It looks like Amtrak may be a goner. This is too bad, because I love trains and train travel. But if we can’t support it, we can’t have it. It shouldn’t be allowed to go on forever. I just hope we can figure out a way to someday have viable rail travel within the U.S.
Being the son of a railroader, I’ve had the very good fortune to take one of the most beautiful and scenic routes in the world – the California Zephyr – and, in particular, the stretch between Grand Junction and Denver.
The above picture is a pretty good representation of what the ride is like. The tracks wind through canyons, up colossal mountains and through some of the most spectacular of Rocky Mountain vistas. If Amtrak does go away soon, I feel bad for anyone who never got to take this ride, the unfortunate souls who never glided by bald eagles in the comfort of the Vista Dome, or passed through a mile-long tunnel while getting a cocktail in the bar car.
The motion of trains is more synonomous, at least for me, with travel than just about anything else. It’s a luxurious, comfortable and classy way to go. The ability to “stretch your legs” combined with social interaction and the decidedly non-cattle-like approach, in contrast to airline travel, is far superior if you have the time and patience and the luxury of taking a little time to arrive at your destination.
It never quite took off in America, but rail travel will persist and excell in other lands. So, until it comes back, I recommend that you go take a train before you lose your chance.
6 responses so far ↓
1 nic // Jun 10, 2002 at 1:35 pm
Ever since 9-11, it has been cheaper to take the Shuttle than the train to NYC from DC. That cannot have helped their bottom line. Although, NPR said that the Northeast corridor is Amtrak’s most lucrative region.Do y’all really think that the gov’t will let them go under? I thought that doomsday announcement last week sounded like the new head of Amtrak strong-arming Congress.
2 Scotty The Body // Jun 10, 2002 at 1:44 pm
Actually, I think they will be around for a while longer. But I do think that the long-haul and unprofitable routes will disappear a lot sooner than we think.
3 Elliott // Jun 11, 2002 at 4:50 pm
I took the Zephyr from start to fininsh last Winter. I think travelling by train is great, but it’s hard to come up with the time.Still, I am planning another train trip, to Portland, at the end of the summer.Really, it will be sad to see Amtrack go, especially the long-distance Western routes that are sure to be the first to go. If people don’t take the train, though, there is nothing you can do.Also, from my experience travelling by train, Amtrack seems to be an almost hopelessly confused organization. One with a split personality, too. In the West, the attendants are personable. Although the service can be disorganized, spirits are generally high and people seem to enjoy the ride. In the East, and I am talking specifically about the Lake Shore Limited from Chicago to Boston, the staff are almost without exception surly jerks with chips on their shoulders and a veneer of “yes ma’m” and “yessir” that is palpably rotting from within.My wife believes that the Federal Government should continue to subsidize rail travel. I think Amtrack should be shaken out, and if it crumbles, I hope for the best. I claim to speak for the free market, but she reminds me that the Feds shelled out a lot of cash to the poor, terrorist-attack-warning-ignoring airlines on the heels of last year’s skyjackings. Her point is well taken: air travel is a priority to the Federal Government, rail travel is not. This may be because air travel is a priority to most travellers.Should governments knuckle under to monied interests, though? There are good uses for trains.I understand that a sinister coalition of airlines and rental car companies blocked a rail line from Denver to Denver’s International Airport. Is this true? Wouldn’t this be a good place for a train?
4 nic // Jun 11, 2002 at 4:59 pm
We certainly have trains to our airports here in DC.
5 Scotty The Body // Jun 11, 2002 at 9:03 pm
It startles me how few cities do have trains to their airports. We have it in Atlanta, but many cities, including New York, Portland, San Francisco, Denver, Salt Lake, and basically just about every other city in the U.S. doesn’t have this basic element of classiness.Many are “in the works” though. I know PDX just opened their light rail service to the airport, or at least will shortly.I don’t doubt that about the Denver airport train being stopped by rental car companies and airlines. That whole fiasco was a shady deal, a gangster undertaking in its purest form. Everyone got screwed except Pena and his buddies who owned that prime Nebraska real estate that was good for absolutely nothing but hosting occasional tornados.
6 nic // Jun 12, 2002 at 9:23 am
Right now Denver has bigger problems, I think.
Leave a Comment