail got the rest. Conrail became amazingly profitable, was privatized, and finally split between CSX and NS. Amtrak has finally gotten the NEC to be profitable over the last few years, though the rest of its passenger service is still technically "loss making". But the non-NEC services suffer from not being under its control. It can't run Acela Express services on CSX tracks, for example, because it would need massive upgrades to lines that Amtrak would barely benefit from.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by squiggleslash · 2013-05-17 06:08 · Score: 1

The bankrupt Penn Central was then reconstituted as Amtrak and Conrail

This is poorly worded. What I meant was that Penn Central's assets were divided between Amtrak, and Conrail, the latter being a new government corporation specifically created to take over the bankrupt entity's assets. Amtrak, of course (as should have been obvious from what I'd written earlier) already existed.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

For $420 per year by tepples · 2013-05-17 06:11 · Score: 1

What about wifi only devices?

For a little over a dollar a day, users of Wi-Fi-only device can buy a cellular radio with a Wi-Fi router. You could think of it as a cell phone that doesn't make calls because it's only designed for tethering.

Depends on who owns the track... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 06:13 · Score: 0

In the Northeast and Harrisburg corridors, Amtrak owns the track. They maintain it, and it only sees passenger and MOW service. Perhaps this is also the case in the some other parts of the country, but mostly, freight railroads own and maintain the trackage that Amtrak uses. They don't maintain it to the same standards, freight trains can really beat up the roadbed, and the freight railroads don't always give passenger trains the priority [over freight operations] needed for timely performance.

Re:Depends on who owns the track... by hoboroadie · 2013-05-17 07:09 · Score: 1

Last time I rode Amtrak it was understood that fright traffic got priority, (I'm pretty sure we spent a few unscheduled hours on a siding every time I rode.) I didn't realize that it was not absolutely shitty on every line.
If you're going north on the Coast Starlight, schedule it on a full moon, the only non-sucky scenery goes by at night.

--
They feared that it could be used to suppress protest or support unpopular rule.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by betterunixthanunix · 2013-05-17 06:17 · Score: 3, Informative

then again, when does a program work out well that federal money supports

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_mission

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstate_highway_system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panama_canal

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_dam

...just to name a few. I guess if you just ignore the successes of the US government (except for your personal favorite), though, federal money would seem to be wasted on failure.

--
Palm trees and 8

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by dkleinsc · 2013-05-17 06:22 · Score: 2

There at one point was a serious proposal to get a high-speed rail line starting from San Diego and expanding north. It got shot down by Orange County, because the residents were worried that those trains would bring the wrong sort of people into their neighborhood.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Gothmolly · 2013-05-17 06:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

People don't understand how large and empty most of the US is.

The rest of the country languishes because everything is so far apart. Do you want to spend days on a train to get from Chicago to LA, or do you want to spend 4-5 hours on a plane? Even high speed rail can't beat a jet. In the Northeast the density of cities plus the ability to work/talk/move around on a train trumps the cost and hassle of air travel, elsewhere not so much.

"Hello air travel? It's train travel... you win."

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by glenn.ramsey · 2013-05-17 06:40 · Score: 0

(You probably think I'm doing a dig at Amtrak there with the "government program" and "screw it up" bit, but actually, that really was the plan. I'm not kidding. A few years after Amtrak's creation, Louis W. Menk, the then chair of the Burlington Northern, actually blurted it out in public, saying that the government was making a mess of screwing it up. Look it up.)

I did look it up. You are correct sir, but man it took some digging to find.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by AliasMarlowe · 2013-05-17 06:50 · Score: 2

Most politicians fly private jets "loaned" to them by "concerned" parties. Or are married to centi-millionaires who can just give them their own jet.

I think you meant hecto-millionaires (i.e persons having more than 100million bucks), since the hecto- prefix means one hundred of a quantity. The centi- prefix means one hundredth of a quantity, so a centi-millionaire has a mere 10thousand bucks. There are lots and lots of centi-millionaires, and not many of them have their own jet...

--
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by kriston · 2013-05-17 07:03 · Score: 1

The NEC is not "the only part of the national rail system Amtrak actually owns."

Amtrak "actually owns" 224 miles of other lines in addition to the Northeast Corridor. Let's try to keep our facts straight.

1) Philadelphia to Harrisburg Main Line, approx. 104 miles.

2) Empire Corridor (portions a.k.a. Empire Connection) from New York Penn Station to Spuyten Duyvil, New York, 11 miles.

3) Michigan Line (a.k.a. Chicagoâ"Detroit Line), 98 miles.

4) Post Road Branch (upstate New York), 12 miles.

--

Kriston

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 07:07 · Score: 0

That would explain why nobody's impressed when I tell them I'm a nano-billionaire...

A little bit off subject by BlueCoder · 2013-05-17 07:07 · Score: 1

I think Amtrack should for frequent travelers price match air travel (including non luxury rooms for multiple people). They need to romanticize rail travel again. Also probably work with travel agencies and cities with circular routes to popular destinations.

Re:A little bit off subject by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 21:58 · Score: 0

You think Amtrak is bad? Via Rail in Canada costs more. It's actually cheaper and faster to take amtrak from Vancouver to seattle, seattle to buffalo, and then buffalo to toronto.
VIA Rail Vancouver to Toronto: 492.45$ 4 days
Amtrak Vancouver to Toronto: 350$ 3 days
(That's using today's date)

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by kriston · 2013-05-17 07:10 · Score: 1

It may not have been renovated in thirty years, but like most Amtrak rolling stock it has been overhauled and rebuilt several times in thirty years.

--

Kriston

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by PopeRatzo · 2013-05-17 07:23 · Score: 1

You'd think that with all the federal money that Amtrak gets that they would already have better services available.

The federal money is to make sure there are not better services available. One of the strings tied to the federal subsidy is that many of the most useful national rail lines had to be abandoned to the private freight lines. This has been going on for decades now. Strangely, the private freight carriers don't seem to be the ones who worked so hard to kill the American passenger railroads.

Rail service in the US did not die because people didn't want it. It died because some very powerful interests didn't want people to have it. The corporatists and the political Right in America hate passenger trains with a passion. They actually get angry about it for some reason.

--
You are welcome on my lawn.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by AJH16 · 2013-05-17 07:40 · Score: 1

Or it's just coincidence that the lines in other parts of the country that are less utilized have to be used by both freight and passenger traffic and are thus slower.

--
AJ Henderson

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Art+Challenor · 2013-05-17 07:41 · Score: 1

People don't understand how large and empty most of the US is.

The rest of the country languishes because everything is so far apart. Do you want to spend days on a train to get from Chicago to LA, or do you want to spend 4-5 hours on a plane? Even high speed rail can't beat a jet. In the Northeast the density of cities plus the ability to work/talk/move around on a train trumps the cost and hassle of air travel, elsewhere not so much.

"Hello air travel? It's train travel... you win."

Let's look at that. Say, Salt Lake City to Denver. If you live in, say LakeWood, CO you have, probably a 2 hour drive to the airport, you need to be there 90 minutes ahead of departure, 90 minute flight, so 2 hours by the time you disembark and get to your rental car, 30 minutes into the city center. 7.5 hrs. Assuming a track following I70, high speed rail would pick you up in Lakewood, it would probably take about the same time, but maybe up to 8, or 8.5 hrs to drop you in the city center. I do that anytime - and so would MANY others. I don't have to have an anal probe, or turn off all electronics occasionally. I can get some work done (using the WIFI) in a comfortable seat and get a decent, if not gourmet meal.

Trains will work, and work well, on any corridor less than about 600 miles ESPECIALLY in the relatively unpopulated areas where airports can be hours of driving away.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by HangingChad · 2013-05-17 07:45 · Score: 1

Of course, it's just a coincidence that the lines that carry the most politicians are actually funded and effective,

If memory serves the Obama administration tried to put more money into high speed rail and Republicans in Florida made a big show about turning the money down.

In an efficient transportation system planes would carry passengers between major airports and trains would fill in for commuter airlines. We subsidize every form of transportation in one way or the other, I don't see why passenger trains get singled out for ridicule.

--
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by squiggleslash · 2013-05-17 07:49 · Score: 1

I stand corrected. That said, I stand by the point that reason for the NEC's success is that Amtrak owns it, not because it's near Washington DC.

--
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.

For those of us who live next to railroad tracks.. by tech.kyle · 2013-05-17 07:53 · Score: 2

I think we'll all enjoy 4 seconds of free WiFi.

--
If we colonize Mars, it won't be the World Wide Web anymore. UWW?

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Gothmolly · 2013-05-17 08:08 · Score: 2

If its picking you up in Lakewood or making other stops on the way, it's not the "high speed" you're thinking of.

--
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 08:11 · Score: 0

I recently went from NY Penn Station to Philly using NJ Transit/SEPTA. The tickets were like 30 bucks each way and it took about 2.5 hours. You might be able to get there a bit faster in a car (Google shows the drive time at 1.75 hours with no traffic), but you aren't going to beat the cost, especially if you factor in parking.

Amtrak's Acela Express is far more expensive, but saves about an hour.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by PhotoJim · 2013-05-17 08:13 · Score: 1

I was comparing the train to flying - my car was in Saskatchewan at the time. :)

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by PhotoJim · 2013-05-17 08:14 · Score: 1

One also has to consider the freedom to do what you want on the train. It's hard to surf the web while driving, unless you can talk someone else into driving.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by PhotoJim · 2013-05-17 08:15 · Score: 1

We certainly didn't pay $100. It was more like $50.

The bus is a pretty good deal but I have greater confidence in the safety of the train.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 08:29 · Score: 0

I priced it a couple of months ago, and it was $99 on JetBlue from Washington Dulles to JFK, or $80 on Amtrak from Washington Union Station to NY Penn Station. Plus connector trains and/or parking, it was almost identical in cost between train vs. plane. The train was a longer trip but the schedules were more flexible. Then there's the novelty of flying vs. the body cavity search and the speed of flying vs. the relaxation of the train.

So, between DC and NY (Long Island, actually), it's a tough decision.

But better than both, is driving. Leave early enough and it's a 5 hour drive. And then I have my car while I'm there. No taxi/bum-a-ride to the commuter rail, VRE ticket, layover at Union Station, Amtrak ticket, layover at Penn station, LIRR ticket, having relative pick me up, etc, etc, etc. For two people, it's cheaper. And now with a baby, forget public transportation.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 08:30 · Score: 0

Absolutely! Plus you get a nice relaxed view of the country instead of having to keep your eyes on the road.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 08:37 · Score: 0

lol they already live in California, it doesn't get more wrong then that!

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 08:39 · Score: 0

Because only *those* kinds of people take then train. Those of us who are *better* have cars and fly where we need to go.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by ObjectiveSubjective · 2013-05-17 08:40 · Score: 0

This at the same time we are learning that wi-fi has not understood and potentially dramatic effects on biological organisms... that includes us, you can fuck the fuck off with your useless internet shit, keep your radio waves away from me. And fuck you I studied physics which is one of those things far beyond the average code monkey neckbeard router worshippers

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by PrimaryConsult · 2013-05-17 08:43 · Score: 1

It didn't help that from 1942-1962, Railroad tickets were taxed something like 10%, and that tax money went to the general fund (which then got doled out to the interstate highway system and the airports that directly competed with them). Source (admittedly biased but the best I could find with a quick google).

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by geekoid · 2013-05-17 08:49 · Score: 1

And privatizing those rails killed it. another example of the private industry unable to do infrastructure programs.
Which is fine, they don't d [projects like that well. The government has a long history of doing them well.
Yet anyone who has been polluted by Ann Rand* can't seem to see that.

*I did that on purpose. If it angered you you have become to emotional attached to that outmoded economic way of thinking.
And by you I mean anyone reading.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Used it a few days ago - not too bad! by bradgoodman · 2013-05-17 08:51 · Score: 1

I used it a few days ago from Boston to NYC and back. The Wifi was very good - except the stretch between NYC and New Rochelle. When we couldn't get Wifi - the conductor told us we'd get a signal when we hit New Rochelle. Sure enough, he was correct. It was a very busy train, and connection speeds were decent. I was even doing things like yum installs and all worked very smoothly! :-)

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by geekoid · 2013-05-17 08:52 · Score: 1

Yes, if you cherry pick exact few situation trains..tie.

--
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 08:53 · Score: 0

No one in the south wants an effective system if it's proposed by a black man.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by PrimaryConsult · 2013-05-17 09:02 · Score: 1

1) The Keystone Corridor is also successful (from a customer service point of view), sees over a dozen trains each way daily, with portions of the line at over 100MPH speed.
2) That section of the Empire Corridor is slow but only because it is a former freight line through a very urban area. There are some sections where vibrations of trains could cause rockslides (though those have recently been stabilized enough to allow 45MPH speeds). It is a necessary evil because the only other option would be for Amtrak to have to run these trains out of Grand Central, which would be inefficient both operationally and for passengers who need to transfer (the rest of the trains must use Penn Station). It also sees over a dozen trains a day.
4) The Post Road Branch isn't that significant. It is 12 miles from Albany, NY to near the Massachusetts state line - it carries the Lake Shore Limited (one train a day). While the speed limit is 79 MPH (or feels that way) it is on jointed rail and therefore the most uncomfortable 12 miles in New York State. That said, the rest of the former Boston & Albany main line is not owned by Amtrak and large portions have speed limits of 45, but the rail is smooth - excellent for freight, annoying for passengers.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 09:09 · Score: 0

But then again, when does a program work out well that federal money supports?

You're communicating on it right now...

Also: GPS.

Satellites in general probably: the conquering of space was first done by government(s) and only later commercialized.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 09:11 · Score: 0

Except that the Regional/KeyStone Train service is about $30 each way and takes ~1 hour and 20 minutes. Given traffic, I really doubt you could drive it faster than that (not that it isn't slow - that should be 30-45 minutes by rail). So, one way cost by train is $60. Driving, lets say $20 in gas. Then, about $50x(number days staying) for parking. Lastly, on the train you can relax with tons of leg room and hit up the cafe car for some decent beers, too (they even have DFH's 90 Minute IPA).

* Source: Lived in Manhattan for 4 years (moved a month ago), and used to regularly take weekend trips to Philly.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by PhotoJim · 2013-05-17 09:52 · Score: 2

US airports are quite heavily subsidized, actually. Canadian airports are run on a cost-recovery basis and as a result, US cities near the Canadian border siphon a significant portion of the Canadian traffic.

Canadians thank you for subsidizing their trips. Have a nice day.

Wifi Shmi-fi by NonFerrousBueller · 2013-05-17 10:00 · Score: 1

Just let me take the train to Vermont and actually bring baggage with me. Seriously.

We're looking at visiting family in Vermont from overseas and cannot take the train from NY to VT as Amtrak won't accept checked baggage, so another puddle-jumper flight it is. Sorry Amtrak, no tourist money for you!

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by mjwalshe · 2013-05-17 10:06 · Score: 1

Yes I remember doing the BA London to Edinburgh route for BT a few times just walk up to the desk plonk your card down a quick beer and walk from the lounge/bar to plane and 40 min later in Edinburgh -probably not as easy to do these days

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 10:56 · Score: 0

Dont be silly man!
Govenment money is always wasted. Unless it is spent on me.
:o)

Re: I believe I speak for a dozen people when I sa by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 11:18 · Score: 0

You're insane. Look at the volume. 10s of thousands use the NEC every day - you are going to sustain Denver to SLC with the same volume? Ok....

Still won't be on all trains by tirerim · 2013-05-17 11:19 · Score: 1

What the summary fails to mention, and even TFA glosses over, is that Amtrak still doesn't have WiFi at all on many of its routes, and this upgrade does not include plans to add it to the ones that don't have it. Still, with luck this will be a significant improvement for the ones that do.

Rail needs a dedicated networking technology by Anonymous Coward · 2013-05-17 11:40 · Score: 0

Passenger rail should have its own, special data uplink technology. A big high speed rail train in Japan can have over a thousand densely packed passengers, sitting idle. They would really like to be doing something, such as watching videos on Youtube. It is possible to get demand into tens of gigabits! That would require lots of small cells, but high speed trains can exceed 200 mph. Given the adoption of high speed rail around the world, a specialized, high bandwidth network technology just for rail, including high speed passenger rail, would be very useful.

Amtrak in the Northeast vs. Elsewhere by billstewart · 2013-05-17 12:46 · Score: 2

Between Boston, NYC, and DC, Amtrak runs the really fast Acela trains, the pretty fast Metroliners, and the slower local trains. There's also lots of commuter train service in the Northeast that isn't Amtrak, such as New Jersey Transit, the Long Island Railroad, SEPTA, DC Metro, etc. Back in the 1980s and early 90s I used to take the trains from New Jersey to DC (before the Acela started, so Metroliner if I could, or the slow trains otherwise.) Depending on where I was going in DC, it was often faster to take the train, because there's a lot less "hurry up and wait" and the train stations were more centrally located.

Outside the northeast, Amtrak runs passenger service, mostly long-haul, with occasional shorter-distance service like the trains from San Francisco Bay Area up to Sacramento and Lake Tahoe. That service runs on the same rails that carry freight trains, and freight has higher priority, so sometimes the passenger trains have to wait. I've never been on one that mixed passengers and freight, but I suppose it's possible that they're doing some of that these days.

Back when I was taking the trains, Wifi hadn't been invented, most people didn't have cell phones, and cell phones mainly worked near the city; there was a big service gap between Baltimore and Philly. I was once in one of the dining cars, and the old guy sitting across from me had the smallest cellphone I'd ever seen (a Motorola flip-phone analog), the smallest laptop I'd ever seen (a 6-pound IBM model you could only get in Japan), and an alphanumeric Skytel pager (which was also cool.) He was Professor Dave Farber, then of UPenn, and he'd just been working on the EFF founding :-)

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

Re:Amtrak in the Northeast vs. Elsewhere by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-05-18 08:19 · Score: 1

Metroliner service ended in 2006. Amtrak continues to run the fast Acela Express and the somewhat slower Northeast Regional trains.

Pre-9/11 flying DC/NJ/Boston by billstewart · 2013-05-17 12:52 · Score: 1

Back in the 80s and early 90s I was working in New Jersey and often doing projects in DC. Taking the train was a lot less stressful than flying, and typically took only about 15 minutes longer, but sometimes I'd fly from Newark to National Airport. There were shuttle planes every hour, you only needed about 15 minutes at the airport to catch your plane, and if you missed it there'd be another one an hour later. (Except occasionally, with bad weather or whatever.) So we'd usually aim to get to the airport 20-30 minutes before our flight, and if you didn't get a bad Metro connection downtown you could walk at the airport, or if you did you could run and usually still get on.

--

Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks

re: communicating on it now? by King_TJ · 2013-05-17 13:38 · Score: 1

Only partially a fair comment, IMO. Today's internet is VERY much privately funded, even if the original internet was just a government project for military and research lab use.

Is your broadband connection provided to you by your local government and paid for out of your taxes, or do you receive a bill for it from a private ISP?

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by dj245 · 2013-05-17 14:10 · Score: 1

If its picking you up in Lakewood or making other stops on the way, it's not the "high speed" you're thinking of.

The population of Lakewood is over 140,000 people. Not enourmous, but worth stopping at.

I have been on the bullet trains in Japan, and the non-super-express ones stop at some fairly small stations. The key is that their trains are electrified, which allows for very fast acceleration. They also stop only long enough to let people on and off- 1 minute or less. When they changed from the 500 series to the N700 series, the acceleration was improved by about 80%. Even though the N700 has a lower top speed, it is faster to get to the destination because of the fast acceleration.

--
Even those who arrange and design shrubberies are under considerable economic stress at this period in history.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by blueboy13 · 2013-05-17 14:18 · Score: 1

Well, at least the Northwest of the US of A has something to look forward to besides the wind and the rain they always seem to get..

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by fafalone · 2013-05-17 14:42 · Score: 1

So nothing in the past few decades. Got it.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Octorian · 2013-05-17 16:04 · Score: 1

Everywhere that this statement is false, the train system is actually useful.
But where this statement is true, the train system is a joke.

Or in other words, a train system is only useful if people who can easily afford a car still choose to ride the train.

I think what gets missed in parts of the country, is that a well developed public transit system needs to get you from where you are, to where you're going. Not 10 miles away from either point. Walking distance. Its not just about the main route, but its also about the local connecting routes. This isn't practical everywhere, but it might be in more places than the option exists.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by PrimaryConsult · 2013-05-17 19:11 · Score: 1

In the northeast, unless you're on the Acela Express or in a sleeper car, you're not riding anything younger than 30 years. The Amfleets which are the Northeast's bread and butter were built in 1975. At least the Midwest gets new Superliners every few years.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Eunuchswear · 2013-05-17 21:55 · Score: 1

The nice bit about the Acela is that you can take the ordinary trains with no wifi and hence avoid all the idiots clicky clicking away on their "important" work.

The other advantage of the normal trains is that the bloody airconditioning is less insanely cold.

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by icebraining · 2013-05-17 22:27 · Score: 1

Not that I'm a fan of her philosophy*, but if you want to criticize it, you should at least learn a little of it.

To an Objectivist, saying that the government does things well is equivalent to me saying that slavery is a cheap way of building things. If you oppose slavery as a principle, it doesn't matter if I'm right. In the same way, an Objectivist opposed taxes as a matter of principle, therefore it's irrelevant if they're used well or not.

* I have some sympathy for classic liberalism, but I'm certainly not in favor of her advocacy of egoism.

--
Dilbert RSS feed

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by jonadab · 2013-05-17 23:57 · Score: 1

Well, then let me put in a word from the rest of us:

Amtrak still exists? WHY?

Also, HOW? How on earth can a passenger rail service pay for itself in the US in this decadent modern era of 1.3 or so motor vehicles (at least a third of which are legally classified as trucks, though many people don't know this) per valid driver's license? Today's Americans drive everywhere, even if they're going less than one block. I have a hard time imagining any significant number of them walking to a train station for a ride, rather than just driving to their destination. Who's buying passenger train tickets? Children under 16? There must be at least a couple hundred of them who haven't yet managed to get full control of their parents to make them drive them everywhere... but is that really enough to support an entire passenger rail network?

I've never heard anyone younger than my parents mention Amtrak. I sort of assumed that it naturally faded away into nothingness back in the late seventies or early eighties -- about twenty or thirty years after all the other passenger rail services died (which was, probably not entirely coincidentally, around the time the interstates went in).

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by hedwards · 2013-05-18 00:37 · Score: 1

The rails were always private going back to the beginning. How do you think the railroad companies came up with the money to build the system in the first place?

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by hedwards · 2013-05-18 00:39 · Score: 1

The reason why that's the most busy rail corridor is largely because the quality of the service is much better than it is anywhere else in the country. The trains run more reliably and at a higher rate of speed. It's hardly the only corridor that could be profitable, it's just that because it's located in New England rather than on the West Coast, it gets funding. Vancouver to Portland would easily be profitable once built and I believe that there's a few stretches in California that could be as well. Just to name a few.

Amtrak Upgrades Wi-Fi by longthienminh · 2013-05-18 07:23 · Score: 1

I hope it's a good change

--
tieng anh thieu nhi

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Shirley+Marquez · 2013-05-18 08:02 · Score: 1

The Northeast Corridor is one place where there is a high enough density of rail users to support good service. It's about the only Amtrak service that shows an operating profit. Not a profit overall, as the capital expenses of building the lines and the rail cars come from a separate budget, but no form of transportation in the US pays all its expenses directly.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by rochrist · 2013-05-18 09:38 · Score: 1

Who's buying tickets? How about anyone who needs to travel between Boston, NYC and Washington and doesn't want to a) be crammed into a seat three sizes too small, b) undergo a proctology exam, and c) would like to be able to use their electronic devices at will during their trip.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by jonadab · 2013-05-18 12:56 · Score: 1

> How about anyone who needs to travel between Boston, NYC and Washington

Ah. So they survive on basically one line. That I can believe. (Especially so, since I've been to D.C. once and seen what driving there is like. Fortunately I wasn't the one driving, but even so, I have vivid memories of traffic circles that you have to go around six or eight times before you can get into the lane that allows you to turn out. Not to mention absurdly large numbers of one-way streets. If Boston and NYC are similar, it is possible to imagine people going from one of those cities to another and not particularly wanting to drive.)

I live in the Midwest. If Amtrak has a presence within a thousand miles of here, I'm not aware of it.

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by Methuseus · 2013-05-20 04:08 · Score: 1

If you live in the Midwest, you are within 1000 miles of Chicago, which is an Amtrak hub. My siblings have all taken Amtraks through there.

--
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity, though I'm not yet sure about the universe. - A Einstein

Re:I believe I speak for a dozen people when I say by jonadab · 2013-05-20 23:35 · Score: 1

> If you live in the Midwest, you are within 1000 miles of Chicago

Indeed, I think that's less than 500 miles from here. I've actually been there.

> which is an Amtrak hub. My siblings have all taken Amtraks through there.

Interesting. I knew about the passenger train that runs from South Bend to Chicago, and I knew about the elevated train that runs within Chicago, but I was not aware that there were additional passenger lines there.

Where do they run *to* from Chicago? Minnie/St.Paul? St. Louis? Indie? Detroit? Cleveland?

Just curious. (I'm particularly curious whether they run to Cleveland. I would have thought I'd *know* if that were the case -- I used to live in Stark County and saw all the Cleveland TV ads -- but perhaps they just keep a lower profile.)

--
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.

164 comments