TORONTO — VIA Rail Canada’s Canadian is notorious for delays. But a trip this week from Toronto to Vancouver is proving to be spectacularly late, even by VIA standards.
The CBC reports that as of Thursday afternoon, the westbound Canadian was some 45 hours behind schedule, after leaving Toronto 26 hours late. While VIA has apologized to the passengers, it also said it will not be offering any compensation for those whose plans are disrupted by the schedule. Out-of-town passengers were provided hotel rooms and meals for the day-long delay in departure.
“We understand the impact this major delay has on our customers and we apologize for the inconvenience they cause,” said spokesperson Mylène Bélanger, in an emailed statement to the CBC. She also noted, “These delays are beyond our control.”
At the time of VIA’s statement on Thursday afternoon, the CBC said, the train was near Valemount, British Columbia. It should have been there on Tuesday, and was due into Vancouver at 9:42 a.m. Wednesday.
The delays occur because, unlike Amtrak, VIA has no statutory right of preference over freight trains, meaning it can and often is delayed when Canadian National freight trains are given priority. It is not a new problem; News Wire reported last year on a Canadian that arrived more than 24 hours late. [“’Canadian’ passengers suffer timekeeping woes this summer,” News Wire, Aug. 10, 2017.]
Alan said, That said, I will note that about 8 or 9 years ago IIRC, the State of Montana commissioned a study on the service that Montana gets from Amtrak. That study found that the State of Montana gets more benefit from Amtrak than what they send to DC to help run Amtrak. In other words, it would cost the State more money if Amtrak were to cut the Empire Builder train that serves the state.”
The study you seeking was actually done in 2003 and is still available on line. It cited about $19 million annually in benefits having the Empire Builder operate in Montana. That would be about $26 million today.
The study is far from absolute. There are items such as tourist spending where it could be argued that people would still come but drive or fly. But that’s not known for sure, either. It also mentions benefits of having the train for people to access medical care, but there is no way to truly know the cost of not receiving this care if predicated on the train being available. Like so many of these things, the true costs are not easy to quantify.
The big takeaway from the report is that contrary to what those who want to see long distance trains disappear say, there is a cost to not having them. In other words, if Amtrak says it cost $X to operate a long distance train, if eliminated, the savings overall is definitely not $X, and could be a negative amount when all things are considered.
For the record, Southwest Airlines serves only 86 cities in the United States, and only 40 of the 50 states, so all this talk of Southwest Airlines “going everywhere” is a bit perplexing. For the most part, those who berate long distance trains constantly tout air service between large airports where Amtrak is usually poor, and tend to ignore the bread-and-butter travel between smaller cities where air service is poor or non-existent. (Example: 3 of the top 10 destinations for travel on Amtrak from Fargo, ND are to other cities in North Dakota where air service – not by Southwest, of course, it doesn’t go to North Dakota – is available, albeit cumbersome and costly.)
And let’s not forget the topic at hand in this thread: VIA’s Canadian. While Messrs. McGuire and Landey will do anything like hijack a thread to post their tired anti-long distance train rhetoric, it’s important to remember that the “Canadian” and Amtrak long distance trains have little in common. The “Canadian” lost all its utility long ago, even before timekeeping was an issue. By raising fares, eliminating all station facilities at most stations, running the train 2 or 3 times a week, and restricting spontaneous travel to most stations, there can be little usage to/from stops outside the major cities. And, of course, getting ridership data from VIA is difficult (and nearly impossible if you’re not a Canadian citizen.) The mere concept that the “Canadian” has any utility to the communities it “serves” is a thing of the past. Yet, as Amtrak announced it would remove the Customer Service jobs from the Havre, Montana Amtrak station recently, so many people showed up at the city council meeting to voice their displeasure, the council voted to hold an extra session on the topic three days later. Such is the difference between trains providing utility and those not.
There will never ever be any cure to prevent these continuous delays on the ‘Canadian’ due to prosperity of CN freight goods. No one ever want to spend to twin the track on the entire route. Since CN owns that track they have other priorities to spend on their profits such as more powerful locomotives, increase competiveness executive salaries to stimulate growing economic spending from inherit giveaways, maintaining existing major bridges, advertising promotions, etc.
The major and only solution is to eliminate sleeping cars on the Canadian by introducing overnight sleeping quarters such as revitalization hotels on certain stops along the route such as in Sudbury, Savant Lake, Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Edmonton, Valemount and Kamloops. Thus allowing a leisurely week to travel on the Canadian at daylight time only. Even though prices could increase but this will be a better value and less costly to operate with fewer coaches required. Overnight stays at stationery hotels will compensate delays since CN has the priority of their tracks. Also the Canadian should just operate on a seasonal term by operating once a week between mid-April and md-October to reduce inference on CN freight traffic.
Recently I attended a meeting on the future of VIA Vail in Canada and it has optimistic solutions by introducing more common High Frequency Rail service instead of expensive ‘no-time saving’ High Speed Rail service that by 2024 it will not require any government contribution. That is especially in the populated Corridor region in eastern Canada where shorter routes can gain revenue when they are self-efficient without over spending on unnecessary expenditures. Eventually the Canadian could be subsidized by extra revenue from the Corridor operations in the mid-2020s and possibly lower cost to operate to eliminate sleeping cars with stationery overnight stops to gain lost delayed time and to enjoy daytime scenery..
Ah, the ghost of Hunter Harrison lives on, terrorizing VIA and all who stand in his way!
And Charles don’t forget to mention Wyoming, South Dakota and large expanses of other states out west such as Montana, Idaho and Nevada. How do people in Boise get by without Amtrak service? Quite well i believe.
Charles,
Thank you again for your reply. And please know I don’t condone some of the remarks of others here. I’m not thrilled that you continue to overlook some of my points, but I remain 100% in favor of a free and open discussion of things on a polite level. That is after all one of the principals that our country was founded on, and for. And that is why so many have laid down their lives to protect that right/principal.
Returning to our conversation, we wouldn’t have “two heavily subsidized modes competing.” Again, if one takes only the extension as the marker, then perhaps you statement would be correct. But this would have been a through service. The existing Hiawatha’s, or at least several of them, would simply have been extended to Madison from MKE. With the current revenue stream of the Hiawatha’s, plus the expected ridership increases between Chicago & MKE, along with the revenue for the Madison extension; the unbiased studies showed that the Hiawatha’s would have almost certainly covered operating costs out of the fare box. If they missed, it would have been marginal. Or in other words; not “heavily subsidized.”
And if Madison and/or Dane picked up that small difference, then the bulk of the taxpayers in Wisconsin would not have to subsidize the train’s operating costs at all.
Yes, the capital costs to maintain things would still need to be subsidized. But then, Wisconsinites are already and still, paying for those to keep the freight line active. Yes, to be fair, those subsidies would increase some in order to pay for the higher speed track than what is currently there. But that would also have brought the ability to move more freight by train, instead of by truck. That would in turn reduce road repairs and help improve traffic a bit.
Next, again, you are taking the extension away from the whole plan when you say it wouldn’t have been high speed. Yes, I agree with you that Madison to MKE at least initially would not have been high speed. But the whole plan would have boosted the Hiawatha’s to a high speed rating, even though it would not have been high speed from end to end. Perhaps that’s a bit disingenuous, but that is the standard set by the Fed.
Turning to economic development, Madison probably would have seen a small boost. But nothing to write home about. Many supporters for rail drag that component into every discussion, when truthfully it really only has significant impacts when one is discussing light rail or Streetcars.
Moving on, at least in the context of this discussion, it’s not a matter of getting by without Amtrak or not. It’s a matter of providing choices, and one that would not have needed the heavy subsidies of the other currently available modes of transit. It’s a matter of freeing up slots at O’Hare and Midway for planes traveling distances worthy of air service. Not puddle jumpers from Madison.
Finally, please let me tell you that I’m not a bus hater. In fact, I’ve always stated that cities need a proper balance, or mix, of rail (not Amtrak) & bus in order to serve the maximum number of people at the lowest cost to the taxpayers.
Robert,
The places you mention have no comparison to the model being discussed here. There isn’t a steady stream of people moving between those places & Chicago and Milwaukee. All of the places you’ve mentioned are places that would be looking for long distance train service; not corridor service like what Madison would have gotten had the project moved forward.
That said, I will note that about 8 or 9 years ago IIRC, the State of Montana commissioned a study on the service that Montana gets from Amtrak. That study found that the State of Montana gets more benefit from Amtrak than what they send to DC to help run Amtrak. In other words, it would cost the State more money if Amtrak were to cut the Empire Builder train that serves the state.
They factored in the jobs that Amtrak creates, the supplies Amtrak buys, the increased wear & tear on their highways caused by a resulting increase in traffic, tourism dollars, and many other factors. It shocked a lot of the Republicans who commissioned it, because they were certain it would go the other way and they would then be able to use it as ammunition against Amtrak.
ALAN – Once again thanks for your post. You make the point that the Madison – Waukesha – Milwaukee bus is heavily subsidized. Absolutely true, and it was derelict on my part not to state that. But why have two heavily subsidized modes competing? Now as for the proposed (no longer proposed) Madison HSR. Yes it was called HSR, that was how it was sold by the (Democrat) guv prior to Scott Walker. It was sold as HSR, a lie. Which is one of the several reasons Walker was able to kill it. Now your point that passenger rail is about transportation, not economic development. Of course you’re right. Unfortunately, proponents of a new train always try to sell it as economic development, which was my point…. If Madison and Dane County wanted to pay part of the train, fine for them, add a subsidy to a subsidy to a subsidy and call it fiscally prudent, demonstrating once again that the Peoples Republic of Soviet Madison is a Soviet Republic. In between Milwaukee and Dane Counties are Waukesha and Jefferson Counties, each of which have more Republican voters than blades of grass. Waukesha County (Republican me, for example) is why Scott Walker has been elected three times to two terms, and will be elected a fourth time to his third term next November. There are a lot of people like me out there. Also there are a lot of people in Green Bay, Wausau, Superior, Fond du Lac, etc. who get by without Amtrak (and Nashville, and Las Vegas, and Des Moines, and Phoenix) who wonder what the big deal is that someone else needs a train to get through life.
Charles said, “Peoples Republic of Soviet Madison is a Soviet Republic.”
Charles also said, “Republican me.”
Thanks much for linking the two and clarifying your character, indicating who makes such incendiary remarks.
Charles said, ” Southwest Airlines has grown and grown and grown to the point it can get me from Milwaukee to anywhere in USA in a few hours, on time, in comfort, in cleanliness.”
Interesting. Please elaborate how Southwest can get you from Milwaukee to Grand Forks or to Devils Lake or to Williston or to Cut Bank or to Libby or to Wenatchee or to Dodge City or to Butte or to Casper or to Pierre in “a few hours.”
Charles,
No, it was called High Speed Rail because the current section of the HIawatha would have been bumped up enough to qualify as HSR. The Madison-MKE segment, at least initially would not have been HSR. Although there were plans to make that HSR eventually too. And I saw all the numbers, both the official & verified, as well as the propaganda numbers provided by Mr. Walker’s campaign. Only ongoing capital costs were a certainty for the State’s taxpayersl and again, they still lie with the taxpayers even without passenger rail. For as long a freight operates on that line, the taxpayer are subsidizing capital costs. Operational costs were marginal, maybe some subsidies required, maybe not. And with Madison & Dane county stepping up, the bulk of the State would have not needed to pay any operational subsidies.
SW is probably the one exception to the rule. And even they would still die without subsidies.
Next, Gateway is entirely about capacity. Yes, the current tunnels are in trouble, in part thanks to age and in part thanks to Sandy. But if only Amtrak were using those tunnels, it would be possible to close one tube at a time to fix things and bring them back to a state of good repair. It’s NJT’s usage that makes that impossible. If my memory serves, I didn’t go to verify this, Amtrak can run 26 (maybe 28) trains per hour into Penn via the inbound tunnel. Of those 26(8) slots, Amtrak only uses like 2 or 3. NJT gets all the rest. And NJT needs even more slots than can currently be provided. NJT could easily send another 20 trains per hour into or out of Penn, assuming Gateway gets built.
I concur that fares won’t cover a dime of any new tunnels. And I agree, they are needed. Without them, traffic in NJ will become unbearable.
Finally, I never said anything about passenger rail somehow making Madison a better place or helping it to thrive. The train is simply about providing choices, and providing service to all those places in between Madison & Chicago that the plane doesn’t provide service; even if your town wasn’t one that was going to get train service. As for the buses, I seem to recall having seen a report that the company that provides bus service between Madison & Milwaukee gets subsidies. However, even if my memory is faulty, which is possible at my age, those buses still run on our heavily subsidized highways and our almost entirely subsidized local streets. Property taxes largely pay for the local streets in this country; not fuel taxes. And we drivers only manage to cover about 42% of the costs of our highways in this country via fuel taxes & other direct fees.
Which is a large part of the reason that our train service went from 100% privately owned & operated to Amtrak.
ALAN BURDEN – Your post is thoughtful and mostly but not entirely enlightening. More than anything, though, you prove my points, whether or not you meant to. The proposed Madison train (a slow train on an indirect route, that was why it was called “High Speed Rail”) would have needed federal state and local subsidies. Which is exactly my point. Now as for air. Southwest flies only B-737’s of the 700, 800 and 900 varieties, or routes as short as an hour or maybe less. Not three hours as in your post. For example Southwest flies 737’s (and fills them to capacity) on routes like Atlanta to Nashville, Nashville to Charlotte, Baltimore to Providence, etc., far shorter than routes that embarrassing airlines like United farm out contract carriers flying CRJs or Embraears. … Gateway – I’m not sure what point you were trying to make. The Gateway project isn’t about capacity, it’s about the condition of the existing tunnels, nearly 110 years old and damaged by Superstorm Sandy, and which will age another decade for every decade that the new tunnels are in progress (or not in progress). As I’m finding out the hard way in my own life, after a certain age things start to go downhill faster than before. These tunnels are absolutely needed. The farebox won’t pay a nickel toward their construction, as neither Amtrak nor Jersey Transit can cover even a small portion of capital costs out of ticket revenue…. Madison is an example – a proof – why Amtrak is a near-total flop. Madison hasn’t had a single passenger train since 1971, while before 1971 its rail service, passenger and freight both, was seriously dreadful. Yet Madison has thrived. The place is prosperous beyond belief. All four legs of the American economy are there: finance, university education, health care, and government. So anyone who says a train will add to a town’s prosperity is nuts. What can a passenger train do for Madison that it hasn’t accomplished in the total absence of passenger trains…. If I want to get from where I live, the Town of Brookfield, to Madison, I can walk to the Waukesha bus depot (also in the Town of Brookfield, close to TRAINS – MAG headquarters) and catch the bus. Which gets me to Madison faster than I can figure out how the proposed Madison train, which had no proposed stops in eastern Waukesha County, would have helped me.
Charles, And thank you for your response. But if I may, let’s clear up a few points.
First, as per law, the Hiawatha is NOT a subsidy to Amtrak. The Hiawatha and other short haul trains like that are essentially State run trains. If the state(s) don’t pick up the losses, then the train ceases to exist. The states are essentially contracting with Amtrak to run said service for the the State. They could find another entity to run their trains; and in fact the State of Indiana did just that. Amtrak is not allowed to run any train under 500 miles, outside the NEC, unless a state or other entity is paying for the service.
Next, I do agree with you in regard to the stations. That could be considered a partial subsidy to Amtrak.
As for Gateway; while Congress in its infinite wisdom decided to violate the original provisions that Amtrak was setup under which stated that Amtrak would not own any tracks, Gateway isn’t for Amtrak. Yes, Amtrak would own it if it gets built. But Amtrak doesn’t need Gateway. New Jersey & NJT in particular need Gateway. Take away NJT service and Amtrak would have more than enough capacity in the existing tunnels.
But the simple reality is that the Fed will either have to build a new train tunnel or a new bridge/tunnel for cars if they don’t build Gateway.
Moving to California, if they ever actually do get the train built, it will almost surely cover all operating expenses via the fare box. Capital costs probably not. But the demand is there, and even though the airlines won’t conceded the point, it would be to their benefit. Short haul flights, like those on the NEC or between LA & San Fran are not profitable. A plane needs to be in the air for at least 3 hours, and preferably longer, before it makes money. This is why most short haul flights are run by little spin off companies like Delta Express and so on. Once the company has lost too much money, they declare bankruptcy and fold. Then the parent company forms a new spin off and starts all over again.
Finally, Governor Walker was neither wise, IMHO, nor did he kill the Madison extension. The Fed withdrew the funding offer long before Mr. Walker was sworn in as Governor. So he never got the chance to actually kill the project; it was dead before he took office. As for being smart, the Hiawatha’s are already the top train for return on revenue. Had the extension been realized, that along with the speed increases that would have been paid for by the Fed and realized on the current line, fares would most likely have covered the operational costs. The Hiawatha’s last I knew, covered more than 90% of their operating costs. Additionally, the Mayor of Madison and the Dane County executive both offered to help absorb any additional costs to the State.
Capital costs would have fallen on the tax payers, yes; but then, they are already on the taxpayers anyhow. Most of the line from Milwaukee to Madison is owned by the state and leased/rented (I don’t recall which) out to a freight company that uses the line. And because the Fed pulled the funds; Wisconsin lost money to fix up that freight line, something Wisconsin taxpayers will have to deal with as it needs work. And the State lost more than $60 Million in Federal funds that would have helped improve the current Hiawatha line and would have helped pay for some of the renovation of the Milwaukee station.
ALAN – Thank you for posting. I have read your post and note your points. If we play the game of who gets subsidized more, Amtrak or air transport, let’s not forget that Amtrak gets way more subsidies than the annual congressional dowry which is in the very low single-digit billions (and I agree with you, pennies compared to what Washington wastes in any given ten-second period). For example, the states of Wisconsin and Illinois subsidize the Hiawatha. If Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker had not (wisely) killed the proposed Milwaukee – Madison train, Wisconsin taxpayers would have supported both capital and operational costs in several different ways, in perpetuity. Every single station on the Hiawatha line, in both states, is either extensively rebuilt (Milwaukee, Chicago) or all-new (Glenview, Milwaukee Airport, Sturtevant). Magnificent, proud, welcoming structures, each of them. Who paid for that? Not from ticket revenue, I’ll say that much. When (if) we get around to the NEC Gateway, a trillion dollars or so, who will pay for that? Not ticket revenue, neither Amtrak nor Jersey Transit riders. Who is paying for Gov. Jerry Brown’s train? The entire productive economy of California, confiscated (stolen) in the name of carbon offsets.
Charles Landry – Of course I agree with you. I rode The Canadian as a CP train and I rode across several times on the Super Continental. I was complaining about these discussions deteriorating into the generic train-plane back-and-forths.
Charles,
I’m sorry, but the airline didn’t get you home without taxpayer subsidies. We The People still pay for airport security (TSA); the air traffic control system; Essential Air Services (EAS), where we pay airlines to fly essentially empty planes into small airports; not to mention that many airports were built with taxpayer dollars and often continued maintenance is paid for with taxpayer dollars. If the airlines had to actually pay for all those things, along with other hidden subsidies like pilots trained by the military & technology developed by the military, there would be no airlines left in business.
In fact, collectively, with all the bankruptcy filings, airlines over the last 20 years have effectively lost money.
But returning to taxpayer dollars being used for things, as per the one & only Federal taxpayer receipt ever issued in 2010; a married couple with 2 kids and & $80K in income saw $13.30 of their federal income tax dollars go to airport security. That same couple watched $3.83 go to Amtrak.
Yes, they may have gotten you home faster. And I wouldn’t argue that both Amtrak & VIA have their problems. But they are all getting taxpayer subsidies in one form or another!!!
GEORGE PINS – Okay, let’s make it about the Canadian. No, it’s NOT about the last 60 years, it’s about the last ten years, during which the train has gone down the hopper. It runs a few times a month and on the few days it runs, it’s days late. Yes I’ve ridden the Canadian in the past, when it ran daily and ran on time My next visit to Winnipeg, it will be Air Canada or WestJet. I don’t have a lifetime to spare waiting for a cruise train to show up, if it shows up. Years ago, we looked to Canada for its better passenger service, compared to ours. No longer.
CHRIS – The Canadian being 24 hours late (on the days it even runs – most days it’s not even scheduled) has EVERYTHING to do with flying, because flying is the only sensible way to get from Winnipeg to Ottawa, or Kitchener/ Waterloo to Vancouver, or Montreal to Saskatchewan. Since apparently you’re talking about me, I’ll respond. I’ve subscribed to TRAINS-MAG for almost five decades and have been an NARP/ RPA member for almost as long. I am a major rail fan. I love trains. I support passenger rail for 200-500 mile corridors where there is on-line business in the intermediate points. Why do I constantly rave about airlines? What should I rave about, the broken-down disgraces that both VIA Rail Canada and Amtrak have become? Two days ago, Southwest Airlines got me home, for the modest fare I paid, ahead of schedule, in a couple of hours (without tax subsidy). If Amtrak served that route (it doesn’t) I might still be stuck somewhere around Chicago smelling the disinfectant from the bathroom (funny, Southwest’s 737’s don’t smell of disinfectant.) Since Amtrak began in 1971 and VIA was implemented in stages several years later, those two railroads have at best struggled and at worst collapsed, while Amtrak’s safety record smells worse than its toilets. Meanwhile, Southwest Airlines has grown and grown and grown to the point it can get me from Milwaukee to anywhere in USA in a few hours, on time, in comfort, in cleanliness, and with a joyously pleasant staff on every single plane it flies, with a safety record Amtrak couldn’t dream of…. I have ridden trains from the Midwest (where I live) to both coasts, to Canada’s Maritime, and to Canada’s west, plus all over Netherlands and England. I frequently spend days watching trains, I read every scrap of material about trains I can find. But if I need to get anywhere beyond Milwaukee – Chicago, I will do the sensible thing: I’ll go to General Mitchell Milwaukee County Airport and I will fly Southwest. Zero apologies. CHRIS, if you can’t understand my posts, try reading them again.
Hey guys (or ladies) – All of these train vs. plane posts have been flying (sorry) back and forth for about 60 years. Nothing new; same old stuff over and over and over. Give it a rest. The piece was about timekeeping on The Canadian.
The Canadian being 24 hours late has nothing, absolutely nothing to do with flying. I don’t understand people that buy a subscription to TRAINS magazine, then constantly rave about airlines.
One topic that, curiously, does not pop up in this side discussion is energy consumption and the related pollution. Trains are more fuel efficient than planes, period. Even more if the tracks are electrified. Getting back to the Canadian situation, it is clearly a disgrace.
I here ya Charles. I’ve had to spend the night in Chicago a couple of times when there has been a delay of some sort but I still get home before I would have on the train. A few years ago I came into CUS about 15 minutes early on the SWC only to find that the LSL had been cancelled due to a snow storm. Amtrak wanted to give me a coach seat on the Capitol Limited (the storm wasn’t that far south) but I pointed out that I had a “first class” ticket and I wanted an airline ticket. They surprisingly agreed and I was in Providence RI (the closest they could get me to Boston) on Southwest the next morning. A van shuttle to downtown and an MBTA local to South Station and I was in town long before the 9:00 PM scheduled arrival of the Lake Shore. And, 9:00 was the scheduled arrival. You know how that works. If I had taken the Capitol and then a NEC train to Boston who knows at what hour (or day) I would have reached Boston.
GUY CHARMANTIER – If flying is so energy inefficient, why is it that air fares are so reasonable compared to rail farers? Southwest Airlines pays for its fuel, runs at a profit, Amtrak does none of the above, yet Southwest still is cheaper than the train. Most Southwest flights I take are full – all 143 seats sold in not much space, the number of people that would fill out 5 to 6 Amtrak sleeping cars. Since Southwest is an everywhere too everywhere airline, it takes the most direct route, compared to Amtrak running all over the countryside. (What looks like a straight line in an Amtrak timetable is in fact a series of twists and turns.) You want to see energy inefficiency? Try Amtrak Superliners flatulating all around the south side of Chicago trying to get to Union Station, whereas when I’m on Southwest Airlines I’m already home in Town of Brookfield Wisconsin (home of TRAINS-MAG). All my life I hear that this, that or the other is more energy efficient, or that this that or the other is better for the environment. For the most part, this consists of somebody repeating what someone else said, without much (if any) substantiation. Might be true, might be half true, might be hogwash. ROBERT – One of these days I’ll fly into PRV, Theodore Francis Green State Airport in Cranston, Rhode Island. I’ve been trying to for a half century. Somehow I always end up at BOS Logan.
ROBERT – Good post. I don’t see flying as stressful. I’m average height and weight for a male and have no trouble finding comfort in a Southwest seat. Pretty much all of my 132 flights have run on time and have been otherwise pleasurable.
Flying is not only quicker and, most of the time, cheaper but a lot less stressful. I used to travel a lot but these days it is usually once every two or three years. I signed up for TSA pre-check and now I buy 1st Class tickets wherever possible. The round trip fare for an upcoming trip was about 1/2 the price of an Amtrak roomette. And, I get there the same day I leave rather than 2 nights and the better part of three days later. The same on the return. I’ll admit to a bit more hassle than the train in boarding but my last Amtrak trip provided plenty of boarding hassle. Since I want to be there at a specific time and I’m not willing to gamble I don’t trust Amtrak to do the job.
GERALD – I have taken the Canadian, Winnipeg to Toronto, and several other VIA trains. In fact I’ve ridden lots of trains, short-haul and long distance, in all four countries I’ve been in (USA, UK, Canada, Netherlands). Lately I’ve been virtually commuting from Wisconsin to another state and (quite aside from Amtrak not going there) I want to get there in one piece and some time in the same century, so I would avoid Amtrak even if it did serve my destination. So I fly.