Comment box Scope: summary; partisan hack comments Tone: neutral Opinion: none, except for partisan hack comments Sarcasm/humor: none The Northeast Corridor is a thriving rail corridor between...
Comment box
Scope: summary; partisan hack comments
Tone: neutral
Opinion: none, except for partisan hack comments
Sarcasm/humor: none
The Northeast Corridor is a thriving rail corridor between Washington DC and Boston. It is a driving force between the northeast's economic productivity and is currently sees the highest railroad speeds in North America at up to 257 km/h (160 mph) in certain segments.
Amtrak recently announced the addition of 20% more weekday trains and 10% more Sunday trains to the "Notheast Regional" line:
Roundtrips DC to NYC: +4 daily M–F trips
Roundtrips DC to NYC: +2 weekend trips
1-way PHL to NYC: +1 daily M–F trip
1-way PHL to BOS: +1 weekend trip
Higher-speed Acela schedules remain unchanged.
The way they were able to do this was creative:
In the past, some Northeast Regional trains exclusively had "forward-facing" seats. To ensure that the train always ran "forwards," conductors had to spend about three hours at the Washington terminal turning the train around in a "wye" segment of track to realign it. This was inefficient, as time spent in a wye does not service passengers and does not contribute to Amtrak revenues.
But now, all Northeast Regional trains will have 50% forward-facing and 50% backward-facing seats. This ensures that the train does not have to turn around at a terminal. Instead, it just goes "backwards." Those three hours saved means more frequent trains can be run at more hours of the day.
(BTW, scientific studies empirically indicate that the backward travel does not measurably cause motion sickness in passengers. Passengers who anecdotally feel otherwise may choose one of the forward-facing seats.)
Ridership on the Northeast Corridor has apparently surpassed pre-pandemic levels by 8% and is expected to rise further this year. The corridor is profitable for Amtrak and its proceeds subsidize less profitable routes in other parts of the country. Amtrak wants to double ridership by 2040; I think this goal is reasonable. Ongoing infrastructure projects will double capacity across the Hudson River; straighten tracks throughout the route to increase speeds; and further improve operational efficiency.
The longer I live on the Northeast Corridor, the less inclined I am to leave.
Reminder that high-quality infrastructure upgrades and maintenance to critical corridors in the US are only possible because president Joe Biden signed the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ("Bipartisan Infrastructure Law"). I know most people don't really care about transit that they don't personally take, but the economic significance of this investment cannot be overstated. It's as significant as Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Also note that Joe Biden was only able to sign this legislation because both houses of the Congress were controlled by political parties who were interested in helping the United States succeed economically and who cared about scientific data.
That funding isn't infinite. It's necessary to continue to elect people who are interested in helping their constituents via investments in efficient, safe, and clean forms of transportation.
I know 'ancedote is not data', but I'm calling bullocks to this one. My child screamed from about 6 months to 20 months old when in the car for more than 15 minutes. That's when we needed to flip...
BTW, scientific studies empirically indicate that the backward travel does not measurably cause motion sickness in passengers.
I know 'ancedote is not data', but I'm calling bullocks to this one. My child screamed from about 6 months to 20 months old when in the car for more than 15 minutes. That's when we needed to flip them to forward facing because they were too tall (98th percentile). Instantly stopped crying in the car, was able to do 3 hour car rides with no problems overnight.
My other child didn't do this, and my wife also does not get carsick, so I'm fairly confident it wasn't my driving.
Car and train are very different beasts. We’ve had two-way seats in trains forever in Europe. I’d never in my life do backwards facing ridership in a car. Trains are a non issue, as are they for...
Car and train are very different beasts.
We’ve had two-way seats in trains forever in Europe. I’d never in my life do backwards facing ridership in a car. Trains are a non issue, as are they for most people, even close to windows.
Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Amtrak doesn't cite a specific study in their press releases, but they state that "Most customers say they are...
Comment box
Scope: information
Tone: neutral
Opinion: none
Sarcasm/humor: none
Amtrak doesn't cite a specific study in their press releases, but they state that "Most customers say they are comfortable traveling backward and it makes no difference to their onboard experience." I assume that they ran passenger surveys to collect this information. I don't know what their sample size would have been, but they do have millions of passengers.
there was no significant difference in the comfort of passengers riding forward or backward, next to the aisles vs. next to the windows, or with an outside view vs. no outside view. Therefore, none of these factors had contributed measurably to the occurrence of motion sickness or to passenger comfort.
These authors were studying passenger motion sickness on tilting trains. They made some recommendations to reduce motion sickness, but seat orientation was apparently not relevant. Older research seemed to indicate that motion sickness may be linked to experiencing tilting relative to the view out the window, but the study I linked does not find that to be true.
Work by Lee et al. 2009 indicates that people anecdotally claim to experience motion sickness while riding backward on a train, and in some cases this can be measured empirically, but this data is not statistically significant. The authors hypothesize that people claim discomfort because they have a cultural preference to face forward, not because they actually experience motion sickness consistently.
Obviously your child's experience is different as they do not have a "cultural preference" either way. The forces experienced in an automobile are also not identical to those on a train and I would not expect data to be identical either. But perhaps your child's behavior can be explained by what they were able to visually see based on the angle and configuration of their seat in the automobile, rather than a result of the seat being forward/backward by itself. Alternatively, it is possible that your child wanted to be able to see their parents (as they could when facing forwards) and was distressed when they could not (when facing backwards).
It's possible that some individuals do experience motion sickness (at a statistically significant level) when riding backward on a train due to some factor that isn't present in the general population. Fortunately, Amtrak still has 50% forward-facing seats, so these people can still be accommodated.
That's true, train is less bad than cars, I'm betting in part because trains don't regularly make 90 degree turns. Come to think of it, I've never been motion sick on regional rail, and I've been...
That's true, train is less bad than cars, I'm betting in part because trains don't regularly make 90 degree turns.
Come to think of it, I've never been motion sick on regional rail, and I've been standing/sitting in all sorts of random directions on that.
I'm an anecdote, I get carsick if I'm not driving, I need to be in control of the vehicle to not feel ill, I'm fine on plane and trains. I've ridden forward and backwards on trains and done fine....
I'm an anecdote, I get carsick if I'm not driving, I need to be in control of the vehicle to not feel ill, I'm fine on plane and trains. I've ridden forward and backwards on trains and done fine. Being able to get up and move around makes a big difference, so does being on rails. But there's no difference in which way I'm facing to me.
As an aside, did your kid articulate being sick when old enough to do so or just unhappy? Because not being able to see parents can absolutely make little kids upset. I was a "fall asleep in the car" kid though.
The seating issue is a solved problem, Japanese trains have seats that rotate, so they just spin them around to face forward. Wonder why the didn’t just go with this approach?
The seating issue is a solved problem, Japanese trains have seats that rotate, so they just spin them around to face forward. Wonder why the didn’t just go with this approach?
Comment box Scope: comment reply, information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Swiveling/flipping seats have moving parts that are more complex than fixed seats. This increases the...
Comment box
Scope: comment reply, information
Tone: neutral
Opinion: none
Sarcasm/humor: none
Swiveling/flipping seats have moving parts that are more complex than fixed seats. This increases the base cost of the train interiors and is more expensive to maintain. The more they're used, the more they break. When you're talking about thousands of seats across a fleet, that isn't insignificant.
To allow swiveling/flipping seats you need to allocate a little bit more room between each row. If you imagine flipping around a single row to face the opposite direction, you now have two rows leaning backwards into each other, neither with quite enough space and certainly not enough to recline. This isn't really an issue in spacious classes like first, but would be an issue in coach. Trains don't have the same space needs as airplanes, but for the length of a coach car that could mean removing a couple of rows, which is a revenue reduction.
The amount of space you need for comfortable knee-to-knee seating arrangements is, in general, slightly higher than what you would need if all seats face the same direction.
Giving passengers the ability to swivel their own seats can slightly negatively affect boarding efficiency. If one passenger flips their seats and the row behind them faces forward (and is empty), then other passengers will automatically avoid that foursome, even though the row across is technically "unoccupied." Just psychology. They might come back later if all double-seat pairs have at least 1 passenger, but probably not, because they don't necessarily want to face a stranger. This is inefficient and leads to confusion.
TGV seats do not swivel except in first class, AFAIK. Some Amtrak Acela (business/first class) seats also have a rotating or flipping mechanism, but I haven't personally used them. I think (but am not certain) that it is technically possible to flip most Amtrak seats, but the staff definitely do not want you to do this. Anytime a passenger is screwing with a physical mechanism of the train is a situation where they could injure themselves.
It is impossible to rotate 100% of seats oriented around fixed tables if any of those rows face each other. I don't know if Japanese trains use this configuration at all. If they do, they will run into the same problem that you can't have two rows of people facing each other without 50% of them riding backwards.
Sigh I just wish the routes between NYC and Boston were less expensive. I'm heading back to Boston for PAX East next week and figured maybe instead of driving I could just take a train. Just...
Sigh I just wish the routes between NYC and Boston were less expensive. I'm heading back to Boston for PAX East next week and figured maybe instead of driving I could just take a train. Just checked Amtrak though, and the prices are more expensive than just flying there still, by like 100$.
When I used to do this trip semi-regularly, I used to have to book atleast a couple weeks in advance to get a more reasonable price (~$50) on Amtrak. Especially when it coincided with university...
When I used to do this trip semi-regularly, I used to have to book atleast a couple weeks in advance to get a more reasonable price (~$50) on Amtrak. Especially when it coincided with university breaks (like right now with spring break).
Ahh yeah I totally forgot about spring break. It used to always be like this, it's just annoying cuz you'd think it'd be at most the same price as flights though, especially for being almost twice...
Ahh yeah I totally forgot about spring break. It used to always be like this, it's just annoying cuz you'd think it'd be at most the same price as flights though, especially for being almost twice as long travel wise.
Comment box Scope: information Tone: neutral Opinion: none Sarcasm/humor: none Amtrak fares are relatively loosely regulated, just like airplane fares, which means the company is allowed to scale...
Comment box
Scope: information
Tone: neutral
Opinion: none
Sarcasm/humor: none
Amtrak fares are relatively loosely regulated, just like airplane fares, which means the company is allowed to scale prices according to demand (or anticipated demand, though Amtrak typically doesn't). The NEC sees a lot of business and spontaneous day trips, which have shorter booking windows than long-planned leisure travel. This means that the demand distribution is heavily weighted toward the time of booking. NEC tickets are some of the only ones in the country that will consistently sell out.
It would be un-thrifty to book a plane a day or a week ahead of time, especially if there's something big happening at the destination that weekend. An inter-city train follows the same logic. (Even from an automobile perspective, it's not unusual to book lodging and parking for an event weeks or months ahead!)
In other words, if you buy your ticket early, very few other people have also bought tickets. This means the tickets will be very inexpensive. As @zoroa suggested, booking at least two weeks out is the way to go for inter-city travel. As with airplanes, you can also arrange cheap fares by booking outside of peak hours.
You can still get cheap-ish fares from New York to Boston on short notice, but they're usually at inconvenient times or may take a non-direct route with a transfer (in this case Empire to Albany -> Lake Shore to Boston).
If I wanted a one-way direct NYC-BOS ticket today, it would be $100.
On Thursday, it would be $84.
Next week, on Tuesday, it would be $40.
If you look a month out, it's easily $35.
Two months out, it's easily $20.
Yep, that low! You might have to travel on a weekday at 5:30 AM to spend literally $20, but it's completely possible if that is essential for you (in this case, a ticket at a reasonable time of day would still only be... $35). Far less than the cost of gasoline + tolls + parking + usage-induced maintenance.
But also, I see a ticket on Friday, April 5th (only three weeks out) for $20 too. This doesn't help you with PAX East, but in general, you don't necessarily have to book yeeears in advance, and you don't necessarily have to travel on a Wednesday, nor suffer a layover. Slightly annoying timing, but that's all. I frequently travel between Philadelphia and New York for $8-10 and occasionally to Boston for $20-40.
To be honest, Amtrak's fare structure is dramatically less complicated than any airline operating in the US. There are far fewer hidden fees. Because Amtrak doesn't manipulate you by breaking up the ticket cost into five different stages, the upfront cost feels higher than it really is. Can't speak for the long-distance routes, but the NEC has always been a steal for the thrifty.
If you frequently book Amtrak tickets, you would be interested in joining the Rail Passengers Association. If you specify your RPA member number at the time of booking, you get a 10% discount on fares. This makes a big difference if you travel more than occasionally.
Yeah, I guess I'm not necessarily complaining that it's too expensive, I was gonna drive anyways but I was feeling extra lazy looking out at my plans next week, so I wanted to see if it was an...
Yeah, I guess I'm not necessarily complaining that it's too expensive, I was gonna drive anyways but I was feeling extra lazy looking out at my plans next week, so I wanted to see if it was an option. I think just looking at it, for my very specific use case, flying from Newark to Boston is about $143, whereas a train costs about $220 or so right now! Just a mild frustration, I'm probably gonna end up driving anyways.
Comment box
The Northeast Corridor is a thriving rail corridor between Washington DC and Boston. It is a driving force between the northeast's economic productivity and is currently sees the highest railroad speeds in North America at up to 257 km/h (160 mph) in certain segments.
Amtrak recently announced the addition of 20% more weekday trains and 10% more Sunday trains to the "Notheast Regional" line:
Higher-speed Acela schedules remain unchanged.
The way they were able to do this was creative:
(BTW, scientific studies empirically indicate that the backward travel does not measurably cause motion sickness in passengers. Passengers who anecdotally feel otherwise may choose one of the forward-facing seats.)
Ridership on the Northeast Corridor has apparently surpassed pre-pandemic levels by 8% and is expected to rise further this year. The corridor is profitable for Amtrak and its proceeds subsidize less profitable routes in other parts of the country. Amtrak wants to double ridership by 2040; I think this goal is reasonable. Ongoing infrastructure projects will double capacity across the Hudson River; straighten tracks throughout the route to increase speeds; and further improve operational efficiency.
The longer I live on the Northeast Corridor, the less inclined I am to leave.
Reminder that high-quality infrastructure upgrades and maintenance to critical corridors in the US are only possible because president Joe Biden signed the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act ("Bipartisan Infrastructure Law"). I know most people don't really care about transit that they don't personally take, but the economic significance of this investment cannot be overstated. It's as significant as Eisenhower's Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Also note that Joe Biden was only able to sign this legislation because both houses of the Congress were controlled by political parties who were interested in helping the United States succeed economically and who cared about scientific data.
That funding isn't infinite. It's necessary to continue to elect people who are interested in helping their constituents via investments in efficient, safe, and clean forms of transportation.
I know 'ancedote is not data', but I'm calling bullocks to this one. My child screamed from about 6 months to 20 months old when in the car for more than 15 minutes. That's when we needed to flip them to forward facing because they were too tall (98th percentile). Instantly stopped crying in the car, was able to do 3 hour car rides with no problems overnight.
My other child didn't do this, and my wife also does not get carsick, so I'm fairly confident it wasn't my driving.
If there's a study, I need to know sample sizes.
Car and train are very different beasts.
We’ve had two-way seats in trains forever in Europe. I’d never in my life do backwards facing ridership in a car. Trains are a non issue, as are they for most people, even close to windows.
Comment box
Amtrak doesn't cite a specific study in their press releases, but they state that "Most customers say they are comfortable traveling backward and it makes no difference to their onboard experience." I assume that they ran passenger surveys to collect this information. I don't know what their sample size would have been, but they do have millions of passengers.
Cohen at al. 2011 write:
These authors were studying passenger motion sickness on tilting trains. They made some recommendations to reduce motion sickness, but seat orientation was apparently not relevant. Older research seemed to indicate that motion sickness may be linked to experiencing tilting relative to the view out the window, but the study I linked does not find that to be true.
Work by Lee et al. 2009 indicates that people anecdotally claim to experience motion sickness while riding backward on a train, and in some cases this can be measured empirically, but this data is not statistically significant. The authors hypothesize that people claim discomfort because they have a cultural preference to face forward, not because they actually experience motion sickness consistently.
Obviously your child's experience is different as they do not have a "cultural preference" either way. The forces experienced in an automobile are also not identical to those on a train and I would not expect data to be identical either. But perhaps your child's behavior can be explained by what they were able to visually see based on the angle and configuration of their seat in the automobile, rather than a result of the seat being forward/backward by itself. Alternatively, it is possible that your child wanted to be able to see their parents (as they could when facing forwards) and was distressed when they could not (when facing backwards).
It's possible that some individuals do experience motion sickness (at a statistically significant level) when riding backward on a train due to some factor that isn't present in the general population. Fortunately, Amtrak still has 50% forward-facing seats, so these people can still be accommodated.
That's true, train is less bad than cars, I'm betting in part because trains don't regularly make 90 degree turns.
Come to think of it, I've never been motion sick on regional rail, and I've been standing/sitting in all sorts of random directions on that.
I'm an anecdote, I get carsick if I'm not driving, I need to be in control of the vehicle to not feel ill, I'm fine on plane and trains. I've ridden forward and backwards on trains and done fine. Being able to get up and move around makes a big difference, so does being on rails. But there's no difference in which way I'm facing to me.
As an aside, did your kid articulate being sick when old enough to do so or just unhappy? Because not being able to see parents can absolutely make little kids upset. I was a "fall asleep in the car" kid though.
The seating issue is a solved problem, Japanese trains have seats that rotate, so they just spin them around to face forward. Wonder why the didn’t just go with this approach?
Comment box
Swiveling/flipping seats have moving parts that are more complex than fixed seats. This increases the base cost of the train interiors and is more expensive to maintain. The more they're used, the more they break. When you're talking about thousands of seats across a fleet, that isn't insignificant.
To allow swiveling/flipping seats you need to allocate a little bit more room between each row. If you imagine flipping around a single row to face the opposite direction, you now have two rows leaning backwards into each other, neither with quite enough space and certainly not enough to recline. This isn't really an issue in spacious classes like first, but would be an issue in coach. Trains don't have the same space needs as airplanes, but for the length of a coach car that could mean removing a couple of rows, which is a revenue reduction.
The amount of space you need for comfortable knee-to-knee seating arrangements is, in general, slightly higher than what you would need if all seats face the same direction.
Giving passengers the ability to swivel their own seats can slightly negatively affect boarding efficiency. If one passenger flips their seats and the row behind them faces forward (and is empty), then other passengers will automatically avoid that foursome, even though the row across is technically "unoccupied." Just psychology. They might come back later if all double-seat pairs have at least 1 passenger, but probably not, because they don't necessarily want to face a stranger. This is inefficient and leads to confusion.
TGV seats do not swivel except in first class, AFAIK. Some Amtrak Acela (business/first class) seats also have a rotating or flipping mechanism, but I haven't personally used them. I think (but am not certain) that it is technically possible to flip most Amtrak seats, but the staff definitely do not want you to do this. Anytime a passenger is screwing with a physical mechanism of the train is a situation where they could injure themselves.
It is impossible to rotate 100% of seats oriented around fixed tables if any of those rows face each other. I don't know if Japanese trains use this configuration at all. If they do, they will run into the same problem that you can't have two rows of people facing each other without 50% of them riding backwards.
Sigh I just wish the routes between NYC and Boston were less expensive. I'm heading back to Boston for PAX East next week and figured maybe instead of driving I could just take a train. Just checked Amtrak though, and the prices are more expensive than just flying there still, by like 100$.
When I used to do this trip semi-regularly, I used to have to book atleast a couple weeks in advance to get a more reasonable price (~$50) on Amtrak. Especially when it coincided with university breaks (like right now with spring break).
Ahh yeah I totally forgot about spring break. It used to always be like this, it's just annoying cuz you'd think it'd be at most the same price as flights though, especially for being almost twice as long travel wise.
Comment box
Amtrak fares are relatively loosely regulated, just like airplane fares, which means the company is allowed to scale prices according to demand (or anticipated demand, though Amtrak typically doesn't). The NEC sees a lot of business and spontaneous day trips, which have shorter booking windows than long-planned leisure travel. This means that the demand distribution is heavily weighted toward the time of booking. NEC tickets are some of the only ones in the country that will consistently sell out.
It would be un-thrifty to book a plane a day or a week ahead of time, especially if there's something big happening at the destination that weekend. An inter-city train follows the same logic. (Even from an automobile perspective, it's not unusual to book lodging and parking for an event weeks or months ahead!)
In other words, if you buy your ticket early, very few other people have also bought tickets. This means the tickets will be very inexpensive. As @zoroa suggested, booking at least two weeks out is the way to go for inter-city travel. As with airplanes, you can also arrange cheap fares by booking outside of peak hours.
You can still get cheap-ish fares from New York to Boston on short notice, but they're usually at inconvenient times or may take a non-direct route with a transfer (in this case Empire to Albany -> Lake Shore to Boston).
Yep, that low! You might have to travel on a weekday at 5:30 AM to spend literally $20, but it's completely possible if that is essential for you (in this case, a ticket at a reasonable time of day would still only be... $35). Far less than the cost of gasoline + tolls + parking + usage-induced maintenance.
But also, I see a ticket on Friday, April 5th (only three weeks out) for $20 too. This doesn't help you with PAX East, but in general, you don't necessarily have to book yeeears in advance, and you don't necessarily have to travel on a Wednesday, nor suffer a layover. Slightly annoying timing, but that's all. I frequently travel between Philadelphia and New York for $8-10 and occasionally to Boston for $20-40.
To be honest, Amtrak's fare structure is dramatically less complicated than any airline operating in the US. There are far fewer hidden fees. Because Amtrak doesn't manipulate you by breaking up the ticket cost into five different stages, the upfront cost feels higher than it really is. Can't speak for the long-distance routes, but the NEC has always been a steal for the thrifty.
If you frequently book Amtrak tickets, you would be interested in joining the Rail Passengers Association. If you specify your RPA member number at the time of booking, you get a 10% discount on fares. This makes a big difference if you travel more than occasionally.
Yeah, I guess I'm not necessarily complaining that it's too expensive, I was gonna drive anyways but I was feeling extra lazy looking out at my plans next week, so I wanted to see if it was an option. I think just looking at it, for my very specific use case, flying from Newark to Boston is about $143, whereas a train costs about $220 or so right now! Just a mild frustration, I'm probably gonna end up driving anyways.