BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN

Subject: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: olddude
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 07:43 PM

My daughter just came left to go back to Denver, came home with her husband to visit a few days. Very sad to see her go back home but that is the way all dads are with kids. On the through way as always a sea of trucks. I wonder how much foreign oil the US would save if we started using more railroads again. Instead of a sea of trucks half all going to the same place. how about 1 train and then truck for the nearest location. I guess I am just living in the wrong century but boy I wish we still used the trains like we did when I was a kid. I think we could cut a huge chunk of foreign oil and pollution on top of it all. If we are going to invest in our national transportation structures like highways and bridges, why not our railroads? They are in sad shape and so under utilized I think. Am I wrong ? Is it just my love of trains showing through

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: GUEST,AR
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 07:50 PM

A new one rolled on in the UK last week. Here is the link.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7876162.stm

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 07:54 PM

I wish we still used the trains like we did when I was a kid.

I'd never consider any other way to travel if the option of going by train is available. You can relax, you can walk around, you can read a book or go to sleep. You don't even have to stay sober. And they travel faster than cars anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 08:12 PM

Mrs. Coast and I have several times considered a train trip to somewhere in the US. The problem is that they are infrequent, often run way behind schedule, and are not particularly economic. Amtrac has a basic fare rate to which they add the cost of a roomette or whatever they're called, and food which we are told is not the greatest.

In California, if you wish to go to the state capitol, Sacramento, from Los Angeles, you need to take an Amtrak BUS to Bakersfield, and there pick up the train.

But worse, train stations are often in not so great parts of the city, and arrivals are often in the middle of the night, or really early morning. I often think, when looking at the schedules, they really don't want passengers for long distance, concentrating instead on commuter runs.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: CarolC
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 08:28 PM

I haven't forgotten about trains. I love traveling by train. I traveled by train when I visited Canada for about a month and a half a few years ago. It's my favorite way to go. But it's too expensive for me these days.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Alice
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 08:34 PM

My dad worked for the railroad for 50 years before retiring in the late 1960's. It was folly to transfer so much of freight hauling from trains onto the highways in trucks.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 08:43 PM

I remember the fine meals served on the Santa Fe in the 1930s. For a special treat, my grandfather would take me aboard the train that came through in the morning. We would have a grand luncheon in the dining car, and get off at the next station. It was possible to catch a train going the opposite way and get back home in the evening. A great memory!

Only a few tourist type trains are fun any more. In California, I enjoyed the excursion train from Sacramento to Napa Valley. The vinyards afforded pleasant scenery, and the meal aboard was very good, if not 4-star level.
The club car on the train from Seattle to Vancouver, was good for a pleasant trip, but I don't know if it still runs.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:25 PM

The CSX commercials state that their trains get 283 miles to a gallon of oil. Freight trains have always been an economical way to ship, but they no longer go everywhere. I like the intermodal concept, which puts the distance haul on the train, which off-loads at a station where trucks that the stuff to "local" destinations.

Used to be that way, only now we can and do load the truck trailers on the train (two high!). Done correctly this is a great savings in time and money.

Passenger service CAN be restored IF the citizens of the US don't require immediate delivery to their destinations. Getting out at a station (and they can be cleaned up) and taking a bus or taxi or (dare I say it?) walking could serve. Also, the passenger service can no longer stop at every small town, even on a "flag drop". True high-speed rail (a la the TGV) could move passengers in comfort from LA to NYC in a day or two IF it is recognized that these are truly express trains and they WILL leave on time whether or not you are aboard.

I once made the run from Chicago to Seattle on the Empire Builder. Wonderful trip...which took three days. We have to go back to looking at trains as ways of moving masses of freight and people around quickly and safely, but not, perhaps, through the most scenic regions.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:34 PM

Well, I'd guess that trains might be very efficient, but I can't imagine an entire train getting 283 miles per gallon. Maybe 283 miles per gallon per car or per ton?

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:37 PM

I just repeat what the ad says. I wonder too.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Joe Offer
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:39 PM

Found it. Here's the quote from CSX:

Everything about our operation is designed to reduce fuel consumption and improve the quality of our air. Steel wheels rolling on steel rails is the most efficient way yet devised to move goods from place to place. The fact is, our trains can move a ton of freight 423 miles on a single gallon of fuel. Can you beat that?

-Joe-

As I said in the Trainspotting thread yesterday, it sure is nice to sit in my yard and drink a beer and watch the trains go by on the First Transcontinental Railroad.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 09:40 PM

Gee Joe, that's EXACTLY what I was just going to post!

Even at 423 miles per gallon per ton it's still pretty efficient.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Ebbie
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 11:47 PM

"Amtrac has a basic fare rate to which they add the cost of a roomette or whatever they're called, and food which we are told is not the greatest." JohnSC

In recent years I have traveled coast to coast and north to south on Amtrak, plus travelled from Toronto to Prince Rupert on Canada's west coast.

I had a (mostly) great time. My main complaint was that I wished the trains would stop for the night so one didn't miss so much spectacular scenery; travelling by night is kind of like flying from airport to airport and considering one has travelled around the world.(On the other hand, I feel the same way about ships and ferries.)

Whenever and wherever I could I took a stateroom. Since all food is included it would be hard to figure that it costs a lot more than sitting up in coach and paying for your own (junk) food. The food in the dining room is tasty and the meals are well balanced.

In addition, wherever there is a stop at a hub, you are entitled to rest in a 'first class' lounge where you not only have free coffee and munchies but they see to it that you don't miss your train.

There is one serious problem in US current train travel: not only are the tracks owned by the freight lines but they are old and rough. Their negotiated agreement stipulates that the freights take precedence, so you find that you spend a good deal of time on a side track waiting for the freight to arrive and to pass. This happens frequently and the later you become the more frequent the stops become.

And the tracks are so rough that you can get seriously thrown around, even off your feet. The worst that I found were the tracks between Portland and Chicago; tracks between Los Angelos and Chicago were much better; tracks were rough between Salem, Oregon and Santa Ana, California.

The Canadian tracks are in much better shape, but the trains appear to be older and less well heated.

One little journey that I have alerted friends and family to is the day run between Seattle and Salem, Oregon. You can easily travel both ways in the course of one day and you travel through towns, forests and fields and farms. That is my favorite thing about trains: they don't follow the highways.

By the way, the Amtrak fare between Seattle and Portland, Oregon, if you are a "senior", is $23.00.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 19 Feb 09 - 11:58 PM

Ebbie, I'm sure short run trains are fine. I used to take the train from San Diego to Los Angeles several times a year. My comments were directed to overnight or several days trips which we were considering.

While I don't remember the details, on trips we considered, one got to its destination about midnight (maybe 11:30); another arrived about 5 or 6 in the morning..not exactly hours one would wish to be at the station.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Phot
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 02:55 AM

I'd love to take the train more often, but here in the UK we have the highest ticket prices in Europe, and possibly the world! For example, Huntingdon to London, which is about 50 miles, £42 or $67!!

I think the intermodal concept is great, but isn't that what British Rail (And the big four) used to do back in the 50s and 60s?

Joe, if I bring the beer and BBQ, can I watch a few trains go past?

Wassail!! Chris

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Sandra in Sydney
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 04:32 AM

Australian trains have been run down, too, another Government service that doesn't make money. Commuter trains are ok (tho listening to passengers re. late running etc, ya wouldn't believe it!) & we still have interstate trains, but many/most country lines have been replaced with coaches as they are uneconomic. Money rules, OK!

Freight left the railways years ago (sweeping generalisation cos freight is still sent by rail) but lots of big trucks clog up suburban streets & interurban roads carrying other stuff that could go by rail, or stuff that could make more, or even all of it's journey by train.

Until 3 years ago I took the train from Sydney to Canberra (3-4 hours) each Easter for the National Folk Festival. Book a month ahead & price is about half ($42 both ways instead of one way) but I stopped when the discount was removed. I can get a bus for between $15 & 20 one way. Suburban rail fares have just risen again & I assume country fares have followed.   

sandra

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Newport Boy
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 04:39 AM

Intermodal transport in UK was good in the 1950s. When I first went from Newport, South Wales to college in London, I had lodgings in South Woodford (NE London).

Travelling by train, I could send advance luggage at a very low rate. My cabin trunk was collected by GWR horse and cart from home, taken to Newport Station. Then by main line rail to London, through London overnight to Stratford and delivered to South Woodford by carter's van.

Phil

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 07:23 AM

I saw the new Steam Engine 60163, now formerly named Tornado by Prince Charles, last Saturday at South Croydon - a truly amazing sight. Looking forward to a daylight viewing in order to get a good photo.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 10:56 AM

Moving long distance freight to railways does not reduce the number of trucks on the roads.

You still need road capacity to move the goods from point of production/storage to the rail freight terminal at point of departure.

At the other end of the journey you still need the road capacity to move the goods from the rail freight terminal to final destination.

The above involves six handling operations, whereas at present using long distance haulage there are only two.

Using rail you require one fleet of trucks at one end and a similar fleet of trucks at the other.

As most if not all freight would be containerised you would require specialised equipment to handle the freight in the freight terminals, which means more machinery running than exists at present.

The way we live our lives means that the set-up has passed the railroads, mostly built in the 19th century, by - The same thing happened to the canals when the railways were built.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: topical tom
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 11:21 AM

When in high school a couple of my friends and i used to go to the station to watch the steam trains come and go(believe it or not!).As a young lad I would resolve to keep my ears unplugged as the train pulled into the station, but never could I do so.The shunting, the hissing of the steam and the roaring thunder of the wheels and rollers were too much for me.When young I travelled a lot by train.My mother would repeatedly warn me not to put my head out the window as I would get a cinder in my eye.Of course, several times I did and it was no fun.I remember how the cars used to creak as the train rolled along.The coal smell I remember still.Memories of a bygone era.I just wish for more trains and fewer trucks on the road.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: AllisonA(Animaterra)
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 12:33 PM

I'm looking forward to my ride on the California Zephyr in April- Chicago to SF!
I have a feeling we'll be seeing upgrades to passenger rail service in the US in the near future...

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Ebbie
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 12:43 PM

"While I don't remember the details, on trips we considered, one got to its destination about midnight (maybe 11:30); another arrived about 5 or 6 in the morning..not exactly hours one would wish to be at the station." JSC

Keep in mind, John, that since the trains usually run late, middle of the night scheduling is rarely a problem. :)

The only time it was a problem for me was while crossing to Canada. We couldn't stay in the station because it was closing for the night but there was no public transport to Windsor where I would catch my next train.

I took a taxi- Three miles. Forty three dollars, but a great driver. The train station in Windsor was also not open but the driver scouted around and found a Tim Horton's where I drank coffee for several hours.

The first time I took a long trip - except for when I was a kid - was from Salem, Oregon through Portland to Chicago to Washington DC to North Carolina where I stayed for a month then to New Orleans to Los Angeles back to Salem, Oregon.

The next year I went by ferry from Juneau to Prince Rupert to Prince George to Jasper to Vancouver BC to San Diego, California where I stayed for 10 days then to Los Angeles to Chicago to Detroit to Windsor to Toronto to Jasper to Prince Rupert.

Wonderful trips, both of them. (Except for when we ran out of food and water and the toilets didn't work for a few hundred miles between New Orleans and Palm Springs, CA. Were bussed to Martinez where we caught the northbound train. :)

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 12:48 PM

No, Teribus.

Rail lines can be run directly to, and even into, factories and the cars loaded there. This was how it was done in the past, at least in the US. Many factory complexes here have rail lines in them and it would not take much to make them operable again (some still are).

ANY manufactured product requires handling, whether it's loaded into a truck trailer and the trailer loaded onto a train or if the truck trailer is loaded the then hooked onto a truck and driven away. The question is one of money: at what haulage distance is it more economical to ship by train rather than truck?

As for special handling equipment, it is very much like that at docksides today. Container ships come and go from ports around the world, loading shipping containers directly onto freight trains at the dock.

Factory to train to dock to ship to dock to train to truck to store. That's a minimum of eight handlings, not six. If the container goes to a warehouse and is them distributed even more handling is involved -- and that's before it's stocked on the store shelves. Shipping companies -- truck, railroad, ship, air freight -- are equipped to move containers.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Teribus
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 01:46 PM

With regard to railways Rapaire, while all that infrstructure may exist in the USA it does not in the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 01:52 PM

The stimulus package will improve a few roadbeds and signals, but no high-speed rail is envisioned.
Japan, China, France and Germany have a high-speed line, and are planning more (at least they were before the downturn). There is little interest in North America.

Railroads in Europe carry much freight, but truck haulage is extremely important there as well. Both are necessary.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: CarolC
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 01:57 PM

Our neighborhood used to have a train track running right down the middle of the main street that went to a plant that made boxes at the far end of the neighborhood. That's the only place the track went, and trains used to come through the neighborhood regularly. The plant is gone now, and so are those particular tracks.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 02:42 PM

"Should have been done" is a phrase we're going to be hearing a lot more of, I think.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: RangerSteve
Date: 20 Feb 09 - 09:05 PM

Back when kids were easier to amuse, I used to love sitting at a RR crossing reading the names of the different railroads on the freight cars. These days, they're all labeled "Conrail". It's just no fun anymore.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 11:02 AM

You should sit around the yards here. Lots of UP, of course, but many, many others: ARMN, CSPX, BNSF, Southern...lots of 'em.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 11:17 AM

Teribus, distances in Britain are picayune compared to the distances here. Lands' End to John O'Groats is bout 840 miles, east-west across is about 300 miles.

It's about 250 miles one way to the state capitol here; east to west Idaho is about 800 miles across the wide, or southern, part. The nearest largish bookstore is 50 miles north; to go there and back is a 100 mile trip (I shop online a lot, or when I'm visiting someplace).

In 2001, according to US government figures, freight railroads moved more than 1.5 trillion ton-miles in the US. Cargo included coal, food, lumber, automobiles, and chemicals.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 11:26 AM

Thanks to Dr Beeching the UK now has such a poor infrastructure of lines, that it is virtually impossibe to use the train for other than main line travel. Which as Phot said, is ridiculously expensive.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: GUEST,PeterC
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 06:19 PM

Walk on fares in the UK may be high but with advance booking they are pretty reasonable. At £67.50 first class from Aberdeen to London last December driving simply wasn't an option.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 09:00 PM

"It's about 250 miles one way to the state capitol here; east to west Idaho is about 800 miles across the wide, or southern, part." Rap

Huh?

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 09:13 PM

Idaho is actually BIGGER than Juneau, you know, Ebbie.

Well, maybe it's only 305 miles (491 km) wide and 479 miles (771 km) long. That's straight-line distance though, not road miles. Trying to get from the Nevada border to the Canadian border along the west edge of the state is a journey of...well, it's pretty much "you can't get there from here," although the scenery is pretty darned good.

Approximate road distance from Driggs, Idaho (very close to the Wyoming border) to the Oregon border: about 408 miles.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 09 - 09:46 PM

A 305 mile distance becoming an 800 mile drive? I gather that it must do a lot of switchbacks. I've lived on a lot of curvy roads but I never have seen one that more than doubles its distance.

If you said that your town is about 800 miles from the Pacific Coast, I'd let it slide. :)

And,Ha! I say. Idaho is bigger than Juneau,? Are you heavily into apples or into oranges?

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: bald headed step child
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 02:11 AM

423 ton/miles per gallon is a load of crap. 350 maybe.

I haul freight in a truck at between 240-275 ton/miles per gallon.

Hauling freight by train in todays economy is not as much of an option as you might think.

Chicago to LA on a train takes about 7 days on a train, while it takes 3 on a slow truck, 24 hours on a team driven truck.

While the train may use a little less fuel for the main part of the haul, it still requires a truck to get it to the train and a truck to get it to it's destination. This has to be added on to the total cost.

I also doubt many people would want to eat produce that has been on a train for a week.

While on the surface it may look like trains would be a better idea, in reality it is more efficient for most of the freight on trucks to stay on trucks.

Large shipments from one location to one location are more efficient on trains, but smaller loads are not.

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 02:08 PM

Granted, pdq. I was talking of long-haul freighting. I will also point out that reefer cars, like reefer trucks, make a lot of difference in "freshness."

I am NOT talking about the superiority of one over the other, but saying that in combination they can work wonders.

Another freight-moving method overlooked here (because it's not part of the topic) is moving materials by barge. Again, it can be part of a general transportation scheme.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: pdq
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 02:17 PM

Er, Rapper, I have not posted to this thread...until now...

BTW, the post by Animaterra about the California Zephyr has a link that is worth checking out. A history lesson and a train trip combined.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 02:46 PM

Looking at cost- CA Zephyr, Emeryville-Chicago (bus from SF included):
$290 for two, plus $262 for roomette or plus $750 for a bedroom (if I did this right).

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: ced2
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 03:01 PM

Much as I love old steam trains and old coaches I am well aware that compared to modern trains they were pretty dangerous places to be if there was an accident. Telescoping, not staying upright etc lead to some awful fatilities. And as for shunting wagons in yards, accidents were commonplace. For those who may be intersted Tom Rolt's book "Red for Danger" or a book on railway accidents by the highly knowledgeable and respected OS Nock remove the rose tint from UK spectacles.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 03:08 PM

Car rental from Chicago, about $900/month for Ford Focus (Hertz). My preference because one could follow parts of old Route 66, make stops in western scenic and historical spots. April good because the big tourist season hasn't started.

(Not knocking the train travel, which would be relaxing, if roomette or better is affordable, but I love to dawdle and stop when I please).

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 04:54 PM

"Chicago to LA on a train takes about 7 days on a train" BHSC

Hmmm. As I recall, it took me TWO days by Amtrak.

As for sending goods by rail, perishable items might not be feasible but in Juneau, Alaska many things are barged up from Seattle- and it can take as much as 8 days in rough conditions. More commonly it takes 4 days.

Many, many things one buys in stores are not perishable or date-sensitive.

Three of my nephews are long-haul truckers; two of them own their own rigs. They all, not unnaturally, feel the same as BHSC. But a good case can be made for short run trucking - for one thing, it's a lot easier on relationships (one of my nephews is on his third marriage, another on his second. The third one's wife travels with him most of the time).

If a trucker made pick up and deliver runs to and from freight lines that took no more than 8 hours and was home every night, it's got to be better than being gone 4 1/2 days and gone again in 1 1/2.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 05:32 PM

Sorry, pdq. It wasn't you, that was my error. I meant BHSC.

I don't think there is one single, simple solution to this or to almost anything else, in spite of what our leaders (on all sides) would want us to believe (and we wish were true).

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: olddude
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 06:49 PM

Ever see the movie with Robert Redford called the Natural
or John Candy's Trains planes and automobiles. It was filmed right up the road. There is a steam engine that runs in the summer for a short couple of miles through the hills trip. I took my kids every summer on it when they were little. Stopped for Ice cream, then turned around and came back. Just the smell and the roll of the wheels. just love it. I grew up in PA right next to the tracks. The freight trains would just ease by with a soothing click click. Love the things .. I wish ...

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Bobert
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 07:02 PM

I'm with you, olddude... Our railroads have been allowed to go to pot... Our tracks are noy up to snuff... We need to do alot more...

BTW, I could do a 2 hour blues set with every song having references to trains...

I love 'um...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 08:32 PM

Or "Throw Mama From The Train" or "Cat Ballou" or "The Great Train Robbery" or....

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: olddude
Date: 22 Feb 09 - 09:12 PM

Bobert
it was 2 miles to town and when we were kids my cousins and I would hop a box car ride it to town and get a bottle of soda or some candy. they would roll by so slow ... we would have been in so much trouble if we were caught but it was so darn fun ...

I guess i was a hobo before I knew what that was

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 09:44 AM

My family took several vacations by train when my son was young.

The cost is roughly comparable to air fare. If you watch for bargains, as we do, either one might be cheaper.

Compared to air travel, trains have a much more liberal policy regarding baggage. We took several boxes of camping equipment: clothes, tent, thick sleeping bags, camp stove, cooking paraphernalia (and not the ultra-compact backpacking variety), a cooler—all at no extra charge over the ticket price.

There is no limit on carry-ons. You'd never have a problem bringing a musical instrument onto a train—although, if you didn't check it, you'd probably have to keep your eye on it. There is no security to go through.

We were allowed to leave our car in the Amtrak parking lot for the entire two weeks we were gone, at no charge. That would cost a fortune at the airport. It saves cab fare to and from the station.

Trains are much easier on kids than travel by car. Kids hate being confined in a car seat for long periods—wouldn't you? On a train, they can wander around, explore, meet other kids, make friends, share toys. Sometimes they have movies for kids in the lounge car. Adults benefit from the opportunity to move around, too, but it's especially important for kids.

You can't drink and drive, but you can certainly ride a train and drink.

For long-distance travel, trains are much faster than cars, mainly because the train keeps going nearly 24 hours a day. Driving, you have to stop to sleep and for meals, gas, and bathroom breaks.

Kids have no trouble sleeping on trains. It can be tough on adults. Sleeping on a train is similar to sleeping on a plane or an intercity bus (coach), but train seats have much more leg room. If the train isn't too crowded, you can sometimes get a double seat to yourself.

I have never felt tempted to rent a "roomette." They're probably comfortable, but they're expensive, and they limit your view: You can only see out of one side of the train. Sure, you don't have to stay in your room, but you don't have a reserved seat anywhere but in your room. Trains are sometimes crowded, especially during the height of the tourist season, and around major holidays.

For me, the greatest pleasure of a train is watching the scenery go by. I even enjoy seeing the industrial "backside" of cities, which is more visible from trains than from cars. The graffiti is sometimes amazing.

Kids have no interest in scenery. They've got to have "hands-on" activities to keep from getting bored. Keep that in mind, whatever kind of vacation you're planning.

If you're planning a long train trip, June is ideal. Longer day = more scenery.

Trains can be VERY late, sometimes several hours late, on a long route.

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: bald headed step child
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 11:07 AM

Ebbie, my post was in reference to hauling freight Chicago to LA, and my figures are right. BNSF express freight to LA takes 7 days from shipper to receiver.

I know to the uninitiated it would seem like non perishable items are not time sensitive, but everything in trucking these days is.

In the late 80's and early 90's businesses started going to JIT(just in time) freight. They do this so they don't have to maintain inventories of products. They try to time things so the truck gets there with the new ingredients just as they are running out of the last batch.

One place I delivered to several years ago ordered a truckload of ingredient when they get to the last pallet in their warehouse. The only problem is that pallet only lasts them 4 days, and the new truckload had to go from LA to Minneapolis in January. If the truck don't show the whole plant shuts down.

Not a good way to run a business IMO, but it has become the industry standard.

Trucking companies and carrier organisations have been trying to get it changed, but thanks to Reagan's deregulation of the industry, any govt entity that had some control over such things no longer exist.

By the way, I just went thru my 4th divorce. It ain't a very good way to make a living for humans, but hell, we're just truck drivers.

There have been some companies trying to do some restructuring like you suggested, but a trip from San Diego to Maine is around 3800 miles and would therefore require at least 5 trucks over the road and 1 local truck on each end. That comes to about $800,000 in equipment plus drivers, plus terminal facilities for each leg of the trip.
Roadway, Yellow and ABF work this way on less than truckload stuff, but they are going broke doing it.

Some of the larger truckload carriers were trying it, but they have recently cancelled regional runs due to the cost.

Companies that order product by the trainload, or even 1 boxcar load save money by shipping by rail, but everything else has to go by truck.

BTW, a recent study showed ton/mile per gallon efficiency for shipment methods. River barges are the most efficient, followed by rail quite a ways back, with trucks a close third.

The study didn't include the trucks required to get from the barge or train to final destination though.

The other two work great if you live on the side of the track or river but otherwise, "if you got it, a truck brought it".

BHSC

Subject: RE: BS: The forgotten workhorse the TRAIN
From: GUEST,Jim Martin
Date: 23 Feb 09 - 09:15 PM

Before Dr. Beeching in the UK, there used to be public sidings at nearly every station on the network + numerous private sidings serving factories, warehouses. docks etc. The Port of London Authority had its own very extensive network which was made redundant by container ships being accommodated further down the Thames at Tilbury, Felixstowe, Harwich causing resultant congestion on many roads although some of the traffic goes by rail!