Amtrak Empire Builder 2nd Daily Frequency Chicago - St Paul

electricron wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 6:46 am That's entirely a misquote. Here is the entire quote, with the cavat proceeding that quote putting it into context.

Going over 15 mph slower on average is a loosing proposition. The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist..
.
Is there any other reason to ride a train that averages 15 mph slower than driving your own car?
If you can name one, state it.

And please do not even suggest it is cheaper for a typical family of four to pay fares to ride a train than driving their own car.

First of all, the disparity is not as large as you’re making. Most people are probably going to make several stops during that time not just to get food but to use the bathroom, stretch out the legs, potentially get some gas etc.

If a trip between Chicago and Minneapolis is say 6 hours and 15 minutes non stop, I’d probably add about an hour to that to account for other stops. The speed disparity in that case is probably half of what you’re saying it is.

The biggest issue with train travel is that there’s often too many steps that are necessary to actually use a train and effectively maneuver in the place you’ve now gone to: issues that high speed will not fix. Ok you’re there to your destination, how are you going to traverse there?

Cars will always have fewer steps necessary. That’s why they’re going to be preferred in most cases. Regardless of speed, it’s cheaper, and easier to travel using a car than not. And you’re only depending on you.

You want Amtrak to really become a better service patroned by more people? They need to do several things:

1. Invest in some speed increases but not focusing on all of the HSR crap. You can get to speeds similar to what the Milwaukee road had in the 60’s and that’s quite competitive with the pace of most modern drivers. That’s more than enough. HSR is a money laundering scam.

2. Reliability. Services need to be on time or close to that. Ik that’s not always an Amtrak cause but still.

3. Clean, comfortable, quiet service. Self explanatory.

4. More service times. Give options to people, more people will take the trains if they had the options to ride at other times.

5. Get Amtrak to partner with ride sharing programs along with local public transport. Give discounts to Amtrak riders who take Ubers or Lyfts.

electricron wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 6:46 am

WashingtonPark wrote: ↑Sun Aug 13, 2023 6:19 am "The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist." That quote is not not only false but it is insulting, John.

That's entirely a misquote. Here is the entire quote, with the cavat proceeding that quote putting it into context.

Going over 15 mph slower on average is a loosing proposition. The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist..
.
Is there any other reason to ride a train that averages 15 mph slower than driving your own car?
If you can name one, state it.

And please do not even suggest it is cheaper for a typical family of four to pay fares to ride a train than driving their own car.

"Or people travelling into Chicago for a week who don't need a car there and don't want to pay to park, or who don't want to have to drive into a busy city, or who can't sit for three or four hours at a stretch without their hips/legs/whatever hurting, or who were brought up and taught in driver's ed that it was dangerous to drive six hours with just one stop, or who have poor vision, or who would rather take an extra hour or two but be able to work or doze or watch movies or read books or play cards. All those people are on the trains, too."-Arborwayfan.

Your full quote "Going over 15 mph slower on average is a loosing proposition. The only people riding that train do not own an automobile, are too lazy to drive that far, or wish to sight see from the train as they ride by as a tourist.." is false and insulting as your contention is my disabled wife with severe back pain wants to ride the train for eight hours relatively pain free instead of being crippled up after being in a car 6 and a half hours is "lazy". Plus I was addressing John for saying this was a true statement, but thanks for bringing your thoughtful conversation to the forum.
.

I keep hearing about people finding a quiet spot on an intercity train to read a book. I have yet to find such a spot unless it is in my own sleeper accommodation. In coach you will have undisciplined kids, bored to death, screaming, running, and crying at full lung capacity making it virtually impossible to read a book, or do any work on a notebook computer. Day regional trains do not have sleeper accommodations!
15 mph on average slower does not sound like much. but over 4 hours that's an hour lost, over 8 hours that's two hours lost, and over 12 hours that's three hours lost. Today's Empire Builder schedules reads 9+ hours between Chicago and St. Paul.
9 hours on a train is just as taxing to a senior as driving 6 hours. I'm 69 years young, and drive Ft. Worth to Houston, San Antonio, or Austin and back in the same day, or on consecutive days with no problems. When I take the Eagle to Austin and San Antonio, I find it more taxing arriving at my destination on the train in late evening or very early morning. 11 pm arrival time in St. Paul from Chicago by the Builder will be taxing, compared to a 3 pm arrival by car leaving Chicago at 9 am.

\

I know you find this hard to believe but not everybody feels like you do. Just because you feel being on the train is very taxing doesn't mean everybody does. If you can drive 6 hours straight in a car without physical problems you should thank the Lord instead of calling others who can't lazy. I believe I stated I have a problem with poor arrival and departure times and will choose driving if they're bad, but I don't bad mouth those that are OK with ubering late at night because I don't want to do that so nobody should. Trains between St. Paul and Chicago are a choice people should have. If everybody hates them that much they'll soon be stopped. Sorry you've had such horrible experiences with other passengers. I can't imagine why. My wife and I just went from Wilmington to Richmond and had no problems on either trip unlike the non-lazy that were stuck in traffic for hours on I-95.

Mr. Park, I get it!

You consider driving a chore that you can happily do without.

As for myself, at 82yo, my days of being safely able to do so are numbered, but in the meantime, just as I noted at this topic two years ago, I live, when behind the wheel, by William Ernest Henley's stanza from "Invictus":

It doesn't matter how straight the gate
No matter how hard the punishment and troll,
For I am the master of my fate,
I am the Captain of my soul.

Apparently, you reside within the Corridor, where Amtrak trains run frequently and can usually beat "drive time". There, they provide a level of service found overseas; there is no other market in the USA that can begin to support that level of service.

The hyperbole in this thread is amazing.

Prof. Norman, from your comment last week... as I live well north and west of Cook County, whatever's happening with construction the Kennedy is really of no concern to me.

I also stand corrected on my earlier estimate of 10 hours to take rail from our house to the Mall of America... According to Mr. Google, it's five minutes shy of 13 hours.

Where I live to the Twin Cities is the worst example I can find on Amtrak, but it's not much different for other locations in the Midwest --

• Ford Field in Detroit is a 5 hour drive, or 8h30m by Metra and Amtrak
• Memorial Stadium in Champaign: 3 hours driving vs. 5h30m by Metra and Amtrak, plus I'd have to walk from downtown Champaign to the stadium...
• Miller Park/American Family Stadium in Milwaukee: 1 h15m driving vs. 4h30m by Metra and Amtrak.
• Lucas Oil Stadium in Milwaukee.... 3h45m driving vs. 7h21m on Metra and Amtrak
• The Dome at America's Center (St. Louis)... 4h49 driving vs. 7h50m on Metra and Amtrak

Every one of those has at least a 3 hour penalty for taking the train. I saw better options via Greyhound, and that's a mode of transportation I haven't considered voluntarily in almost 40 years.

It comes down to this: If I lived in a place where the train times were reasonable, I'd use it as long as the times were close. In the Northeast, it's an option for those who live along the NEC.

In the Midwest, it's not even close. It's not just doubling my travel time that causes me to have less time at my destination, but there's also no real flexibility as to when I leave or arrive with Amtrak.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 11:50 pm The hyperbole in this thread is amazing.
...
[*]Miller Park/American Family Stadium in Milwaukee: 1 h15m driving vs. 4h30m by Metra and Amtrak.
...

Sir, I'd say you are contributing some of the more extreme hyperbole on this thread yourself.

Amtrak between Chicago and Milwaukee is about 1 hr 40 mins vs. driving 1 hr 30 mins. Milwaukee station to your ballpark is about two miles, so let's say 15 mins by Uber or taxi. For your 4.5 hr claim to be true, you must live in such an inaccessable place that it's almost 2 hours to CUS or Glenview. That may be true for you, but likely isn't for probably 2 million other Chicagoans.

Put another way: 5:08 pm Hiawatha #339 later today is already 90% sold out. There IS demand for rail transport, imperfect as it is. And at just $25, it's barely more than gas cost.

I will agree that the last-mile at either end is often the bottleneck that defines whether mass transit is convenient enough to forego the car. Ridesharing is really an ideal solution to the last mile.

eolesen wrote: ↑Mon Aug 14, 2023 11:50 pm Lucas Oil Stadium in Milwaukee.... 3h45m driving vs. 7h21m on Metra and Amtrak

Mr. Olesen, last time I checked, Lucas Oil Stadium is in Indianapolis, vice Milwaukee.

For all intent and purpose, Amtrak is not an option to get there, although I must acknowledge that venue is within walking distance of the station and its "three a week" 5A West and 1201A East, Cardinal departures.

"In the Midwest, it's not even close. It's not just doubling my travel time that causes me to have less time at my destination, but there's also no real flexibility as to when I leave or arrive with Amtrak."

And there, Mr. eolesen, is what I consider the real problem with AMTRAK, It takes me 9 1/2 hours to get to Cincinnati with no stops and no traffic. There is always traffic at Baltimore and Cincinnati is absolutely horrendous. At my age and my wife's condition this turns into a 13 hour painful, her, exhausting, me, The trip has to be split up, which means a stay in a hotel. The trip to Cincinnati by train is 17 1/2 hours, but I would never use it as we get into CIN at 130a and leave at 330a so I drive, (forget the plane with the insanity going on there). Amtrak wants through routes on the Lake Shore and Capitol split up at Cleveland to provide service to CIN. If I take the Capitol I'm leaving on the NE Corridor around 1130a and arriving 700a the next morning. That is why I believe AMTRAK needs to add more routes to accommodate people that are "too lazy" to drive 14 hours in wall to wall traffic filled with angry, aggressive drivers.
That's why I'd like to see St. Paul to Chicago. At 6 1/2 hours drive time without stops and traffic the 8 1/2 hours by train Amtrak claims the new trains will take isn't oppressive. It's not like you can drive in and do your business and then drive back the same day. And for some reason my daughter does get a lot of work done on the train where she travels, despite the Children from Hell that I'm told don't let you do any work. Get some additional service on routes that exist and see how it does, rather than spending millions on studies on routes that realistically are decades away, if ever.

WashingtonPark wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 6:13 am And there, Mr. eolesen, is what I consider the real problem with AMTRAK, It takes me 9 1/2 hours to get to Cincinnati with no stops and no traffic. There is always traffic at Baltimore and Cincinnati is absolutely horrendous. At my age and my wife's condition this turns into a 13 hour painful, her, exhausting, me, The trip has to be split up, which means a stay in a hotel. The trip to Cincinnati by train is 17 1/2 hours, but I would never use it as we get into CIN at 130a and leave at 330a so I drive, (forget the plane with the insanity going on there). Amtrak wants through routes on the Lake Shore and Capitol split up at Cleveland to provide service to CIN. If I take the Capitol I'm leaving on the NE Corridor around 1130a and arriving 700a the next morning. That is why I believe AMTRAK needs to add more routes to accommodate people that are "too lazy" to drive 14 hours in wall to wall traffic filled with angry, aggressive drivers.

Ahhh, that's the thing. The Cardinal's timing to Cincinnati is horrid for you and your wife, even though it would be safer for her and less stressful for you.

I think we can all agree that there needs more service on existing lines, like what's being worked on with the Pennsylvanian's 2nd run. Maybe an 8 hour shift on a 2nd daily Cardinal run (which should be daily).

That's why I'd like to see St. Paul to Chicago. At 6 1/2 hours drive time without stops and traffic the 8 1/2 hours by train Amtrak claims the new trains will take isn't oppressive. It's not like you can drive in and do your business and then drive back the same day. And for some reason my daughter does get a lot of work done on the train where she travels, despite the Children from Hell that I'm told don't let you do any work. Get some additional service on routes that exist and see how it does, rather than spending millions on studies on routes that realistically are decades away, if ever.

And this is where I pull out the "why not both?" meme.

I don't think Amtrak's target market should be people who don't like sharing space with other people including kids, who positively like driving cars, who live pretty far out in the suburbs, and who are heading for suburban destinations like the Mall of America. The car nation was built for those people, and those trips are almost impossible for trains to compete with. Amtrak's target market should be people who are more or less Ok with sharing a train car with other passengers of all ages and who are either going to or coming from places near an Amtrak station (or both). There are plenty of people in that category to fill up trains if they are reasonably frequent, reliable, and clean.

The list of sloooow Amtrak trips is interesting, but those trips aren't necessarily so much slower by train because the trains are slow. All but one of them include transfers in Chicago, between trains that mostly aren't timed for fast transfers and would often miss the connections if they were timed for fast transfers. Amtrak doesn't really try to serve the market of people who want to go from a couple hours one side of Chicago to a couple hours the other side of Chicago, whether those connections are Metra-to-Amtrak (as listed) or Amtrak-to-Amtrak. Improving reliability and maybe adding frequencies would be ways to make the train more competitive even at current timetable speeds--probably a lot cheaper than installing high-speed rail.

A passenger alighting at the lovely station in Champaign might well find one of the CUMTD's excellent buses ready to take them to the stadium; a driver arriving on campus for a football game might get a parking space almost as far from the stadium as the station is.

Yes, the first mile/last mile is Amtrak's biggest obstacle.
More Thruway connections to existing trains would probably bring more new riders than any new train.

Arborwayfan wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:20 pm I don't think Amtrak's target market should be people who don't like sharing space with other people including kids, who positively like driving cars, who live pretty far out in the suburbs, and who are heading for suburban destinations like the Mall of America. The car nation was built for those people, and those trips are almost impossible for trains to compete with. Amtrak's target market should be people who are more or less Ok with sharing a train car with other passengers of all ages and who are either going to or coming from places near an Amtrak station (or both). There are plenty of people in that category to fill up trains if they are reasonably frequent, reliable, and clean.

The list of sloooow Amtrak trips is interesting, but those trips aren't necessarily so much slower by train because the trains are slow. All but one of them include transfers in Chicago, between trains that mostly aren't timed for fast transfers and would often miss the connections if they were timed for fast transfers. Amtrak doesn't really try to serve the market of people who want to go from a couple hours one side of Chicago to a couple hours the other side of Chicago, whether those connections are Metra-to-Amtrak (as listed) or Amtrak-to-Amtrak. Improving reliability and maybe adding frequencies would be ways to make the train more competitive even at current timetable speeds--probably a lot cheaper than installing high-speed rail.

A passenger alighting at the lovely station in Champaign might well find one of the CUMTD's excellent buses ready to take them to the stadium; a driver arriving on campus for a football game might get a parking space almost as far from the stadium as the station is.

Champaign to Chicago is 126 miles, and at an average speed of 50 mph, the elapse travel time is just 2 hours and 36 minutes on the Saluki. You can drive it in approximately 2 hours on I-57. Your average speed driving is 63 mph, your average speed by train is 48 mph, a difference of 15 mph. Since the train takes more than 2.5 hours to go that far, that 15 mph difference turns into a 36 minute disadvantage.

But the distance is low enough the train can get there in less than 4 hours, Even so, I highly doubt it earns more than a 2% market share over driving. Amtrak reports the Saluki and Illini has 266,972 riders in pre-epidemic FY2019, or 731 riders per day on all 4 trains. Meanwhile, IDOT reports 40,000 vehicles per day on I-57.
Some math= 741/40,000 x 100 = 1.824%

It seems 98% agree with me, driving is better along I-57. Ir is not even close. More frequency will help, but not as much as more speed.

Ron, "back in my day" circa 61-65 at the University of Illinois, the only highway to Chicago was US45 (or IL47 If your destination was a Far Western suburb).

All too many students idea of the IC was from Student Specials or The Creole with their collection of heavyweight Coaches, which once had a Frat Brother remark to me "this looks like something out of Dr. Zhivago". The fare each way through those years was about $4.00.

For myself, a few less suds at Kams gave me enough to ride the all Pullman and Parlor Car Panama Limited. Now that was traveling!!!!

David Benton wrote: ↑Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:44 pm Yes, the first mile/last mile is Amtrak's biggest obstacle.
More Thruway connections to existing trains would probably bring more new riders than any new train.

I think California had the most connecting bus services in the early days, and surveys after a few years showed that over half the passengers on the trains had begun or ended their trip on an Ambus, sometimes both. Every one of them filled an otherwise empty seat.