I might take a scenic train ride for relaxation and nostalgia. I might take a plane in spite of TSA if I absolutely had to get somewhere quickly alone (the Mrs. is extremely claustrophobic and flying is no fun for either of us). Otherwise I drive everywhere. Usually take 2-4 multi day drives each year. It’s easier on my brain, and I can bring whatever I want or need. Except through New Jersey.
Part of the issue in the US is Amtrak having to stop at every little town along a route, lest some congresscritter make a fuss. Hub-and-spoke makes much more sense but is politically problematic.
The other issue, out west, is that Amtrak doesn't own their own tracks, and the freight railroads have priority on their own tracks.
Growing up in Holland, I used trains a fair amount for intercity travel, though just getting to the nearest train station was a hassle (half an hour by a bus with a stop a mile from home, or about the same by bicycle). More often than not we would take the car. If you're in a major city with a train station and going to another one, then it works pretty well. At least if you avoid the "thug trains" -- the specials that carry soccer fans to and from the matches.
I used a US train exactly once, with my wife to get from NH to FL. We didn't want to fly (personal choice) and needed to have a car, but didn't enjoy the idea of driving the whole way, so we took the car train. That covered much of the journey non-stop at a halfway reasonable speed (overnight from DC to Sanford) and got us there more rested than we'd have been otherwise. Not exactly cheap but not horrible. Would I do that again? Maybe. But it's a rare case and I can't imagine other scenarios for taking a train.
On one of Ian and Jim's livestreams, just to give an idea of the distances involved, they pointed out that if you put London in West Texas, and laid out the whole invasion path of the march to Berlin, by the time you got to Berlin, YOU'D STILL BE IN TEXAS.
One other aspect: in Western Europe, tracks are well maintained and trains run at speeds comparable to or faster than highway traffic. The result is that trains are indeed competitive with driving as a medium distance travel option.
In the USA that is not true. I think out west there are some decent tracks, but in the northeast the typical state of track repair is abysmal. A fair amount can accurately be described as "unsafe at any speed". US passenger trains are very slow not just because freight has priority or because of Congresscritters forcing stops in South Podunk, but because when the train is actually moving it often cannot safely move fast.
Western Europe only has some high speed lines. If you want to go somewhere where there isn't one (or isn't a direct connection) then it gets trickier. For example I was recently in Paris and Strasbourg - great TGV between the two, almost certainly faster than driving. While in Strasbourg we looked at going to Aachen on the way back to Paris and that was very messy so we didn't
It's true that "high speed" lines like the TGV are only a fraction of the total. But regular lines typically support speeds of 85 mph or so. I remember in the 1970s riding the train between cities in Holland, paralleling a major highway, and seeing the train move somewhat faster than the road traffic. Not dramatically as is the case for TGV and its friends, but maybe 20-30% faster.
Oh absolutely you go faster between stations. But you stop at stations. Each stop and start allows your car driving competitors to catch up. This may or may not be faster. Especially since you often have to change trains, walk/bus/tram to the starting station and from the final one.
Strasbourg has pretty good buses and trams but the last 5 miles or so from Strasbourg main station to our actual destination took almost an hour from when we got off the train what with dragging luggage, finding the right tram, figuring out how to pay etc.
I'm not anti-train, it has use-cases but even in Europe (or Japan which IMO is even better for trains) there are numerous cases where they don't make sense for passengers using them as a mode of transport rather than a vacation. The US away from the Eastern seaboard is one of them.
In the US I have taken the train from Sacramento to Denver and back. We did it because there's a lot of beautiful scenery that you either don't get to see from a car or which is hard to do so. As a practical means of getting from point A to point B it's silly.
Its even fairly silly in Japan (which has excellent very fast trains) or France (ditto) if you want to go somewhere the fast train doesn't go.
No different that cruises, especially in the tropics. (Sorry beach lovers, there really is no difference between tropical islands. Do not pretend the ship is not the destination.)
its wearing a face diaper… what more do you need to know…. if I have to fly or take a train to get there, I aint goin…
I might take a scenic train ride for relaxation and nostalgia. I might take a plane in spite of TSA if I absolutely had to get somewhere quickly alone (the Mrs. is extremely claustrophobic and flying is no fun for either of us). Otherwise I drive everywhere. Usually take 2-4 multi day drives each year. It’s easier on my brain, and I can bring whatever I want or need. Except through New Jersey.
Part of the issue in the US is Amtrak having to stop at every little town along a route, lest some congresscritter make a fuss. Hub-and-spoke makes much more sense but is politically problematic.
The other issue, out west, is that Amtrak doesn't own their own tracks, and the freight railroads have priority on their own tracks.
Growing up in Holland, I used trains a fair amount for intercity travel, though just getting to the nearest train station was a hassle (half an hour by a bus with a stop a mile from home, or about the same by bicycle). More often than not we would take the car. If you're in a major city with a train station and going to another one, then it works pretty well. At least if you avoid the "thug trains" -- the specials that carry soccer fans to and from the matches.
I used a US train exactly once, with my wife to get from NH to FL. We didn't want to fly (personal choice) and needed to have a car, but didn't enjoy the idea of driving the whole way, so we took the car train. That covered much of the journey non-stop at a halfway reasonable speed (overnight from DC to Sanford) and got us there more rested than we'd have been otherwise. Not exactly cheap but not horrible. Would I do that again? Maybe. But it's a rare case and I can't imagine other scenarios for taking a train.
On one of Ian and Jim's livestreams, just to give an idea of the distances involved, they pointed out that if you put London in West Texas, and laid out the whole invasion path of the march to Berlin, by the time you got to Berlin, YOU'D STILL BE IN TEXAS.
One other aspect: in Western Europe, tracks are well maintained and trains run at speeds comparable to or faster than highway traffic. The result is that trains are indeed competitive with driving as a medium distance travel option.
In the USA that is not true. I think out west there are some decent tracks, but in the northeast the typical state of track repair is abysmal. A fair amount can accurately be described as "unsafe at any speed". US passenger trains are very slow not just because freight has priority or because of Congresscritters forcing stops in South Podunk, but because when the train is actually moving it often cannot safely move fast.
Western Europe only has some high speed lines. If you want to go somewhere where there isn't one (or isn't a direct connection) then it gets trickier. For example I was recently in Paris and Strasbourg - great TGV between the two, almost certainly faster than driving. While in Strasbourg we looked at going to Aachen on the way back to Paris and that was very messy so we didn't
It's true that "high speed" lines like the TGV are only a fraction of the total. But regular lines typically support speeds of 85 mph or so. I remember in the 1970s riding the train between cities in Holland, paralleling a major highway, and seeing the train move somewhat faster than the road traffic. Not dramatically as is the case for TGV and its friends, but maybe 20-30% faster.
Oh absolutely you go faster between stations. But you stop at stations. Each stop and start allows your car driving competitors to catch up. This may or may not be faster. Especially since you often have to change trains, walk/bus/tram to the starting station and from the final one.
Strasbourg has pretty good buses and trams but the last 5 miles or so from Strasbourg main station to our actual destination took almost an hour from when we got off the train what with dragging luggage, finding the right tram, figuring out how to pay etc.
I'm not anti-train, it has use-cases but even in Europe (or Japan which IMO is even better for trains) there are numerous cases where they don't make sense for passengers using them as a mode of transport rather than a vacation. The US away from the Eastern seaboard is one of them.
In the US I have taken the train from Sacramento to Denver and back. We did it because there's a lot of beautiful scenery that you either don't get to see from a car or which is hard to do so. As a practical means of getting from point A to point B it's silly.
Its even fairly silly in Japan (which has excellent very fast trains) or France (ditto) if you want to go somewhere the fast train doesn't go.
For some people, the train IS the destination.
No different that cruises, especially in the tropics. (Sorry beach lovers, there really is no difference between tropical islands. Do not pretend the ship is not the destination.)