Another major cause, maybe the single largest cause: freight train interference.

> Federal law gives passenger trains the right of way but freight train operators ignore this. [...] Federal law requires passenger trains be given priority over freight trains. However, the Department of Justice has enforced that law just once and that was 40 years ago, according to Amtrak. [...] Interference by freight trains has accounted for about 60 percent of Amtrak’s delays systemwide in recent years.

https://cnsmaryland.org/2021/12/09/historic-amtrak-funding-a...

It's a bit more complicated as I understand it. An on-schedule Amtrak train is supposed to have priority but if they get off-schedule they lose their priority slot. Another problem I gather is that some freight trains are just too long to pull over onto a siding.

> some freight trains are just too long to pull over onto a siding.

Exactly, and in addition to the blocking passenger trains they're at greater risk of derailment [1] and in some communities, particularly rural poor communities with little political power, they block crossings for as much as 30 minutes at a time [2] blocking ambulances, preventing children from getting to school, etc.

[1] https://www.propublica.org/article/train-derailment-long-tra...

[2] https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/stalled-freight-trains-cau...

Aren't there any regulations regarding maximum length? In Europe, the maximum allowed length seems to be 740/835 meters.

The longest cargo train in the US was 5.5km long: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longest_trains#General_cargo

A house burned down in a neighborhood in Gaineseville, Georgia last year. Not noted in the news articles about is the fact that the fire department was late because the only way to the neighborhood has a train crossing, and there was a train.

just to round out the picture, freight trains in the US are a success story, they're heavily used by customers who make the companies profitable and self-sustaining.

passenger trains lose money and are heavily subsidized to stay afloat.

just in terms of where they fit into the national economy, freight trains are important and integral at every level, and passenger trains much less so, or only to small communities.

This is a self-fulfilling prophecy, of course. High-speed passenger trains do very well all over the world. Coast-to-coast distances are too long for them, but cities in the US tend to be clustered at distances that are absolutely viable if we cared to invest. And if we continue to treat passenger rail as an afterthought, of course it will remain one.

This is why hyperloop is so puzzling to me. There’s established processes and supply chains to deliver and sustain high speed rail, and quite a few routes in sparsely populated areas would benefit with little disruption to existing infrastructure, like Vegas-LA (or somewhere ).

Vegas to LA has already broken ground

Train and freight companies seemingly operate with impunity, have a crazy amount of influence over politics and regulation, and despite hundreds of billions of dollars thrown at various mass transit passenger plans over the decades, there's hardly any progress with regards to passenger solutions. These companies don't even have to lobby, apparently, because their influence and regulatory capture make them incredibly powerful.

They pull down around $260 billion a year in the US. $20ish million goes toward political donations and lobbying, by all 6-700 corporations - the stuff that's trackable, that is. Makes you wonder what you'd find if you could follow the money.

Passenger trains in the USA are slow and unreliable, so of course they struggle to find a market.

If they didn't have to queue up behind freight trains trundling along at a bicycle's pace, things may be difference.

> passenger trains lose money and are heavily subsidized to stay afloat.

Roads and highways also lose money and are heavily subsidized to stay afloat.

Here in the midwest, the freight companies will intentionally pad the train with empty cars until it's just too long to fit in the passing turnouts and therefore forces passenger trains to pull off and wait. Detroit to Chicago and back is therefore a tossup between arriving early and arriving 12-24hrs late.

In Europe and Asia, we solve that issue by limiting maximum consist weight, usually in the range of 2k to 5k tons.

That's the real trick and problem - by the way https://www.amtraktrains.com is a great forum if researching - you CANNOT use averages for 'one time' trips.

If you're talking about your commuter to work, you can use averages to get "good enough" because you take it often enough that the averages will mostly work.

But these long distance trains might on average be two hours late - but if they're 24+ hours late, you might have ruined everything (unless the connection was another Amtrak train, then they will work with you).

For those types of trips, if you want to take them, treat them as land cruises and either be on one train to your destination OR plan to have a mini vacation at each connection, staying a day or two and seeing the sites.

(I have had two long distance trains die on the rails and become busses, which is amusing if you're not in a rush. Seven charter busses descending on a Subway in some infinitely small town for dinner amusing. They had everyone get off the train onto busses, we drove to where the train that was coming the other way was, and got on it, because the rails were blocked by a corn train flipping over.)

Yeah, based on everything I've heard, I'd never take a long distance Amtrak unless I were staying in the destination city for a few days and was arriving a good day before any event of importance (or pre-booked tickets etc.) Things can happen with air travel too of course but the probability of a major delay is almost certainly much higher with Amtrak.

Yep - Amtrak is about the journey NOT the destination (because you may never arrive lol).

I have found that a great "in the US" vacation can be to fly out to your destination, do your vacation, and then take the train back. If you leave a buffer day you won't even miss work, and you'll arrive much more refreshed than if you flew in (at least in my experience).

The problem for me living on the east coast is the interesting part of the trip would be in the west. If I ever do a long distance Amtrak it would probably be Denver or Chicago to the west coast.

I've done some of those and can say - east coast to Chicago or just a bit beyond is pretty interesting.

And west coast is great, starting somewhere after the plains.

The plains are really boring - unfortunately I've not kept up with schedules, but if you can get the overnight to mostly be in the plains, you've something.

But on the east coast maybe you can take advantage of Amtrak's only profitable long-distance route! The Auto Train! wooohooo

No interest in Florida :-) Not that I go down to NYC much these days but have taken the NE Corridor/Acela many times which is a nice enough train ride (and not super-long). Love going in and out of NYC. Taking the train up at tail-end of a May trip from overseas.

Thanks for the info. I'd probably do at least some section of the Empire Builder or Zephyr if I did a long distance run.

My wife and I took the Zephyr westbound the entire route back in 2007, and arrived 22 hours late. The whole trip was a nightmare. They ran out of food several times and once served oyster crackers as dinner.

(To Amtrak's credit, they refunded the entire trip.)

I used to sometimes catch the previous day's Coast Starlight when I'd travel from Salem to Seattle. The passengers already on board never looked too happy.

It's helpful to look at past history to get some idea of your chances of arriving on time - for example, here's the eastbound California Zephyr's times in Denver for the past month. It's a nice way to travel but it's not at all reliable for a connection, especially in winter.

https://juckins.net/amtrak_status/archive/html/history.php?t...

Send the author of the site an e-mail, he’s pretty approachable. https://www.seat61.com/email.htm