Passenger Trains > Coast Starlight article interesting, but flawed

Los Angeles Daily News has a positive, but somewhat inaccurate, feature story about travel aboard the Coast Starlight.
Freelance writer gushes over the first class Pacific Parlour cars, but never mentions the Superliner lounge for coach riders. And, really, three baggage cars on each train???

http://www.dailynews.com/lalife/ci_22246584/rolling-along-style-amtraks-coast-starlight-train

Softly written and really very good! Flaws are minor!

Minor flaws, or not, Amtrak needs more articles lilke this to reach the publlic. I've spent a lifetime in transportation, but I still come accross people all the time that 'didn't know you could take a train there'. Or 'never thought that it could be interesting and fun to take the train'. Like driving trucks, it's just something that 'other people do'. I would hope that Amtrak offers real good deals to travel writers and bloggers everywhere.

Ed

Not a bad article.

It's stretching it a bit on the "favorable to train side" when the writer says the CS can compete with air on comfort. Is it really more comfortable to be in an Amtrak coach seat for more than 30 hours compared with perhaps 5 hours total for a plane trip (including 2 hours on the plane), as would be the case for LAX-SEA? It would seem that the saved hours make up for a lot of comfort, and amount to comfort, themselves.

Well I just started to read it and it says "Every day at 10:10 a.m., Amtrak's Coast Starlight eases out of Los Angeles' Union Station". That is surely a flaw as the Starlight hasn't always left LA ontime. :) But it has been doing better lately...

Jake Miille
Chico, CA
Jake Miille Photography

Nice article.

I hope Amtrak encourages more writers to try the train and enjoy it. There's an art to encouraging writers to try something, enjoy it, and write about it.

Good job!

Amtrakdavis22 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well I just started to read it and it says "Every
> day at 10:10 a.m., Amtrak's Coast Starlight eases
> out of Los Angeles' Union Station". That is surely
> a flaw as the Starlight hasn't always left LA
> ontime. :) But it has been doing better lately...

Oh come on! What did you want the writer to say: "every day, except when it doesn't"? That's the kind of absurd pickiness that serves no purpose. And of course what the author meant is that the train runs every day, not that it leaves to the minute every day.

I agree with those that applaud the article. One of the reasons I continue to push to have a sleeper and coach available
for touring when and if we again have a NTD in Portland OR.....The vast majority of the public has no clue what a roomette,
sleeper or coach seat looks like........

And as a sometime writer, while I really appreciate folk who read my "stuff", I do get a bit perturbed when folk point out
my minor errors..... as they should lend a hand and do some writing themselves. Arlen

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not a bad article.
>
> It's stretching it a bit on the "favorable to
> train side" when the writer says the CS can
> compete with air on comfort. Is it really more
> comfortable to be in an Amtrak coach seat for more
> than 30 hours compared with perhaps 5 hours total
> for a plane trip (including 2 hours on the plane),
> as would be the case for LAX-SEA? It would seem
> that the saved hours make up for a lot of comfort,
> and amount to comfort, themselves.

A young wage slave pressed for time might think that way. When I took my dad aboard the California Zephyr for his first Amtrak trip (and his first trip to Colorado) few years ago, I insisted on taking the plane one way to save time, and he refused. He's retired, and has logged several hundred thousand miles under his belt flying internationally for business so he's not afraid of flying, but he insisted on taking the train both ways because airplanes are uncomfortable. Last I checked, no "middle seats" on the train, and no "can't wait in line for the restroom" security restrictions either.

I can take naps sitting on the non-reclining seats at exit rows, so I agree with you, because I sleep my time away on the airplane. But riding the train, even for 30+ hours is far more enjoyable.

cchan006 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> reindeerflame Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not a bad article.
> >
> > It's stretching it a bit on the "favorable to
> > train side" when the writer says the CS can
> > compete with air on comfort. Is it really more
> > comfortable to be in an Amtrak coach seat for
> more
> > than 30 hours compared with perhaps 5 hours
> total
> > for a plane trip (including 2 hours on the
> plane),
> > as would be the case for LAX-SEA? It would
> seem
> > that the saved hours make up for a lot of
> comfort,
> > and amount to comfort, themselves.
>
> A young wage slave pressed for time might think
> that way. When I took my dad aboard the California
> Zephyr for his first Amtrak trip (and his first
> trip to Colorado) few years ago, I insisted on
> taking the plane one way to save time, and he
> refused. He's retired, and has logged several
> hundred thousand miles under his belt flying
> internationally for business so he's not afraid of
> flying, but he insisted on taking the train both
> ways because airplanes are uncomfortable. Last I
> checked, no "middle seats" on the train, and no
> "can't wait in line for the restroom" security
> restrictions either.
>
> I can take naps sitting on the non-reclining seats
> at exit rows, so I agree with you, because I sleep
> my time away on the airplane. But riding the
> train, even for 30+ hours is far more enjoyable.


Agreed. But by that framework, sleeping in your bed at home might be more comfortable than either flying or taking the train, but when you wake up you're still at home, so the comparison needs to make some sense. The average person doesn't have the time, or doesn't value scenery or doesn't think that "getting there is half the fun". These days, they just want to get there...quickly.

reindeerflame Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> cchan006 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > reindeerflame Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Not a bad article.
> > >
> > > It's stretching it a bit on the "favorable to
> > > train side" when the writer says the CS can
> > > compete with air on comfort. Is it really
> more
> > > comfortable to be in an Amtrak coach seat for
> > more
> > > than 30 hours compared with perhaps 5 hours
> > total
> > > for a plane trip (including 2 hours on the
> > plane),
> > > as would be the case for LAX-SEA? It would
> > seem
> > > that the saved hours make up for a lot of
> > comfort,
> > > and amount to comfort, themselves.
> >
> > A young wage slave pressed for time might think
> > that way. When I took my dad aboard the
> California
> > Zephyr for his first Amtrak trip (and his first
> > trip to Colorado) few years ago, I insisted on
> > taking the plane one way to save time, and he
> > refused. He's retired, and has logged several
> > hundred thousand miles under his belt flying
> > internationally for business so he's not afraid
> of
> > flying, but he insisted on taking the train
> both
> > ways because airplanes are uncomfortable. Last
> I
> > checked, no "middle seats" on the train, and no
> > "can't wait in line for the restroom" security
> > restrictions either.
> >
> > I can take naps sitting on the non-reclining
> seats
> > at exit rows, so I agree with you, because I
> sleep
> > my time away on the airplane. But riding the
> > train, even for 30+ hours is far more
> enjoyable.
>
>
> Agreed. But by that framework, sleeping in your
> bed at home might be more comfortable than either
> flying or taking the train, but when you wake up
> you're still at home, so the comparison needs to
> make some sense. The average person doesn't have
> the time, or doesn't value scenery or doesn't
> think that "getting there is half the fun". These
> days, they just want to get there...quickly.
Flame, Yes, you do state the feelings of many people correctly, we could call them the "flyover crowd". However, there are many others who like the experience of train travel, for many reasons, too. And, never forget that one's personal reason has to be a good one for his/herself only. There is no need to justify one's reasons to others, nor is there any cause to ask others to accept your reasoning. To each his own, etc. If we had an actual rail travel network in the US, the numbers would vastly higher than those of our present skeletal system. AA

Stanford White
Carmel Valley, CA

Having done the CS in both coach and sleeper class, sleeper class is definatly muich more comfortable + meals are included in the Parlor Car...

Scenery...??? It depends where you are...airline travel offers a view not possible from the ground and I'm always fascinated...urban and suburban rr corridors rarely offer ANY pleasing visuals...

That said, I've not flown in commercial aircraft in several decades, and rarely pass up a chance to ride on steel rails: I'd rather be in a train with engine failure than in an aircraft with engine failure...