Passenger Trains > Southwest Chief Trip Report

Decided to take my first overnight train trip in the U.S. My 7 year old son Nathan and I took the Southwest Chief from L.A. to Chicago a couple weeks ago (8/17/14 to 8/19/14). I was very interested in what the experience would be, having read stories here on TO spanning the entire spectrum of ecstasy to abject despair in terms of train travel. For us, it was just the experience of riding the train across the country that was the attraction, but I was rather curious as to why anyone else would take the train. I should add that the Amtrak display at the National Train Day event earlier this year did much to boost my interest in this trip.

We got to L.A. Union Station (LAUPT) a few hours early. Maybe we were too early, because there were no Red Caps in front of the building to handle our luggage as I assumed there would be. Instead, we wheeled in and a Red Cap approached us just past waiting room, and she loaded our bags in a cart and whisked us to the Metropolitan First Class lounge. Lounge was nice and relaxing, with no worries about a homeless guy stealing your drink (that’s happened to me). The Red Cap told me she would be back to take us to train, so I told her I would take care of her then (a mistake on my part, I realized). My great grandfather was a Red Cap in Los Angeles (and a chef on a Southern Pacific VP’s PV before LAUS was even built) so I have a certain ingrained fondness for them, I suppose.

When the train was ready we were picked up at the lounge by (of course) a different Red Cap. We were taken to tracks and dropped approximately where our car should end up. We waited for the train to come down, then I saw the Red Cap from before and waved her over. I took care of her then and felt much better, and so did she I imagine.

The train was then seen backing down towards us with the train crew in the vestibule waving to my son. Once parked, we found our car. Sleeping car attendant “Jay” was at the door to greet us. He looked at my son and said, “Are you Nathan?” which impressed him quite a bit. He got us on board. (I knew I could keep my large bags in the luggage rack, so that’s what I did).

Nathan didn’t like the Superliner bedroom...he “loved” it. I quite liked it myself, but as expected the toilet/shower quarters were rather tight. I’ve made phone calls in more spacious booths. But it was better than having to share. We did notice that the walls were rather “thin” in the sleeping car (we were in a “D” room) and the guy in “E” I think stayed in there the entire trip, having his meals delivered and everything.

We made our reservation that night for dinner at 8. I was hoping there would be at least a smidgen of light going through Cajon Pass, but it was pretty much dark as we dined our way up the hill. The dining car was interesting to me since it was a forced mingling with other people. Since we were a party of 2, We always had at least one other person in the booth with us. It was a good opportunity to learn why people were on the train instead of flying or bus (!) or what have you.

The meals during our trip were decent but not gourmet. Still, when I considered I was in a train it was pretty good food. Over the course of the trip I tried the Amtrak steak (not bad, a bit better than Sizzler, but not worth paying $25 if you don’t have the included meals); the baked chicken (too dry for me); the Amtrak bacon burger (good); the breaded chicken sandwich (good, but not as good as the burger); bacon and eggs (about what you would expect, grits were good). The cheesecake dessert was best, with the chocolate cake being too dry for me. Nathan had vanilla ice cream, but only after he finished his hot dog.

The dining car service was pleasant and attentive. A couple of mistakes were made here and there. At one point a retired couple was sitting across from us and the wife ordered the veggie burger. I ordered the bacon cheeseburger. When our meals arrived I began to apply my chosen condiments while she began to dig in. Her husband asked how the veggie burger was and she said it was surprisingly good. She was also surprised they put bacon on it though...of course at that point we realized that I got her veggie burger, so the waiter gave me a salad to chew on while they made another “real” burger. Actually kind of funny.

One thing is that green beans were served with EVERYTHING. I started to realize that the crops we were passing that I could not identify must have been green beans, and the crew must have harvested them while we were being held on a siding. I could have sworn we were stopped in corn fields too at some point, but never saw them on the table (maybe it was the grits?). They could have offered some mixed veggies or different selections, I think.

We tried out the observation lounge as we hustled through New Mexico. It was pretty packed. Did not make it down to the snack cafe, despite the tantalizing announcements from Glen touting the happy hour menu and such. I liked the panoramic vistas afforded by all the windows, but the kid did not appreciate being in close proximity to strangers so we returned to our room. It was at least as comfortable in there for us. Also, we could listen to the scanner, which was a really handy thing to have. We knew just what was going on outside, why we were stopped or slowing down, etc. Also, the train crews all sounded very professional. It was reassuring as we sped along, and I started to think how precarious rail travel seemed, with these steel wheels pounding across rails, frogs, switches, diamonds, crossings, etc. and never putting a flange wrong. Amazing that such old school technology still works today. New school tech worked too, since I had a cell phone signal for almost the entire route. Pretty amazing, but I kind of wish I was not able to get on the internet at times. Maybe when I take my tramp steamer trip across the Pacific someday...

Sleeping and using the bedroom was not too terrible. I am a big guy, and the lower berth gave me plenty of room to stretch out. I thought the thin mattress would be a problem but I had no aches or pains after the trip. this was despite the rough nature of the track east of Barstow that night, which was able to wake me up a few times (but just for a little while). We had to scoot across the lower berth to get to the sink, but we did not need the sink much at night. The first night we had the drapes closed tight and a night light on for the kid. A faucet knob wanted to turn into a dinner bell, but the tissue box wedged onto it silenced it. The second night we sped through Kansas in the rain. Nathan wanted to watch the tracks go by so we left the drapes open all night. This was much more interesting to me. I woke up on occasion, and watched the lightning sparkle in the distance as we passed giant grain silos lit by mercury vapor flood lights, hearing the incessant but distant train horn ahead of us. I guess Kansas is so flat that all crossings are grade crossings. I was told it was merciful that the schedule had us go through Kansas at night. We did get to Topeka late, so it was daylight by then, which seemed odd to me since we had been early to Albuquerque (but had been late to Flagstaff).

Our sleeping car attendant, Jay, was very personable and attentive. He was always cheerful and upbeat and was a pleasure to chat with. I had been concerned prior to the trip that the level of service varied widely and that we might get saddled with a surly SCA. But Jay was an outstanding representative of the company and really took care of us. In fact, I didn’t really have any negative experiences with the crew. I did catch a couple of conversations between employees that had an undercurrent of dissatisfaction, but I think this could be present in just about any large company. That never bled through directly to the customers, even when some dining car patrons seemed to be unreasonably rigid.

We were chatting with Jay in Albuquerque and he said that he was hoping the train would be on time to Chicago because he was going to take in his first Cubs game at Wrigley Field. I thought about him as we started losing time after that. At one point I asked him if he would make the game, and he thought he’d get there at the 1st inning. We took a few more “hits” ourselves, and ultimately arrived almost 3 hours behind. Jay was bummed that he had jinxed his trip by talking about being on time. Probably for the best, as I later learned the rain interrupted the game in the 4th inning and the ground crew fouled the tarp deployment, soaking the field and ending the game.

During the trip I discovered there were a variety of reasons for train travel. Some people (like us) just liked trains. A couple of couples had a wife that was afraid to fly so their husbands just humored them in taking the long way. Some were going to cities or towns served directly by trains but not by planes, so it just made sense. The coach travelers seemed to have paid a fairly low price for the trip, competitive price wise with flying. I found it far more relaxing than flying. I used to love flying before 9/11. Even as I got taller and airplane legroom got smaller I liked to fly. Now it just seems that the airlines just gouge you for everything. Baggage fee, no more free food, pay extra for legroom, take your belt and shoes off, put your hands up, provided an outline of your body to the secretive and surly TSA, no liquids, and on and on. The train, you just get on and go to your accommodations. Relax, look out the window, learn that there are other American ways of life that you aren't exposed to at 35,000 feet, or even on television.

That said, we had to fly home from our final destination in Cincinnati (I rented a car from Chicago to Cincinnati). We did not have the time to take the train both ways, so there is also that calculation in determining travel modes, of course. Amazing how fast air travel is despite the other inconveniences. Still, I came onto this trip with mixed sensibilities. I love trains, but I am one of those who is troubled by Amtrak being subsidized with tax dollars and unable to stand on its own. The logical part of me says that passenger rail service should face the same market forces as any other business. The emotional part of me wants train travel to always be an option. After meeting the other passengers and seeing how a number of them validate rail travel, this trip tilted the scale a bit more to the emotional side of wanting to keep trains around for a while. Nathan is already asking about the next trip and so am I.

Andre

PS My trip was made better by all the information found here, so my thanks to those who post these things (including LDT arrival times to Chicago). I had decided not to try to catch the Cardinal to Cincinnati since there was only a 2 hour layover and it arrives in Cincinnati at 3 AM. Not great. Turned out that when we ran late the Cardinal passengers were taken off at Galesburg and bused to Indiana to catch the train. I would have hated that.

A few photos attached just to document the trip.
Photo 1: The first class lounge at L.A. Union Station
Photo 2: Refueling stop at Albuquerque
Photo 3: New Mexico scenery from our window

---

---

---

Photo 4: Crossing the Missouri River
Photo 5: Arriving in Chicago
Photo 6: Chicago Union Station hall. Some sort of event to feed starving kids was being held. No green beans in sight, though.

---

---

---

Good story. I enjoyed it all.


Thank you!


Chris

Great report! Thank you for taking the time to give such a detailed report, with photos! I took the SW Chief with my 2 kids (we had a family bedroom) almost 20 years ago.

Carl Graves, Lawrence, KS

Thank you for an enjoyable and well written report. Had one question regarding your feelings about federal support of Amtrak. You wrote:

"I love trains, but I am one of those who is troubled by Amtrak being subsidized with tax dollars and unable to stand on its own. The logical part of me says that passenger rail service should face the same market forces as any other business."

Given that the airlines are propped up by massive federal subsidies themselves (FAA, ATC, TSA, EAS, military training of pilots/mechanics/etc., massive airport infrastructure beyond what pax fees cover, see http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html), do you apply the same standard to them? Are you troubled by airlines' significant dependency on the federal support that makes their viability possible? The same questions can be asked for bus companies that rely upon our interstate system and other federally supported infrastructure for their very ability to turn a wheel.

Just trying to discern whether your comments suggest you support this double standard whereby we "invest" in airlines and interstates while we "subsidize" Amtrak.

Image 3, I'm guessing Canyoncito. Classic shot of a youngster getting indocrinated, if you know what I mean!

mp51w Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Image 3, I'm guessing Canyoncito. Classic shot of
> a youngster getting indocrinated, if you know what
> I mean!

It's actually just east of Canyoncito, making the final grade up to Glorieta.

ColdRainAndSnow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you for an enjoyable and well written
> report. Had one question regarding your feelings
> about federal support of Amtrak. You wrote:
>
> "I love trains, but I am one of those who is
> troubled by Amtrak being subsidized with tax
> dollars and unable to stand on its own. The
> logical part of me says that passenger rail
> service should face the same market forces as any
> other business."
>
> Given that the airlines are propped up by massive
> federal subsidies themselves (FAA, ATC, TSA, EAS,
> military training of pilots/mechanics/etc.,
> massive airport infrastructure beyond what pax
> fees cover, see
> http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001001.html),
> do you apply the same standard to them? Are you
> troubled by airlines' significant dependency on
> the federal support that makes their viability
> possible? The same questions can be asked for bus
> companies that rely upon our interstate system and
> other federally supported infrastructure for their
> very ability to turn a wheel.
>
> Just trying to discern whether your comments
> suggest you support this double standard whereby
> we "invest" in airlines and interstates while we
> "subsidize" Amtrak.

I am not sure it is a double standard, but I do admit I am conflicted on this issue. Some "stream of consciousness" thoughts for debate: As far as air travel, those govt. agencies you mention are impositions on airlines as opposed to subsidies of them. We could fly without the TSA, for instance, but there would be danger in doing so. In the interest of the safety of the flying (and non flying) public these agencies have been put into place. Air travel existed before most of these agencies, and they could exist without it. A lot of the cost of an airline ticket are fees supposedly designed to pay for these agencies by those actually using the airline service. In contrast, Amtrak exists only because federal tax dollars keep it in business. I think we all agree that without those tax dollars the cost of a ticket would be beyond what passengers would be willing to pay and Amtrak would cease to exist. Let's just say (for the sake of example) that a coach passenger ticket on an LDT went from the subsidized cost of $200 one way to the true cost (non-subsidized) of say $1000 (a wild guess) then would there be passengers willing to pay? Is it fair to take $800 from a Taxpayer A to help Person B get from one place to another? That is an issue for me.

In air travel, there is competition among the various carriers. They compete on price and service, etc. I think this helps the passenger experience. With Amtrak, there is no competition for rail travel. This results in a certain amount of indifference in service. Sometimes it is a surly attendant (though we saw none of that, we've all heard of it) and sometimes it is an inability to keep a schedule. The schedule issue is sometimes Amtrak's fault (equipment issues, etc.) and sometimes not. But since Amtrak does not own their own tracks in most places, they are dependent on perhaps uninterested parties to get places on time.

I read your link on subsidies, but I don't buy a lot of it. For instance, military training that someone gets (a necessary function of the Federal govt.) that is parlayed into the private sector is simply a normal consequence of the existence of the military. Plenty of companies make money from military contracts, but no one would say they are subsidized. So if Boeing learns how to make good passenger planes as a consequence of building military planes, that is great for them and us. But it is not a subsidy of air travel.

The interstate system is arguably for the military (kind of a thin stretch by Eisenhower, but whatever), but there is no one in this country that does not benefit from it. Had it not been built by the Fed govt. there still would have been state highways, and the residents of the states would create the demand for good roads, and would pay for them by taxes and bonds that they agree on in one way or another, or pay through gas tax. So in that way I don't think highways would be considered a subsidy, but a necessary and agreed upon piece of infrastructure. But, unfortunately, very few people benefit from Amtrak, and as we know, without direct federal subsidization there would be no long distance trains. There is certainly a romantic (emotional) attraction to train travel, and my recent experience goes to that, but it has only slightly softened my position on the "artificial" existence of Amtrak.

Finally, I am aware that there have been some strides in keeping Amtrak propped up in a way that someone like me could tolerate. Some shorter routes are profitable. LDTs losing money would have to be subsidized by the states through which the routes run, which is better than taking federal dollars for it. States may someday be willing to do other improvements not currently provided for in the federal budget. If these attempts fail, I ask myself what would happen if LDTs ceased to exist? Some people would travel less or face more difficulty getting around. People would have to take buses, drive, or fly, or not go. On the other hand, we would not be confiscating the earnings of all citizens to fund the travel preferences of a few of us. I would be sad to see it go, but sometimes that is a consequence of societal evolution. I think a reasonable compromise is out there, at least I hope so. I want to take another ride.

Andre

Come visit sometime Tower A Union Terminal. noon to 4, wed thru Sunday. M weber

I disagree with your views on transportation subsidies and statement about airline competition. All modes of passenger transportation and most modes of freight transportation receive public funding from local, state and federal sources above and beyond revenues generated from users. Although airlines do compete with each other in some markets, the quality of service has declined while costs have risen in the past 10 - 15 years.

Other than that, your report was well-written. I also really like your third photo - worthy of Image Of The Day, in my opinion. I also think your photo from the train as it approaches Chicago Union Station is really dramatic.

Glad your experience was positive.

I also heartily second cutboy's invitation to visit Tower A in Cincinnati Union Terminal. I was there two years ago. It was a great experience.

Heymon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am not sure it is a double standard, but I do
> admit I am conflicted on this issue. Some "stream
> of consciousness" thoughts for debate: As far as
> air travel, those govt. agencies you mention are
> impositions on airlines as opposed to subsidies of
> them. We could fly without the TSA, for instance,
> but there would be danger in doing so. In the
> interest of the safety of the flying (and non
> flying) public these agencies have been put into
> place. Air travel existed before most of these
> agencies, and they could exist without it. A lot
> of the cost of an airline ticket are fees
> supposedly designed to pay for these agencies by
> those actually using the airline service. In
> contrast, Amtrak exists only because federal tax
> dollars keep it in business. I think we all agree
> that without those tax dollars the cost of a
> ticket would be beyond what passengers would be
> willing to pay and Amtrak would cease to exist.
> Let's just say (for the sake of example) that a
> coach passenger ticket on an LDT went from the
> subsidized cost of $200 one way to the true cost
> (non-subsidized) of say $1000 (a wild guess) then
> would there be passengers willing to pay? Is it
> fair to take $800 from a Taxpayer A to help Person
> B get from one place to another? That is an issue
> for me.

Since 2012, the portion of the FAA's budget that is covered by user fees has ranged from 69-80 percent. The remainder is covered by taxpayers - to the tune of billions of dollars over just the past few years. Commercial aviation cannot exist without FAA responsibilities such as Air Traffic Control which consumes a large part of their budget. There's no question that Taxpayer A is paying for the air travel preferences of Taxpayer B. If airlines had to pay for 100% of their true costs, their balance sheets would look VERY different. And more often than not, there would not even be a balance sheet to speak of as they'd be 6 feet under. Similar your point, air tickets would be wildly more expensive if airlines had to fully pay their own way. They do not. Amtrak gets singled out because of ideological agendas. Not because it is the only form of transportation that receives federal funding.


>With Amtrak, there is no competition
> for rail travel. This results in a certain amount
> of indifference in service. Sometimes it is a
> surly attendant (though we saw none of that, we've
> all heard of it)

Cannot argue with you here. I travel Amtrak throughout the year and continue to be concerned about its inconsistency. And AmManagement's seeming inability to do something meaningful about it.

>
> I read your link on subsidies, but I don't buy a
> lot of it.

That's OK. You're entitled to follow whatever narrative you've developed to explain away the presence of airline subsidies while lamenting federal support of Amtrak. I don't buy for a second that other forms of transportation such as airlines aren't propped up by major taxpayer support. Not given the mountain of available evidence pointing to the contrary. Just follow the money in the FAA's budget for starters. Or the massive bailout of the Highway Trust Fund that is currently being deliberated in Congress.

The rest of your articulate response is heavily underwritten by subjectivity, conjecture, and opinion. All totally welcome and appropriate for expressing on TO. But not particularly persuasive in explaining away the double standard that singles out Amtrak and casts a hypocritically blind eye to the massive subsidies propping up other transportation systems in the US.

cutboy2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Come visit sometime Tower A Union Terminal. noon
> to 4, wed thru Sunday. M weber

You mean this place? I thought this was an outstanding facility for a rail club, great staff on hand too! Bought a bunch of stuff in there, also. The entire CUT was very well done and surprisingly broad in terms of offerings. I recommend it to everyone.

Andre

---

---

---

ColdRainAndSnow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> That's OK. You're entitled to follow whatever
> narrative you've developed to explain away the
> presence of airline subsidies while lamenting
> federal support of Amtrak. I don't buy for a
> second that other forms of transportation such as
> airlines aren't propped up by major taxpayer
> support. Not given the mountain of available
> evidence pointing to the contrary. Just follow the
> money in the FAA's budget for starters. Or the
> massive bailout of the Highway Trust Fund that is
> currently being deliberated in Congress.
>
> The rest of your articulate response is heavily
> underwritten by subjectivity, conjecture, and
> opinion. All totally welcome and appropriate for
> expressing on TO. But not particularly persuasive
> in explaining away the double standard that
> singles out Amtrak and casts a hypocritically
> blind eye to the massive subsidies propping up
> other transportation systems in the US.

I appreciate the debate. I am not saying that there are no other subsidies. I am saying that there is probably more justification for the other transportation subsidies than there is for Amtrak, especially LDTs. Also, I think that user fees supporting 80% of the FAA are more or less reasonable, if the other 20% is general fund tax dollars. I think all people benefit from air travel even if some people never fly a mile in their lives. That cannot be said for Amtrak. Amtrak is 1% of travel usage. To those 1% it is an important option, but for the vast majority of people trains don't even come up in a discussion as to how to get somewhere. Is the tax subsidy Amtrak gets commensurate with its usage? To me it is not. Maybe you could give me the argument that it is.

That said, I do see some efforts to transfer the costs to those who stand to benefit more from rail, and I am enthused by those efforts. For instance, states are having to pony up if they want to keep routes in their area. I am more okay with states using their own funds for this than the general federal tax dollars. I'll keep my fingers crossed that this somehow saves Amtrak and the train option. I worry that because Amtrak is govt. run it is less likely to succeed. What was the thing on their hamburgers costing $16 while they charge $9 for it or some such nonsense? That kind of thing worries me.

One thing I'd add on the aviation thing, which was the subsidization of air service to small towns. It seems that is a politically driven thing. I am against those kinds of subsidies too. Who knows, if they got rid of that then maybe they'd have to bring a train through the town to facilitate travel (assuming some rails exist to use). I saw more than one instance of people using the train to get to smaller towns, so it could be a win-win.

Please don't paint me as an Amtrak hater, I'm not that. I want it to do well and be a net benefit, if possible. I do have an overarching concern for reducing govt. waste, because I see how much money is taken away from me every year and bristle that it is wasted in many ways.

Andre

It is interesting to see how hard we work to justify and/or minimize subsidies for purposes other than AMTRAK with the suggestion that there is some special benefit that we all gain from them while, on the other hand, AMTRAK subsidies serve no useful purpose. There are farm subsidies, oil company subsidies, transportation subsidies (other than AMTRAK), subsidies to foreign countries (foreign aid), and so on. In all, tens (hundreds?) of billions of dollars are involved each year. Of course, justification is claimed for all of these subsidies, and it is pointed out the we all benefit. And, there are no names attached. We don't see Cargill, or Shell, or American Airlines, or J. B. Hunt associated with the funding bills. Then there is, of course AMTRAK. In this immense pile of subsidy money the AMTRAK subsidy becomes a speck you could be hard pressed to find were it not wrapped and tied with a large bow reading AMTRAK - what a convenient target.

As to value, I suppose that is depends on your situation. There are people in the rural areas of this country who do depend on long distance trains. I depend on them as I have reason not to fly. When it comes to places such as the Northeast Corridor the benefits become more obvious, but so does the need for subsidy far greater than now available to upgrade the physical plant.

I question the value of subsidies in general, but within the vast field of subsidized industry and foreign governments, I think the investment in AMTRAK stacks up pretty well. And, when it comes to AMTRAK quality of service compared to that of the airlines, I have only to listen to the complaints from friends each time they return from a flight to any destination on any airline.

Heymon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I love trains, but I am one of those who is troubled
> by Amtrak being subsidized with tax dollars and unable
> to stand on its own.

I certainly wouldn't lose sleep over it or allow it to aggravate my peptic ulcer if I were you. When you consider that our tax dollars are now being ridiculously wasted on things like (1.) college tuition for illegal aliens (remember -- people who, from a legal standpoint, shouldn't be here); (2.) the financing of smart phones for under-privileged people in our inner-cities; (3.) "essential" air service to McCook, NE; (4.) simultaneous government aid to cancer research labs and tobacco farmers; (5.) U.S.-made MRAPs, Humvees and shoulder-fired missiles that are now in the hands of ISIS terrorists in Iraq; (6.) Pork-barrel airports lying within the districts of influential politicians;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvzNj0Vobss

. . . when you consider all this and remember that this list is by no means all-inclusive, I think you'll agree with me that, in comparison, taxpayer money being spent on Amtrak is, quite likely, one of the wisest expenditures of such government funds.

> The logical part of me says that passenger rail
> service should face the same market forces as any
> other business.

Does that mean that Amtrak should be placed in the same league as GM and a variety of banks and savings and loans that have required massive government bail-outs because they've been categorized as "too big to fail"?

This is nothing new. Remember when Lockheed Aircraft deliberately placed an unrealistic low bid to win the contract in building the C-5A Galaxy aircraft, knowing full-well that the Government would bail them out after construction started?

I'm sure you're aware of the sweet-heart deals that Wal-Mart is notorious in negotiating with local governments wherein they don't have to pay property taxes for X number of years in exchange for building the store.

Are these some of the "free market forces" that you're referring to?

> The emotional part of me wants train travel to always
> be an option. After meeting the other passengers and
> seeing how a number of them validate rail travel, this
> trip tilted the scale a bit more to the emotional side
> of wanting to keep trains around for a while.

I think that's a very good thing. It illustrates that you're considering the "big picture" and the "greater good" rather than the myopic viewpoint that a lot of people these days unfortunately seem to have that, "if something requires a taxpayer subsidy, and if I don't use it, then it has no right to exist." A good example of this type of thinking is my mother and step-father who live in northern San Diego County. They consider the Oceanside-Escondido SPRINTER a taxpayer-subsidized "boondoggle", primarily because they, themselves, never have a need to use it. On the other hand, they fly quite frequently so taxpayer subsidies to airlines (see the YouTube video link above) are somehow more acceptable and considered "okay." It's a blatant double-standard that has, unfortunately, permeated through several layers of our society and, like you, they will fish around for all sorts of justifications and excuses for explaining that double-standard once they're challenged on it.

I guess my mom and step-dad also feel that Interstate 90 across North Dakota is a taxpayer-subsidized "boondoggle" as well, because they never have a reason to use it.

> Nathan is already asking about the next trip and so am I.

I predict that, on his next train ride, Nathan won't be obsessing about whether or not the train is operating at a profit. You could learn a lot from your son. Enjoy the ride. If you want to worry about something, worry about those Government studies on the migration patterns of the desert tortoise and whether or not that's a wise expenditure of taxpayer dollars.

NOTE: If the YouTube link above is not "hot linked", you'll have to cut and paste it to your web browser.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/31/14 12:39 by CA_Sou_MA_Agent.

Let's not forget about the other great Federal freebie, Corps of Engineers (COE) navigable waterways. The locks on the river systems are free passage to tug operators, as are the Great Lake locks. I watched a lake freighter lock through Sault Stainte-Marie, MI and the official on duty told me it was a free ride to the next lake. The COE built a new lock on the Kanawha River in West Virginia 10 years ago that cost a BILLION dollars. I NEVER complain about AMTRAK funding as I might actually use it. No interest on my part in paddling through a river lock.

Its cheaper to transload bulk cargo from rail to barge than take it as little as 300 miles, if the receiver can take barges.

It pisses me off to no end when Amtrak rents out the CUS Great Hall and is happy to stuff everyone into their concourse lounges, with standees. Amtrak is in the passenger railroad business, not the catering and entertainment business.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It pisses me off to no end when Amtrak rents out
> the CUS Great Hall and is happy to stuff everyone
> into their concourse lounges, with standees.
> Amtrak is in the passenger railroad business, not
> the catering and entertainment business.

On those occasions when I've seen the Great Hall open to passengers, it hasn't been all that crowded. A lot of the benches have been removed. Most of the people waiting for trains are hanging around at the food vendors or staying in the Metropolitan Lounge. The Great Hall is very under-utilized.

joemvcnj Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It pisses me off to no end when Amtrak rents out
> the CUS Great Hall and is happy to stuff everyone
> into their concourse lounges, with standees.
> Amtrak is in the passenger railroad business, not
> the catering and entertainment business.

The Chicago Union Station company provides catering services:

http://www.chicagounionstation.com/

Amtrak is certainly in the entertainment business. I've enjoyed countless hours enjoying the magnificent landscapes and fascinating city scenes from the windows of Amtrak cars, shamelessly flirting with attractive women (in my younger years, of course) in coach or lounge cars or admiring the architecture of some magnificent stations. I also get a kick out of listening to Amtrak GE locomotives chug away from a station stop. Yes, Amtrak has certainly entertained me over the years. However, your results may vary.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 09/01/14 04:42 by RuleG.

Great report, but the thing I should say is if our government in DC ever wakes up and smells the coffee, it'll be just like what you guys said and on Jay? I know him personally, he's one of the best Sleeping Car Attendants I know and I never see him when he comes in on No. 3 have a bad day, he's always cheerful!