US train prices are ridiculous

[Pekka]

the alternative is dear god man? Who is he? Is that Kim Il Yong, did he rise from the dead and become God?

[Zkribbler]

Last fall I was pricing the cost of how much it would take the train up to Oregon to see Lancer. For a sleeping compartment, it was about as much as a luxury cruise. --Only there was no luxury, and there was no cruise.

When Amtrack was formed in the 70's, it was supposed to be self-sufficient within 3 years. Three decades later, and it's still losing money. Time to kill it.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Arrian
Subsidies?

I was sure I replied to this

The rail company (state monopoly) is subsidized, but the TGV lines like the Paris-Nantes are profitable. It's the small provincial lines that lose money.

The reason why TGV lines are profitable is because the service is good, fast, reliable, and reasonably cheap and hassle-free. Unless you're travelling with your family, there's little point of taking the car when travelling between two major French cities.

And unless you're doing one of the few long-distance travels within the country (Paris-Toulouse or Paris-Nice, basically), there is also little point in taking the plane.

[VetLegion]

I'm barging into this thread just to stomp on the communist nonsense about profitable passanger trains. There never were and never will be

Maybe if oil goes to $200 and trains in the developed world become packed like those in India.

In the meantime, you can't simply look at one side of the business. Sure, the ticket selling part of the company is making money by trading pieces of paper for cash. But if the state is paying for new track construction AND R&D, like it is with TGV, how can you call the entire operation profitable? You can't. It isn't.

I'd prefer it the other ways around, but it is how it is.

[DanS]

Trains at least partially offset the capital costs by a rise in the property value in the area served. I certainly wouldn't rule out the possibility that passenger rail is a profitable proposition for the community overall at certain development densities. You also have positive network effects that accrue to property values, if you have a well-developed network.

We see this in Washington, where the property values within walking distance of a metrorail (subway) station get a ~ 20% property value boost, even though we have a very well developed highway network otherwise. Part of that boost seems to be due to the fact that metrorail hooks into Amtrak at Union Station, which is one end-point for the very viable Washington-NYC-Boston line (the "Northeast Corridor").

Adam Smith has a much better understanding of these dynamics.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by DanS
... the very viable Washington-NYC-Boston line (the "Northeast Corridor").

True, that is one of Amtrak's few profitable lines.

[Drake Tungsten]

Trains at least partially offset the capital costs by a rise in the property value in the area served.

That's very true.

True, that is one of Amtrak's few profitable lines.

There's a reason for that. The Northeast Corridor is one of the few places in America where a passenger railway actually makes sense.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by VetLegion
I'm barging into this thread just to stomp on the communist nonsense about profitable passanger trains. There never were and never will be

Maybe if oil goes to $200 and trains in the developed world become packed like those in India.

In the meantime, you can't simply look at one side of the business. Sure, the ticket selling part of the company is making money by trading pieces of paper for cash. But if the state is paying for new track construction AND R&D, like it is with TGV, how can you call the entire operation profitable? You can't. It isn't.

I'd prefer it the other ways around, but it is how it is.

You are more than 90% correct in recent times. In the past there were fewer good alternatives and rail was more profitable because of this.

[:) Smiley]

Amtrak California is pretty nice though due to the generous state subsidies in additional to the federal subsidies. Only $55 from San Francisco to San Diego (almost 500 miles) and everyone gets at least 4 seats and a table.

[Zkribbler]

But that probably took all day, right?
My aborted trip from L.A. to Oregon would have taken around 30 hours IIRC.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Smiley
Amtrak California is pretty nice though due to the generous state subsidies in additional to the federal subsidies. Only $55 from San Francisco to San Diego (almost 500 miles) and everyone gets at least 4 seats and a table.

The prices are good but since Amtrak doesn't do express trains taking the train takes forever. The train literally stops in EVERY SINGLE LITTLE TOWN! The Japanese and Europeans run express trains which only stop at major cities and then have commuter trains take you from the major stations to the minor ones. That's a much better system.

[atomant]

in oz, albury melbourne (300km) is AUD 60 or about circa USD40.

[TCO]

take the bus.

[:) Smiley]

Originally posted by Zkribbler
But that probably took all day, right?
My aborted trip from L.A. to Oregon would have taken around 30 hours IIRC.

It would have taken all day, had I taken the day train. But I took the night train.

Stops were every 1/2 hour for the most part. Some of those "stops" were no more than a concrete pad and about ten parking spaces. The weirdest people take the night train in the Central Valley. There was this Mormon who had two wives, both pregnant, there was a neo-nazi, wearing a home-made (black marker scribbled) white pride shirt - despite that most people on the train weren't white - who got off at every stop to smoke, and that's just from one car (each of which had about 10 people in it).

[MarkG]

Originally posted by TCO
take the bus.

we established the existance of this possibility on page 1. thank you for your contribution