First, you "may or may not" be able to review this subscription material appearing Saturday in the Wall Street Journal, but their former reporter Daniel Machalaba, has freelanced a 'very positive' piece suggesting to the Journal's readers that they might consider "trying it out'.
Coach travel is not even "on the page", save a quick mention to the effect of "don't even think of it":
There is also much interesting multimedia material at the website; if applicable, this could make for a worthwhile "thanks boss" moment.
However, there is one caveat which will be my "brief passage' submission:
If you're going to go any distance on a train, you want to take a starter—I call it a break-in trip," says Russ Rylko, 61, president of the Mystic Valley Railway Society in Hyde Park, Mass. The group sets up rail journeys and has at times flown home people who found a rail trip too difficult................Train travel isn't for everyone. Many people don't want to be on a train for days when they can fly somewhere in a few hours. Sleeping-car rooms are cramped, and showers aren't available in most rooms. Passengers can be kept awake by unfamiliar sounds—the whoosh of air when a train enters a tunnel, or the horn of a passing train
Posted by Tanner929 (Member # 3720) on :
Very nice article. I have talked to so many people who would love to use the trains more but they often will offer excuses of the limited time they have kids etc...Another point many Baby boomers who are retiring seem to be a market Amtrak thinks will be good because they have more leisure time. But I'm thinking, Many of these people saw the decline of rail service and may pine more for the days when air travel was "glamourous." think with Amtrak's budget constraints the service will always be limited. Any thoughts?
Posted by Henry Kisor (Member # 4776) on :
Lovely piece, and lovely multimedia material, too.
As a pre-boomer who recalls travel by DC-3 just after World War II and riding aboard the Phoebe Snow, Broadway Limited and California Zephyr before 1960, I know how much things have changed.
And how much has stayed the same. Enough has so that I still very much enjoy travel by train.
Posted by Gilbert B Norman (Member # 1541) on :
Assuming that Messrs. Kisor and Tanner are not Journal site subscribers, I'm pleased to learn that Prince Rupert now makes "feature" material available as free content.
The Bancrofts always "held the line" (other than during brief promotion periods).
Posted by sojourner (Member # 3134) on :
Very enjoyable article. I agree the Adirondack is a great train, esp when the Dome Car is on. I would love to take the Ocean some time too.
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
Well, I don't want to rain too much on anybody's parade here, but I'm a boomer who remembers train travel *before* Amtrak, and Amtrak doesn't come out very well in the comparison.
I love trains, and I do ride Amtrak from time to time, but I'm very cautious in recommending it to any non-railfans. I generally recommend a trip on VIA Rail (especially the Canadian), or the Rocky Mountaineer. The only LD trips on Amtrak I would recommend (with reservations) are the California Zephyr (great scenery, poor amenities) and the Coast Starlight (which, when the Pacific Parlour Car is running, gets almost as good as a pre-Amtrak first-tier train).
Of course short distance trips are another thing altogether, and I use the NEC trains all the time. But if it's a "rail cruise" you're looking for, Amtrak isn't the place to look.
Posted by dns8560 (Member # 15184) on :
Once I was riding a long distance train and all of the sudden, a bolt shot down from the heavens, and SHAZAM! I experienced total enlightenment! Suddenly all of creation was child's play, and I understood everything!
Posted by dilly (Member # 1427) on :
Many decades have passed since I took my first overnight train journey on the New York Central. But I've never lost my love for traveling by rail.
Unfortunately, while I appreciate the tone of the WSJ article (thanks for posting it, Mr. Norman), the writer's choice of interviewees -- everyone clocks in at a "seasoned" 62+ -- simply perpetuates the idea that rail travel is only suitable for geezers who apparently have nothing better to do, and all the time in the world in which to do it.
A much more evocative (and far more skillfully written) piece appeared in the New York Times several years ago. You'll find it here: