WeekendTraveler

I've met a few people recently who travel between Charlotte and NYC, and Raleigh and NYC. They take the Amtrak day train between those cities; it leaves in the morning and arrives in the evening.

If you take trains between two cities that are relatively far away from each other and have direct flights, why do you take the train, when flying is much faster?

I'm sincerely curious. I take Amtrak overnight between two cities that are about 600 miles away from each other, figuring that since a connection is required, the total "wasted", unproductive time during the day on the train is lower than the total "wasted" time flying. And Amtrak between NY-Boston and NY-DC is common, and faster than flying. But taking Amtrak between NYC and Charlotte, when a flight (wheels up to wheels down) is 70-90 minutes, and much faster than the train, why spend most of the day on the train?

Thanks.

miamiflyer8

I guess many people want to experience a luxurious train or a scenic route, but Amtrak on your city pair (or any other for that matter) doesn't exactly sound like either.

FlyingUnderTheRadar

There are many reasons. However, for a more reasonable comparison one should look at total travel time not just the flight time. The 90 minute flight is more like 4-5 hours once one figures on taking public transportation to the airport. Arriving an hour beforehand so get through ticketing/baggage/insecurity and to the gate. Similar on arrival.

I could see someone in NYC taking the train to Charlotte simply because they can get on the train and work productively pretty much the whole time. That is not going to happen with a flight. In fact I would say that flying from NYC-Charlotte none of the time would be truly productive. So by riding the train one has teh potential to get more done.

jrl767

I am not in any way a seasoned U.S. rail traveler (paging Seat 2A ), but I will offer that this is largely if not entirely route-dependent

the Northeast Corridor (basically between Washington DC and Boston) has a lot of service covering a wide range of travel times and price points; other short-haul corridors (Seattle/Portland, LA/San Diego) have maybe five to ten daily trips; however, Amtrak only serves many longer routes that might represent business travel opportunities (e.g., NYC/Chicago, LA/Phoenix, Atlanta/New Orleans) on a 1x/daily if not less-than-daily basis

yyznomad

One that comes to mind is Frankfurt - Berlin... it was cheaper.
Is that considered "relatively far away"? Maybe not, but still... it was cheaper.

BuildingMyBento

Did that route by bus; took around 10 hours.

klew97

3 reasons I can imagine: fear of flying, possibly cheaper, or interesting route. I could have flown from Copenhagen to Oslo, but instead I took the overnight ferry, which doubled as accommodation. The flight would have not only cost more, but arriving same day would mean paying for a hotel night and transportation from city center to airport at both ends (granted, CPH has very convenient public transport links). Later this year I might take the train from London to Frankfurt via Paris, which could cost triple a plane flight and take four times longer, but train travel is an uncommon experience for me. Regular commuting would be a different situation, I would definitely fly.

Badenoch

When I lived in downtown Toronto I preferred taking the train to Montreal instead of flying. What matters is door-to-door time and once you considered time getting to and from the airport, security times, etc. the difference wasn't that great. Meanwhile the train stations were downtown and the train trip while slightly longer was much more relaxing.

TechnoTourist

I was doing something similar from Toronto to Ottawa. Commuter rail from my house, train between cities and a rental car or uber to the office. Train was slightly longer, but I didn't have to arrive early or worry about liquids in my luggage. Being able to setup and work on the train also made the time productive and not wasted at all.

Tanic

Can't even do that. Amtrak dropped PHX service in the 1990s because the state would not pay to repair the track. There's a "station" in a Pinal County alfalfa field about 40 miles from downtown that requires a van showing up to shuttle pax. PHX is the largest city by far with no intercity train service. The infrastructure bill may fix that.

pinniped

Total door-to-door time is the big one for me. Especially when you're talking about large hub airports like MUC or CDG where you have to err on the side of caution in terms of arriving early for a variety of reasons (traffic, getting through the airport, security queues, etc.), vs. a centrally-located station where I know I can walk on the train 3 minutes prior to departure.

And if door-to-door time is similar, the comfort of the train breaks the tie. I like being able to get up and walk around. If I want something to eat or drink, there are usually more options than on a flight.

If Amtrak upgraded their trains and technology I'd ride them in the US more as well. Kansas City to Chicago has a very nice route, 7 hours from Union Station to Union Station, but it's on what has to be Amtrak's oldest equipment and has inefficient processes on both ends. No Wifi, wretchedly bad food, no advance seat assignments, and you have to queue up early in both cities to get down to the platform. If they'd modernize so I can walk directly to my assigned seat with no queueing and scan a QR code - like you can on some of the eastern Amtrak trains - I would actually use this more often.

DYKWIA

I used to do Manchester to Paris, via London, on a weekly basis.

When flying, it would take 1 hour in the air, plus arriving 2 hours early at the airport, and then an hour to get into Paris, So, maybe 4 hours.

The train was 2 hours to London, an hour connection, and another 2 hours to Paris. So, maybe 5 hours,

The train took considerably longer, but it was far less stressful. And it meant I could get a few hours work done, which was impossible on the plane.

LtKernelPanic

The one time I've done it was a round trip between London and Paris on Eurostar because it was cheaper, a bit faster and a personal bucket list item. I only paid about $90 US each way. The actual travel time was a little over twice as long about 2:25 vs. 1:10 flying. However taking the tube from my hotel to LHR would have taken 45 minutes compared to 25 to St. Pancras International train station. I only had to arrive at the station about an hour before departure and clearing security and French passport control was fast and easy. Upon arriving at Gar du Nord in Paris it only took a few minutes to find the metro, buy my ticket and be on the way to my hotel without having to travel first from CDG into central Paris. FWIW even a standard class seat was more comfortable than almost any seat on a flight between the cities. Honestly not having to deal with the BS at the airport and going through preclearance beforehand so you can walk right out into central London or Paris was icing on the cake. In future European travels I'll always try to take the train between London and Paris over flying any day if for no other reason to avoid the unnecessary stress at the airport and that there's still something cool about taking an undersea tunnel from mainland Europe to the UK.

Wilbur

As FLyingUnderTheRadar and Badenoch mentioned, total travel time can be a lot shorter on trains.

This is particularly true if you are traveling from an office or a hotel in the Centrum to another that is also downtown - something that in Western Europe and Japan is often the case in my experience.

So you grab your bag and hoof it or take a short taxi or subway ride into the train station. Board the train (no two hour waits, rarely the same amount of Security Theater, boarding a much more parallel process and less a gated serial activity), sit down and work. Get up and walk/ride to the office or hotel on the other end. Much less stress and waiting-for-no-purpose than the airport charade, no long rides to an airport out in the middle of nowhere (looking at you, PuDong Shanghai!).

Also, working space and the ability to stretch your legs to the dining car is better on a lot of trains than even J/F. Now if trains could only cross the Big Ponds...

moondog

Most people don't use PVG when SHA is an option (most domestic destinations plus some regional). And, Hongqiao Stn (busiest in the city) shares a building with one of the airport terminals.