ISO scenic U.S. train trip in March

My family would like to take a scenic train trip during the second half of March. We live in NYC but are happy to fly to our starting and from our ending points. Originally we thought of Chicago to New Orleans, but that train is mostly overnight, so we wouldn’t see much. Any suggestions on other itineraries? We would spend a couple days in the city at either end and potentially at a stopping point mid-way if there’s one of interest. Two parents and a ten-year-old girl. Thank you.

I would look at one of these (but it depends on total available time):

• Southwest Chief
• Empire Builder
• California Zephyr
• (West) Coast Starlight

Through pretty scenic country in parts, with much snow on some of them at elevation. Need to check where they are during daylight hours.

And good opportunities to get off in interesting places for 24-48 hours. Grand Canyon, Santa Fe, and San Francisco come to mind.

Link: https://m.amtrak.com/h5/r/www.amtrak.com/routes.html

These are great suggestions from Coalcliff. Most of the scenic train trips in the USA are in the west. The south is pretty useless for that.

Another option is the train from NYC to Montreal, Quebec. That offers scenery along the Hudson river and also along Lake Champlain on the New York State /Vermont border. With an overnight in Montreal, you can extend the train trip to go up to Quebec City, to experience the closest thing to France in North America.

Might it still be pretty chilly around 15-25 March?

Of course. Still winter in Canada. A Quebec City local once told me that's the very best time of the year in QC. But I think he was mostly talking about the winter carnival in February.

Yeah ... you gotta watch you North Americans, and some Northern Europeans as well! We know you feel no pain, and think winter is "beautiful" ... I've been fooled once or twice! :-)

about 30 years ago I took the train from Chicago to Seattle It was interesting because of the Irish people I met on the trip but train travel can get old when there are no sleeper cars or whatever they are called.
we did hit a vehicle that was on the tracks which added to the time as there was some sort of investigation . I am not sure if anyone was in the vehicle when it was struck

another time I took a train in the winter east bound out of Chicago. there was heavy snow. somehow the heavy snow disabled the trains warning horn so we had to stop and wait while it was repaired or cleaned out (apparently trains are not allowed to operate with out a warning horn - regulations) It ws an interesting trip regardless

I feel the best Scenic, AMTRAK route would be ... Denver-Salt Lake-Reno-Sacramento. Should you not take a sleeping roomette ... Pause in Salt lake City. Or Sacramento(wonderful Rail museum). Then, continue to San Francisco. Happy t(rail)s ... carracar

The most scenic would probably be the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle. It goes through Glacier National Park during the daylight.

The most scenic would probably be the Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle. It goes through Glacier National Park during the daylight.

Not sure it actually goes through Glacier NP - but rather around the south of it (through Essex and Whitefish, etc). And a lot of the route from Chicago would be through fairly featureless countryside.

Might still be attractive to you - but I think the Denver > Salt Lake City > Reno > Sacramento > San Francisco service might be significantly more scenic than just about everything else at that time.

I agree that the railway museum in Sacramento is excellent. Temple Square in Salt Lake City is totally bizarro, but worth a few hours.

The California Zephyr from Denver to Salt Lake City is very scenic, I enjoyed Denver, and also had a stop at Glenwood Springs, there are hot springs there and snow fields you could visit. The train arrives at Salt Lake City at an awkward hour, 2am when I travelled there as it was late, but there were lots of people getting off the train. To rejoin the train at that time, or depending how late it is could be a problem. There is a good natural history museum in Salt Lake city and I enjoyed my visit. . Not sure that a roomette would be suitable when there are three of you. I found the seats easy to sleep in but I would spend one night on the train and one night at a stop as an overseas tourist we can make extra stops.

Funny you bring that up as the Chicago - New Orleans City of New Orleans used to be a daytime train and the current schedule used to be that of the all-sleeper Panama Limited (one of the premier luxury trains of its day).

Well, you definitely must go to the West for a scenic train trip: Denver - Oakland on California Zephyr is a good idea, or the Los Angeles - Seattle Coast Starlight, but beware that if any train is late you might miss scenery. I'm partial to the old UP City of Portland (or City of San Francisco); too bad they don't run anymore. Actually the CZ now takes the COSF route between Winnemucca and Emeryville.

I don't recommend stopping in Salt Lake City as the train could get there at 2:00 AM. You're better off just going all the way in 2 Roomettes. Of course I candidly point out that I find the Superliner Roomettes extremely uncomfortable with 2 people in each compared to the old ACF, PS, or Budd Roomettes or even open sections.

In the East the most scenic is probably the Cardinal or Lake Shore Limited, though neither can hold a candle to the West.

Trains in the USA rarely run on time and are old and not very nice IMO-

Anything running through Chicago will be late leaving or arriving as they have to share the tracks with freight trains, since the big freight trains owns the tracks now, not the USA/Govt or Amtrak.

The best train ride is Colorado Rockies, Seattle to LA along the coast.

Don't take too much notice of this OP

Far too Americans attack and disparage public transport - trains, buses, even planes. They are often conceived in cars, are possibly born in them, and then essentially live in them for decades. They cannot see any other way of travelling. Sad but true.

Coalcliff-

Well I take public transport when ever I can. I did not even own a car for 5 years living in downtown Chicago. Then I only a had a motorcycle. I did not buy a car until last year when we moved to rural Michigan. I now live in Florida, and only have 1 car, and ride by bicycle for most my errands and my wife takes the car to work.

I also took the Amtrak all the time from Chicago to St Louis, my home town. Its took 6 hours, to drive took 4.5 hours. (Always delayed)
I also use the Amtrak for NYC to Philly, Boston and DC for work (next week).

I use the metro transit all the time in Minneapolis, Atlanta, NYC, Chicago, DC, San Fran and Philly.

I lived in Shanghai and Beijing China and use their fast trains, city metro trains all the time, far superior to anything in the USA on all levels. I use the trains in EU when I ever I am there, mainly Italy, France and Germany for work. I have used the trains in Japan, Colombia, Morocco, Turkey, Vietnam, Thailand, Myanmar and Canada.

So, what are you saying about Americans and trains?

Amtrak sucks. They are about as bad as Myanmar or Vietnam, though those countries run on time, Amtrak rarely runs on time...

I endorse both the California Zephyr and a stop in Sacramento at the splendid railroad museum.

When you use Amtrak the US taxpayers are paying for part of your trip, as the system is subsidized. You will go over Donner Pass, so learn the lesson of the Donner Party and take extra food, or at least extra companions.

When you use Amtrak the US taxpayers are paying for part of your trip, as the system is subsidized.

As are the air industry, and especially the automobile industry!

Oh, jeez, don't let this degenerate into another emotionally-driven knee-jerk fight between pro-rail and anti-rail factions with little knowledge of the facts. The reality is somewhere in the middle:
1. Public transport includes planes, trains, and buses; however, most people erroneously think of it as only trains and buses.
2. Trains in the US are late all the time though this is irrelevant to the OP if she just wants a scenic train ride.
3. Some trains in the US are old, but so are many trains in other countries. As founder of Inland Streamliner, I prefer using older buses and firmly believe age has nothing to do with quality. That being said, I prefer old 1950s UP equipment to anything on Amtrak today.
4. "Big freight" doesn't exist. Private railroads like UP always owned the tracks and at one time ran all trains, both passenger and freight, on said tracks.
5. Americans aren't "conceived" in cars, we simply use cars when it's most practical and convenient, though cars are again irrelevant to the discussion because the OP simply wants a scenic train ride.
6. China, Russia, and Japan have great rail systems, though the same can't be said of Europe. While Europeans ride trains more than Americans, they still drive cars far more (especially in Germany), and end up traveling far less total miles a year due to high fuel taxes. In Europe, air travel is growing twice as fast as rail travel because it's faster and cheaper. Also, most Euro trains are short-distance, which is irrelevant to the OP who's looking for long-distance scenic trips.
7. While trains, planes, buses, and cars are all subsidized, Amtrak is subsidized far more per passenger-mile than planes, private buses, or cars. On the other hand, Amtrak is subsidized far less than failing city buses and light rail. However, urban transit is irrelevant to the discussion since the OP is not looking for urban transit.
8. Cars and Interstates are often blamed for Amtrak's woes, but they actually had virtually nothing to do with the demise of private long-distance trains. The UP Cities, America's first long-distance Streamliners, were marketed to through passengers, many of whom would fly today regardless due to the long distances involved. The Cities mostly followed Interstate 80, which wasn't completed until 1980; the Cities had already been discontinued in 1971 on Amtrak Day. The Cities suffered from competition from other trains and airplanes, not from cars or Interstates.
9. The only folks who might still ride the UP City of Portland today would be experiential travelers like our OP, but those were siphoned off by competition from the Empire Builder, Western Star, North Coast Limited, Mainstreeter, and (until 1961) Olympian Hiawatha. If the only train between Chicago and Portland / Seattle was the City of Portland, and if Amtrak were never created, perhaps UP would still be running it today. After all, according to financial reports, it was once profitable, and plenty of railfans (me included) would love to have it back.

Anyway, I doubt the OP is a diehard railfan or political lobbylist, so let's just all get along and enjoy some train rides.

I think you mis-stated some facts.

#7-The car, bus and plane industry is not subsidized by the govt, they may have had some bail outs or support in tough times, but the majority are publicly traded companies that are not subsidized. EU is another story, like Airbus...that is a consortium of countries that used public funds to build the industry in the EU.

As for the passenger rail system vs the Interstate/Roads/private vehicle, this was all due to the US never having a Energy Policy, that was aimed at reducing vehicles and transport as whole, for the last 80 years. The advent of the interstate system, as well as the suburb/urban planning when land was cheap and Americans wanted a nice lot, nice house, nice street and a nice commute, the car was the key, period. Mass transit was only viable and a profitable venture in the major cities, mainly the east coast. Though train travel was the catalyst of the great westward expansion, and the industrial age, as the east coast cities began to sprawl to other states and cities east of the Mississippi, two cites that were born into greatness, thanks to the train, was Chicago, and St Louis. The Grand trains station in St Louis is a museum style pice of architecture and art on many levels. This put the steam boats on notice. Once the Louisiana Purchase was complete and railroads were built to the west and California, the rest is history. After WW2, the 1950's was the beginning of modern America as we know it, from McDonalds to drive in theaters..the highway system was built as part of a huge Govt program for employment and also to spur the economy and GDP. The rest is history. Americans are all about their cars, California is the epitome of a car culture.

The EU in the 80's started putting tariffs and taxes on high displacement motors, high horsepower, and also it had high fuel prices, thats why Diesel was the mainstay until the last decade. But if you want to buys a big V8 500HP car, you will pay dearly....compared to Americans.

I love trains, but Amtrak is a joke. My freinds were planning to get thru the mountains during the daytime from Denver, but the train was so late they only 1 hour of light vs 5 hours...so much for a nice view :(

With all due respect, you're presenting assumptions and misconceptions as facts.
1. Cars, buses, and planes are subsidized through government-built roads and airports. 77% of road costs are covered by fuel taxes and most airport costs covered by landing fees, so subsides to cars, buses, and airplanes are much less per passenger-mile than to trains.
2. The demise of long-distance trains like the City of Portland had almost nothing to do with Interstates, roads, or private vehicles. It has nothing to do with density, "nice lot", "nice car", "nice house", or "Energy Policy". Planes are simply much faster over long-distance, so most City of Portland customers went to the plane.
3. What little customers were left on the train for scenic or leisure trips got split up between too many trains on parallel lines. Just between Chicago and the PNW alone there were at least 7 trains, the City of Portland, Portland Rose, Empire Builder, Western Star, North Coast Limited, Mainstreeter, and Olympia Hiawatha. After Jet Age 1960 there were simply too many trains with too few customers.
4. If all the other trains somehow disappeared in 1960, the City of Portland may still be profitably operating today, though combined with COSF, COLA, COD, and COSL. The other trains didn't have the option of being consolidated with so many other trains; only the COP (or Portland Rose) could do so. However the COP is dead so it's a moot point.

Where in the world, are roads and airport gates not subsidized?

I guess all food and water is too, if you drill it down far enough....

LOL

Where in the world, are roads and airport gates not subsidized?

I guess all food and water is too, if you drill it down far enough....

LOL

That's exactly what I said. You're the one who said "I think you mis-stated some facts. #7-The car, bus and plane industry is not subsidized by the govt, they may have had some bail outs or support in tough times, but the majority are publicly traded companies that are not subsidized."

I didn't misstate facts, you said cars, buses, and planes aren't subsidized. They are, just not as much as Amtrak, except city buses and urban mass transit rail, which are far more subsidized than anything else in the US.

Have actually done the Zephyr which is very worthwhile and have returned from the Pacific NW via Denver--also worthwile. The train ride from LA to SF is worthwhile-, although last third is boring. The transcontinental trains are timed to maximize scenery and even with delays, you will get to enjoy that.

If you want a train trip, take a train trip. The roomettes are small and that's a problem for some people, but otherwise, I don't have warnings for you.

No the US train system can't compare with the best foreign systems but the conditions of the rolling stock, etc. are fine. You will face delays, but no one who takes a train these days is expecting to meet a tight schedule. You will meet people from all walks of lifes, which you won't do any other way of traveling.

Think of US trains as a cruise boat on wheels. On a cruise you are not narrowly focused on getting from A to B, but rather on a relaxing and informative experience. If you want to get someplace quickly, cheaply, or on time there are other alternatives, and the train is usually not one of them.

As for the passenger rail system vs the Interstate/Roads/private vehicle, this was all due to the US never having a Energy Policy, that was aimed at reducing vehicles and transport as whole, for the last 80 years.

Indeed it was the reverse - and in fact the US has spent trillions running a private police force and protection agency for its oil industry worldwide. It's called the Department of Defence and the CIA. Has worked well, most of the time.

The suburban / exurban lifestyle is already being hollowed out - economically, socially, and spiritually. Who knows where it will go when cheap energy is no more ... I can't see it ending well.

I don't know whether any European rail systems make enough to pay for services provided, but it is a very impressive system in most places, and if significant public funds are required to support it - seems to me a pretty good use of tax.

in fact the US has spent trillions running a private police force and protection agency for its oil industry worldwide. It's called the Department of Defence and the CIA. Has worked well, most of the time.

That is absurd to tie the lack of a good energy policy, and public transit, to the CIA and the oil industry. Yes the US Govt protects it industrial interest, and its dependence on foreign imported fuels, but it has nothing to do with the Interstate system vs the passenger rail system.

EU was never dependent on nor embraced the automobile culture, for a multitude of reasons, one being many of the major cities there could not accommodate new major highways and wide roads, as they were centuries old urban sprawl, small streets, where as the US was a open field and a easy landscape to build roads, and suburbia as we know it. Land was much cheaper for the average citizen to buy than the EU, not to mention a much easier to attain debt market to supply cheap money to lend people money to purchase land and homes, cars etc...

Having lived in both major urban cities and suburbs, when I was younger I enjoyed the city, now I am older and shun the city, its dirty, has safety issues, higher crime, more expensive property in many major cities, poorer school/education systems, and parking/gridlock finding parking about is a pain in the arse.

Cities experiencing rebirth of its urban living, are not the same demographics as when they were first popular, as it tends to be singles and empty nesters, they dont have to own a car, and can be dependent on ride share, bicycles or public transport. They tend to work from home or communal office campus/buildings, and dont have a need for great schools and good shopping, as they shop online and everything is delivered. Nightlife or a good bar is higher on the must have list than a good school...

Much of the expansion of growing populations and home growth in the south, is people fleeing the norths old cities. Charlotte, Raleigh, Atlanta, Ft Lauderdale, Nashville, Phoenix, Las Vegas, Denver etc, people are moving to these areas for 3 reasons, better schools, better quality of life/lifestyle/weather, lower property taxes or better services/govt for the same amount of money, or even less. People want space and sprawl. Can you blame them?

China/Asia its all high rises due to cost factors. You can buy a 2B/2B in a new building in most areas outside the top major cities for $50K. Though their wages/earnings are 1/4th of the USA, the middle class attains property/condos no problem, and that cash, no mortgage. The cities are planned with public transport/infrastructure in place, unlike the USA. Now that the Chinese can afford a vehicle, their roads are very congested, and they are trying to deter car ownership in the major cities. 4 lane highways are parking lots just like the USA.

Why does a simple question about a scenic train trip. become a tit for tat battle about transport around the world. surely there is some other forum for this type of talk. Not the first time I have noticed a simple topic has been hijacked.

Because passenger train travel in the USA is not what people think it is, and I wanted the poster to know what Amtrak is, or isn't. Simple.

Why does a simple question about a scenic train trip. become a tit for tat battle about transport around the world. surely there is some other forum for this type of talk.

Someone stated that the Amtrak railway system is subsidised by the US taxpayer, with the implication that other transport is not ... but clearly air, bus, and especially cars are hugely supported by taxpayers. Just perhaps not quite so visibly.

So I thought it was worthwhile pointing this out. If it weren't about the securing of oil supply, the US would barely need an army, let alone a standing one in about 80 or so countries. Why otherwise would they care about Afghanistan, Iraq, Kuwait, or indeed Saudi Arabia?

The cost of empire I guess ... as the Romans found to their great cost, ultimately. And not an uninteresting subject to chew over.

Afghanistan is not a energy producer and in OPEC.

Venezuela was a producer, but privatized its oil industry and now is a non player, we didnt invade Venezuela.

If you think the US does not need a military and is only for protecting oil interest, you are living in a another dimension. The USA is now actually exporting oil, so I guess we should sell the Navy Fleet and pout the fighter jets in mothballs...lol

Back to why Amtrak Sucks.

https://mythreecents.com/reviews/amtrak

https://www.consumeraffairs.com/travel/amtrak.html

Afghanistan is not a energy producer and in OPEC.

The oil pipeline was to go from the Central Asia oil patch to the Pakistani coast right through Afghan territory ... it's no secret. The Taliban had to be subdued.

The USA is now actually exporting oil, so I guess we should sell the Navy Fleet and pout the fighter jets in mothballs

The US exports a few specific products and grades of oil, but is still massively dependent on cheap oil imports from (mostly) the Middle East - millions of barrels per day. And the fracking / shale oil "boom" is a one-day wonder - wells are in steep decline from Texas to North Dakota.

Yes but the impact of US production has brought down the price of crude, per barrel, which is important. Under $60 barrel in the beginning. Oil & Gas supplies are in all nations interest, as a common commodity.

There is no pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban were a threat to stability on many levels, not just energy opportunities.

I've ridden with Amtrak on the Empire Builder, to Seattle, but at the end of May.. I went solo just for the ride and day after arriving in Seattle I flew back to Chicago. I rented a roomette, ate in the dining car, got off/back on at each stop for photos, sat in the observation deck, met some interesting fellow passengers, etc. One of my best travel experiences. I probably would not make that trip in the dead of Winter, though.

LW

Yes but the impact of US production has brought down the price of crude, per barrel, which is important. Under $60 barrel in the beginning. Oil & Gas supplies are in all nations interest, as a common commodity.

The problem with oil is that if it's too cheap the oil companies cannot produce it at a profit, particularly tar sands and shale oil. But if it's too expensive, then economies tank, and people hurt. There is no happy Goldilocks price.

There is no pipeline through Afghanistan. The Taliban were a threat to stability on many levels, not just energy opportunities.

There was a proposal for the pipeline, avoiding both Iran and Russia, but it was threatened by the Taliban.

Anyway - back to those nicely subsidised trains. Especially European ones - where the top speed we reached was 327 kph.

OK, I plead guilty. In the spirit that the road to happiness is sometimes approached though reduced expectations, and specifically not anticipating the levels of promptness, national coverage, and general service obtaining in some European countries, I pointed out that Amtrak is rather reluctantly and grudgingly subsidized. I also suggested, in the spirit of the orphans in "Oliver" being told to be properly grateful for their gruel, that patrons were not paying 100% of the cost of service.

Look at Glacier National Park 4 day getaway, or 6 day round trip starting in Chicago and going to Glacier National Park through Amtrack Vacations. You can spend some city time in Chicago exploring the museums (the 10 year old will have a lot of options) for the 10 year old. And flights from NYC to Chicago won’t be too much.

Look at Glacier National Park 4 day getaway

The Going to the Sun Road through Glacier NP won't be open in March ... so this is poor advice in my view.

Thanks for pointing out that the route is closed in March. It is something to checkout and the person requesting information might decide to take a train trip at a different time. Or others reading the tread in the future.

This topic has been automatically locked due to inactivity. Email community@lonelyplanet.com if you would like to add to this topic and we'll unlock it for you.