Amtrak caters to their long distance customers by offering the services that my Grandma was used to train travel didn't have competition by the airlines. Back then customers had to use the train as their home away from home on the tracks and demanded those comforts. Trains back then had the marketshare of travlers too because the highways were not built yet, and air travel was in it's infancy.

Amtrak is catering to those who would like the train to be a vacation in and of itself. Not that that's bad, but these days, it's not the money maker they could have. The current way of operation is desirable to those who are nearing or approaching retirement age, and those who are single with no attachments.

However, to the the Generation X-ers and younger Baby Boomers, Amtrak actually makes it very difficult for us to use their services and forces us to use the airlines.

People like me would like Amtrak to cater more to the people that need to get from point A to point B for the purpose of getting from point A to point B. For us, beautiful scenery is not a big enough carrot at the end of the stick to ride the train.

To be more enticing to my generation, Amtrak needs to send the trains out earlier so that the bulk of the arrivals hit the metro areas during the day time. Sending the trains out of Chicago in the morning so that we can catch our trains when it's convenient, and get to our destinations when it's convenient is what we need. Especially for those of us heading west. It means giving more service, convenience, and comfort to the coach passengers, than the sleeper customers. I'm sorry sleepers. But more people can afford coach, so why not entice more to come?

The type of customer who would be more likely to ride, if it were made convenient would be your coach-type customer. That's because my generation is still busy building our wealth, not spending the wealth we have built.

We are looking for an economical, convenient, and comfortable way to get from point A to point B. Scenery and delicious meals are not on our minds. We are looking for a safe and less expensive alternative to flying.

Unfortunately, until the Baby Boomers get to the age where they will be spending more of their wealth and looking for leisurely travel, which will happen in a approximately five years, Amtrak will keep struggling unless they change their paradigm and start catering to the needs of the young baby boomers and the children of the older baby boomers. We take up a huge demographic of the population and Amtrak is not seeking us out. After the Baby Boomers retire and travel more, I don't think Amtrak will be struggling as much because the demographic they cater too will be larger in population.

Here's an example of what your young adult to middle aged person with a family would go through if he or she were to take their family on a vacation using Amtrak instead of flying. As most of you know I'm planning a trip to California. I would like to go on the California Zephyr. I'd like to go to Utah on the way, visit my Grandma in Helper, then take the train to Salt Lake City to visit my aunt and uncle. Then I'd like to continue onto the San Joaquins and go down to Anaheim to visit my in-laws.

To do this, I have to meet the train late at night in Omaha, then get off the train in the dark in Helper with no transportation to Grandma's house because her car doesn't fit my family and there are no rental car places nearby. Then in Salt Lake City I have to get off the train close to midnight again, and try to find transportation close in the worst neighborhood in Salt Lake City, which is near the biggest drug dealing haven in the Wasatch Front.

If I were to continue on the Zephyr and down California on the San Joaquins, my transfer in Bakersfield is also late at night and we arrive in Los Angeles in the middle of the night. Then we arrive in Anaheim still too early to get the services we need to make our family comfortable, a rental car, a room to stay in, and a hot meal.

So many times on this trip, I have to wake my children up in the middle of their sleep, in not-so-safe locations and wait for trains that may or may not be on time.

In addition, we are paying over $4000 to move this group of ours if we go sleeper, with the accompanying bloodshot eyes and crabby kids from being woken up over and over again.

"Don't take the train", someone might say to me. "If your into convenience then don't take the train."

Well, we aren't. We've decided to fly. It will cost us $2000 instead of $4000 and we'll be rested up when we get there. And....Amtrak lost eight lifetime customers.

Amtrak are you listening? Do you think I am caring about the scenery at in the Rockies at this point?

Even if we go Southwest Chief we have to meet the train close to midnight, but at least the arrival times into LA are better, but there goes visiting Grandma in Utah.

I have six kids. If Amtrak would listen to families like me, that's six kids that would be potential customers when they grow up. Time and time again I read this quote, "I went on the train when I was a kid and was hooked."

I think Amtrak would be able to get "back on track" (pun intended) if they looked at the younger customer base and learned what their needs were. I would definitely use the train over flying, and so many of my friends would prefer to also, if the costs were kept below the airlines, and if I could hop on the train in Kansas City during the day, be guaranteed of three decent meals, not extravagant, just healthy and reasonably priced without having to wait for the first class patrons to eat first, and without having to eat what's left after they get through.

Maybe Amtrak needs two businesses running on the long distance lines. A smaller train for those who ride the trains for first class accomodations. And a large line that caters to those who are willing to put up with less luxury in order to have a safe, convenient, and economical way to get from one point to another. A lot of people are tired of the airlines, having to have luggage x-rayed, their blaming fat people for their budget woes, cutting out meals altogether, and privacy violations. If Amtrak could provide a convenient alternative what they have now, they would see their ridership increase significantly. At least, I think so. because that's what the needs require for me and many of my generation.

Hope not to have offended anyone, but I think we need to get these issues out. Writing to the government is something we can do, but I don't think it's the answer unless we know what the real issues are.

Maybe President Bush is squeezing Amtrak so they'll look elsewhere for help by listening to their customer base better.

Thanks for reading this long post.

Debbie

However, that all requires money, or a stable, long-term funding source (e.g. a "Trust Fund"), neither of which Amtrak has ever had. I guess here is where i step in and again encourage folks to write their member of Congress, let them know that this is what a constituent wants, and encourage the full funding of passenger rail.

------------------
Over 20,000 miles aboard Amtrak trains.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iowamomofsix:

Maybe President Bush is squeezing Amtrak so they'll look elsewhere for help by listening to their customer base better.

Debbie

---

I don't know where else Amtrak - OR ANY OTHER FORM OF INTERCITY TRANSPORTATION - would look, since under the Constitution, it's the feds, not the states' responsibility to fund interstate transportation.

Certainly highways and air get their money thanks to Uncle Sam.

Trust me, Bush and his thick-headed ideologues aren't looking to improve Amtrak.

All they want to do is KILL and DESTROY Amtrak.

Regarding service, you get what you pay for.

If providing a transportation network costs say $100 and Congress and the WH only give it say, $5, and then give its competitors (air, highways) $1 BILLION - you're only going to have overnight service to many areas and only one train a day.

You can't run a rail system on peanuts. That's what this country has long been doing - Demo or Republican.

I hope, IowaMom Debbie, you will see fit to copy and paste your excellent work to the inquiry field at the "contact us" section of the Amtrak website. Somebody @ 60 Mass (shorthand for Amtrak HQ; 60 Massachuetts Ave; Washington DC) will have at least "scanned' it.

Unfortunately, likely the only region that both at present and in the future that could begin to meet your well-founded travel requirements is the existing Northeast Corridor between Boston and Washington. To offer services, both with regard to frequency, reliability (there has been many a snowstorm in the NE where the Corridor is the only commercial transportation running), and diversity (two distinct classes of services are offered and even a third - commuter agency trains - in some markets) would require nothing short of a "transportation policy and cultural revolution".

I take the train because I am unable to fly, because the price of a ticket is a fraction of the price of flying, because I can visit multiple locations on a single journey and because it is a pleasurable experience.

George Bush has allocated ZERO dollars for Amtrak in 2006. This means that the entire long-haul system will be shut down shortly, unless Congress comes to its aid (and this is by no means a given.)

This also means that your kids will never know the pleasure of travelling by train, all because its too much trouble for you to adapt to Amtrak's schedule.

Nobody is *forcing* you to take the damn airlines. That's your decision. If you really wanted to climb aboard, you could. But you don't want to, so don't take it out on Amtrak.

Amtrak runs its 30,000 mile network for less money than it takes for San Francisco to run its 97 mile Bay Area Rapid Transit system. And if you ever actually got on the train, I think you'd be amazed at what an outstanding job they do.

I know plenty of young people (and families) who travel by coach and love the experience. If train travel were any more popular than it is right now, there would not be enough seats to accommodate all the passengers.

Another harsh reality that I have had to come to terms with is the fact that many so-called young people are living their lives in a frantic rush. They have to be somewhere in an hour or two and they don't have the patience to just sit still and try to enjoy the scenery.

So go ahead, take the plane. That's your loss, not ours.

"Bush and his thick-headed ideologues..."

That's not calling the president names. It's an attack on his advisors and administration.

If you want to talk names, listen to some of the things the columnists, both left and right, and talk show hosts say about him and his immediate predecessor.

My words were rather tame compared to others.

Shall I edit that and call them narrow-minded ideologues?

An ideologue is someone that doggedly sticks to a position no matter how much the evidence or facts say otherwise.

They obviously don't read or learn from what others say - like Sen. McCain.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iowamomofsix:

Well, we aren't. We've decided to fly. It will cost us $2000 instead of $4000 and we'll be rested up when we get there. And....Amtrak lost eight lifetime customers.

---

Frankly, I don't think you can assume a long day of flying - which this trip will obviously require - will be any more restful.

I flew recently to NY. Had turbulent weather and I experienced harsh ear pain and a congested head. It was hard to hear others talk.

Flying 'taint no magic bullet. It has its drawbacks as well.

Should I talk about how hard it is to cross your legs? And how the flight attendents will get upset if your seat is like 1" extended? As if that's real reclining. Amtrak seats recline probably 10X more than any cramped airline seat.

Most people on the train don't want to see Nebraska during the daytime. They'd rather see the mountains and oceans at night.

Denver is much bigger than Salt Lake, so it needs better service hours by train. I agree, however, that the times should be improved at Salt Lake, a metro area that is rapidly expanding.

Your idea for a second train - one that serves each city at approximately 12 hours later - is great and wish we could have more service like that.

Unfortunately, our friends in the WHite House want to restrict American's freedom of movement and herd them all into cars or oversold airplanes.

Bush's all for putting every dime into rebulding Iraqi railroads but nothing for helping Americans have more transportation choices.

Call it name-calling or what you want, but that seems very narrow-minded and obviously works to discourage potential travelers from experiencing the enjoyment of train travel.

------------------

That is quite the ambitious train trip. I look at traveling as a combination of planes, trains, and automobiles. Preferably more trains and less planes. In your case, to cover that much ground and visit your family, flying is probably your best bet. Or driving and making a fun road trip out of it. I hate to see Amtrak lose 8 customers. More so, I'd hate to see 8 people avoid train travel.

Might I suggest looking at train travel in more of a regional approach? I live in St. Paul and have two options when it comes to Amtrak. I can go west or I can go east. West, it's a long ride to Seattle and Portland. I have driven that route several times. Anything east of Glacier I am not really interested in seeing again for a while. I can fly to Seattle in about 3 hours or take the train in about 45 hours. I use Amtrak as a midwest regional network. I take it east to Chicago, about 8 hours. From Chicago I have several day trip options between 1.5 to about 6 hours. Milwaukee, St. Louis, Kansas City, (still hoping for a train from St.Paul to Kansas City) Detroit, various Illinois cites. Other than Milwuakee and cities in Illinois, an overnight hotel stay is required before I can return to Chicago. In Detroit I can cross the border to Windsor and take VIA rail to Toronto and then on to Montreal.

The point I am trying to make is, you may have some shorter Amtrak trips that your family can enjoy. You live in Iowa and mentioned leaving out of Omaha. Omaha to Chicago is about 10 hours, a long day, but so much to do in Chicago. How long a drive to Kansas City. After spending some time in KC's Union Station you can take a train to another great city, St. Louis, then on to Chicago and back to Omaha.

Another option would be to take the overnight train from Omaha to Denver. Spend some time there (I think the ski train runs year round) and then fly from Denver to Salt Lake City. Then fly back to Denver and take the train back to Omaha.

quote:

---

Originally posted by iowamomofsix:
People like me would like Amtrak to cater more to the people that need to get from point A to point B for the purpose of getting from point A to point B. ... We are looking for an economical, convenient, and comfortable way to get from point A to point B. ... We are looking for a safe and less expensive alternative to flying.

---

I have to agree with iowamomofsix. I can sense her frustration and empathize with her having to factor costs, A/D times, transfer logistics in unknown areas sleeper/coach, meals, etc in deciding how to transport a family across country for a vacation. I'm not thrilled either about some A/D times, having to meet a train in the wee early mornings, praying that it's on time and that your wife and children are going to be safe at some inner city location.

Comparing the pros/cons versus flying and driving, Amtrak does have some upside (and also downside).

Amtrak does need to expand their customer base by learning what the needs are and offering service to meet them.

Let's face it. Amtrak is a government operated business trying to operate on rail lines that are owned by corporations. Since they're "borrowing" the rails they don't have much say in how those rails are being used. Not a winning proposition.

Mr. Norman, thank you for the advice to write Amtrak. I did, and their reply was very unsatisfactory. They said, "we're sorry you are unsatisfied with Amtrak. We try to listen our customers and have already made the adjustments needed." Blah, blah, blah.

Oh, well. I wrote them again and asked them to reread the letter and send it up to the big guys. This was via e-mail but I think I'll send a hard copy snail mail.

I was always taught if you want to make a difference write letters. Everytime I do I realize my little self is trying to fight a leviathan or buck a system well-entrenched. So like you say. Everyone write your letters.

Anyway, this has been an education.

Hey, Chucky, I have always appreciated your help and comments these past few days. And as to my comments about Baby Boomers we can't forget the very long range of years their generation covers. My husband is just little older than I am but he was born in the Baby Boomer era. The younger end of that range has more children and less money. The older range has more money and will, in fact, be retiring soon. More time for travel, and enjoying the views. If Amtrak can hang on for another five years, then some of their problems should iron out when they get a larger customer base.

And, also, I know that children ride the trains. But I also prefaced my comments with my inexperience. There are a lot of families that still shy away because of the incovenience.

To HeartlandExpress, thanks for the suggestion of regional approach. We love Chicago, but hate driving there. This trip is one we will definitely plan for the future.

Everyone have a nice day and thanks for helping me to learn more about Amtrak travel. As for my trip, you all really helped me to make smart plans. Granted we're flying, but I think we avoided a lot of distress for us and other passengers.

Best wishes to you all and have a great day.

Debbie

If your children are half as polite as you, I'm sure they would have caused us no distress. I'm sorry if I seemed a bit exasperated in a recent reply and I sincerely regret that you have changed your plans.

Amtrak is by no means perfect and if you read some of my writings about train travel, you will probably see a love/hate relationship I have with riding the rails. Unfortunately, I can't just hop on a plane, so I am terrified about the prospects of losing Amtrak.

I don't think that "customer base" will make a bit of difference when it comes to Amtrak's survival. As I have said before, if Amtrak had any more customers, it probably would not be able to accommodate them. Amtrak does not have to go begging for customers. Most trains are generally sold out on the day of departure and they are really struggling just to put a train together these days.

I'm 48 years old and I have no money to speak of. I also have no children and cannot even imagine the difficulties you go through just to get from point A to point B.

The point I am trying to make is that I don't think train travel will make your life any more complicated than it already is. It might just make your life a little bit more pleasant.

You won't know for sure unless you try it and the way things are going, you may not be able to try it at all.

Yes, sleeping cars are more expensive than coach, but then you get a higher level of service and your meals are "on the house."

with airlines, you very often get max price and min service. My sister flew to San Francisco and on a 4-5 hour flight got a bag of peanuts and a drink????

Also, if you have to change your intinerary and you are on a super-saver fare, the price will zooom up to a rate that will make an economy roomette on Amtrak look pretty cheap!

Plus, if I want to look at a roadmap, I can buy a Raod Atlas for cheaper than flying!

I like Mr Bush in spite of his stance on Amtrak, but I wish he could see the advantages, rather than the costs!

Cheers,

Amtrak is partially at fault for not being agressive enough in its planning to attract more riders, but the real blame lies on Capitol Hill, which never expected much of Amtrak to begin with, so Amtrak never expected much of itself. On top of that you have trains running on overly congested freight lines, owned by companies that (usually) don't care about Amtrak (except for BNSF).

That said, however, I have found Amtrak quite useful for getting from Point A to Point B between certain city pairs. I use it to visit my mother now and then, traveling from Monterery/Salinas, CA to Salem, OR (which has no air service within 60 miles). It is a convenient overnight trip, cheaper than flying and faster than driving. It was also a great way to get to Denver for my niece's wedding a few years ago.

So don't give up on Amtrak. It is not practical for every trip, but it is practical for some trips, perhaps another trip in your future. Tell your Congresscritters what you just told us, and add your voice to the growing numbers of people who want something better. If you are willing to put a little money where your mouth is, join the National Association of Railroad Passengers at http://www.narprail.org and be part of the solution.

Case in point...During the gas crisis of 1979 Amtral lost: North Coast Hiawatha, Hilltopper (small loss), Floridian, Lone Star, A DAILY Cardinal, and a third FULL SERVICE train on the NYP-STP-MIA run.

Brock Adams and Alan Boyd were on an interview program and while Brock Adams was taking about all those empty trains, Alan Boyd basically said: "WHAT empty trains? Our trains are full!"

Some folks never get it. The politicos act like no one rides these long distance trains? Every time I ride them, they are full (or at least well-filled)

Cheers,

Some how I replied to you on my other topic, the one about the sleepers that you've been helping me with. But just wanted to say, I didn't get exasperated with your exasperation. You've been a great help. I learned a long time ago that it's harder to read a person's intent on the Internet than talking face to face. Thanks for the kind words, and once again you've got me reconsidering again.

The SWC is definitely the way to go for us if we were to go on the train from Iowa to LA. We can meet the train in Fort Madison at a pretty decent hour and get to LA at a decent hour. But that means not making the stop to my relatives in Utah. But, as I think all of this through, flying doesn't really satisfy things for me either. If the coastal routes were running as they were before the storms, I suppose things would be a little easier for me to manipulate, but with the bus transfers, it's just too much for my little people to handle. The coastal routes should be up and running by April, but I like to have things scheduled and firmed up in far in advance.

I guess I ought to think about a separate trip to Utah for later in the year. From here to Helper, the route is not too bad.

Thanks again. And the saga continues.....

Perfectly natural to be hot and cold when planning a big trip......particularly one where so much money is on the line.

In the other thread someone suggested rail one way and air the other. Maybe taking the train out and flying back via Salt Lake City would be a possibility. Southwest flies Southern Cal to Salt Lake to Omaha and they won't soak you buying one way flights.

I have some Guest Reward points begging to be spent and I've already used a couple of evenings in the recliner, computer in lap, and Amtrak timetable on the arm of the chair. Essentially I want to close the two or three remaining gaps that I have not ridden in the current Amtrak system and get two or three luxurious sleeper nights with the GR points. I'm trying to figure how I can best maximize my points, minimize the possibility of a missed connection (ie: NOT going to plan on connecting from the Sunset to the Coast Starlight in LA......) etc.

Write letters, plan well, and enjoy your trip regardless of how you make it.

Train to Salt Lake (Hertz services the Amtrak Station 24 hours). Plane to LA. Train back to Iowa. (You could either leave your car in Galesburg or change in Galesburg from the SWC to the westbound CZ.)

If checked baggage was not necessary, you could pick an Iowa town with more convenient times than Omaha, such as Osceola or Ottumwa.

You could also rent a car at Grand Junction (checked baggage) at convenient times and drive to Utah and back to GJ. The CZ is usually on time eastbound into Omaha, but late westbound. Coach might have been tolerable for this short a trip.

I really appreciate everyone's help.