[ssharp]

This seems like such a grim value prop. Even if you have a private bedroom, a table service dining option, and bar, you're still on a train, not a hotel. A hotel is not, unless it's a resort, what you're going to the destination for. So rather than spend as little time as possible getting to the destination, trading some amount of comfort, you instead spend about as much time as possible getting to the destination and get very little back from the experience, other than "views".

I'm in the midwest, so rail is not remotely convenient but Amtrak recently announced a three-day ride from Ohio to Florida that I was amazed at because it somehow seemed less appealing than just grinding out the 15-hour family road trip, let alone a 2 hour flight.

If you want more people riding trains, make them faster.

[SoftTalker]

Rail travel on Amtrak is a novelty. The trip is the destination. Outside of a few routes that are essentially commuter routes, it's not cheaper or faster than alternatives, so I'm not sure why anyone considers it. "Ooohh it would be fun to take the train" is basically it, and that's fine. Amtrak is fun if you've got the time and never tried it, as long as you aren't delayed for 12 hours, which is actually pretty common. I tried it once. I was 24 hours late to my destination, and the train experience wore thin pretty quickly. I have not and will not consider it again. I'd rather drive and sleep in my car at rest areas.

[vharuck]

The only time I've bought a train ticket is when the wife and I took a trip to see a musical in New York. We're only a four hour drive from New York, but I hate driving near it, and really hate driving in it. So we booked a hotel four blocks from the train station and just rode an early morning Amtrak. That was worth it. It took longer than a drive, but we slept through half the ride anyway.

But it was definitely a luxury "vacation" purchase. I looked at tickets while planning our last trip, going to Boston. It was insane. Hell, it was this past Labor Day weekend, when New Jersey rail was free for almost a week. Even then, of we'd have driven into NJ, took a free train into New York, then took an Amtrak to Boston, the tickets from NY to Boston would be so more than flying from Baltimore. How is New York to Boston not a cheaper line?!

[r0ze-at-hn]

I bought a NYC to Boston ticket for a few weeks from now for $35 this morning. Depends on many factors but once you know you can easily buy the cheap tickets.

[garciasn]

I want them to be less expensive and faster; there’s no reason to take a train over airplanes when the trains take an entire day and cost the same or more than airfare.

[bluGill]

Think cruise ship which is a hotel on water. However cruise ships are full of activites for when you are stuck on them while a train doesn't have room for a broadway show.

ohio to florida is too far for a train to make sense, but you are correct trains need to move faster to be useful. But faster needs expensive track work (at 300 kmh you look both ways see the tracks are clear and then get killed by the coming train you didn't see) so amtrack tries to cheat with slow service that is more evpensive than flying

[lxgr]

Views are pretty great, to be honest! If your job allows remote work and the train route has cell or Wi-Fi coverage, I highly recommend giving it a try. I've had some of my most productive workdays on trains. (Not being able to schedule too many meetings certainly helps.)

[bell-cot]

> If you want more people riding trains, make them faster.

Amtrak passenger trains mostly run on rails which are owned by big RR corporations - running when, where, and if the corporation doesn't have some more-profitable freight train using the rails. And don't expect construction & maintenance standards (especially maximum speed & roughness of ride) to be any better than what the freight trains need, either.