757FO

As an airline pilot, I've often wondered about the future of rail travel. If Amtrak was somehow 50% as fast as the airlines on a nationwide level, but without the need to suffer through TSA, would it drive a significant amount of folks back to rail travel? What would the magic number in terms of speed be, given all the challenges flying brings to the table these days?

SPN Lifer

As more high-speed rail connections are built, such as Los Angeles to Las Vegas, or within California, people's behavior patterns will change.

Recall the change from trains to automobiles in the 1940s and 1950s, with the growth of suburbia. These are lifestyle changes, and take time.

WeekendTraveler

If you measure �50% as fast� by total trip times, the Acela and some other trains are 50% as fast (or faster), and they have significant market share and have driven significant numbers of people back to rail travel.

I commute 600 miles per week. Fortunately there is now a direct flight and I can make the trip, door to door, in 3.5 to 4 hours, but if I have to connect and take two flights, often the total trip time is 7-8 hours. That means 75 mph average. The Acela is faster than that and I would prefer to have a private room for 8 hours than deal with flying.

Amtrak�s employees don�t provide customer service that is as consistent and friendly as airline customer service and better airline customer service is a key reason why I fly, though.

AndyPatterson

Also, at least for those who live in a city, getting to/from the train station can be much faster than getting to/from the airport. This assumes one is travelling to a downtown destination.

The_Rockaway_Kid

One of my hopes is that Amtrak -- or whomever the Federal government would put in charge, because I don't care who -- would build high speed trunk lines. It's what France did with their Paris to Bordeaux line. No stops on the HSL proper, but offramps, so to speak, for intermediate stops. It was also the basis of the interstate highway system, which wasn't initially designed to go through the city center.

So I'd love a line from New York, where the HSL starts south of Newark, going west around Harrisburg and through the Allegheny mountains (you can plow through them on a 90-degree angle, and you'll be able to get through them without MUCH trouble. A spur to/through Pittsburgh is helpful. But from there, the line could sorta parallel 76/80 through Ohio and Indiana, or go north into Michigan. Spurs for Cleveland and Toledo/Ann Arbor/Detroit and South Bend, and then the tough part is finding a traffic-free way into Chicago Union Station.

It COULD give nonstop NYC-Chicago train times of 5 hours or so, which could give the airlines a run for their money. But it also includes some other great connections:

Chicago to Detroit
Chicago to Cleveland
Cleveland to Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh to Philadelphia
Harrisburg to Pittsburgh

There are a number of possibilities there, I believe.

In the Northeast, a true Northeast Corridor with NY to DC times of about 2 hours also could open up Richmond, and a HSL could even go down to Charlotte, and it would make trains competitive.

It's a pipe dream, though, and we're doomed for more delayed flights in regional jets.

Detroiter

I've long contended that a station-to-station average speed of 80 mph between Detroit and environs and Chicago would give a travel time of <3 hours, and door-to-door would be competitive with air travel. I'm in the northern suburbs of Detroit, with an Amtrak station within 15 minutes of my house - much better than the 45-minute slog to DTW - and I would much rather be able to rock back in a comfortable seat and read or watch a movie, than be jammed into what the airline beancounters consider a seat and spending an hour or more on ground transportation plus the search for parking.

bladerunner6

I agree- a high speed line between those two midwestern cities we be a great way to travel.

SPN Lifer

With all the airline delays this summer, perhaps one has to multiply the scheduled travel time by the likelihood of arriving on time, adding the average delay to the factor multiplied by that remaining percentage.

Reliability matters.

WeekendTraveler

My weekly commute is 600 miles. Door to door with a direct flight is 3.5 to 4 hours. If I am rebooked on a flight with a connection, it�s at least 6 hours, and in case of a delay, it can easily turn into 8 hours or more.

That�s a door-to-door speed of 75 mph. Amtrak should be able to offer fast conventional trains at that speed. Or even conventional trains that aren�t much slower. Just having multiple trains per day on key routes outside of the Northeast, and a consistent customer experience, and some advertising, should allow trains to pick up decent market share.

I don�t have confidence that Amtrak can do it, but perhaps Brightline?

Eurovegas67

I've been wondering if this time is a go for high speed rail in this corridor. Considering the announced operation is a public/private partnership with Brightline, it might work if the numbers are realized. Interestingly, I recently watched a video on the Citynerd channel on YouTube that was about the metrics of this question. The host is a former transportation analyst.

italdesign

As a leisure traveler, it'd probably need to be closer to 80% to make a difference. My limited vacation time is precious, and if (for example) UA/WN/AS can complete SAN-SFO in 4.5 hours after work door to BART, but train would force me to take it next morning and lose half a day, that works against it. Longer train rides also increase bathroom usage, which is not something I look forward to on the trains I occasionally take.

Detroiter

Key is being fast enough that you can leave point A after work and make it to Point B at a reasonable hour, Or else leave point A without having to leave the house at 0400 and be at point B by 0830. This makes it possible to do a one-day out-and-back business trip. Presently, the best timing I can find for flying DTW-ORD would have me out of the house around 0400, returning 2200-2230. My proposed 3-hour rail schedule between Detroit and Chicago would allow me to leave the house at 0530 and return around 2100, and allow for a nap on the train. Similarly, a long weekend in Chicago could allow leaving after work and arriving in Chicago around 2000. So yeah, competitive speeds plus convenient schedules working with business hours would make all the difference

YVR Cockroach

I wonder if night trains between major business centres, departing mid to late evening and arriving next morning would attract enough of a crowd? Can't be too long but can;t be too short of a trip either.

bbriscoe34

I live in Denver, and most of my trips are TUL, DFW, IAH at the closest, or east coast or International. TUL and DFW would require making a connection on a train, plus a bus from OKC to TUL in the case of that route, but is a direct flight several times a day. Also flying out of TUL, I can make it from my downtown hotel room to my boarding gate in 22 mins.

So yeah, living in the west where nothing is close, and anything in state I'd just drive, I don't see the efficiency of AMtrak. But I do like the idea of the scenic routes just for the experience, especially if I could book a comfortable sleeper car with an easy to game miles/points program like I do with my air travel and hotels.

AndyPatterson

Only if there was an "Arrivals Lounge" with showers, or else real showers aboard Amtrak. Unfortunately, Amtrak is not very good at "cleanliness" so I would not want to use an Amtrak shower, whether on board or at a station, alas!