Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 119 posts

Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight

#41

Post by bpye »

mschuster91 wrote: post #2

In Germany, we have had a quite extensive network of night trains with proper beds (and the more expensive tickets also have a shower in the carriage); unfortunately the network got massively thinned out in the last years and only the profitable core routes are in service now by Austrian ÖBB. Shouldn't something like this be possible in America, especially between far-away cities? Could at least be more profitable be…

I took a few of the night trains in Europe this year, Krakow - Prague and Prague - Zurich (both CD, Czech, I think) were great, Verona - Paris kinda sucked though (Thello, private)

Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight

#42

Post by yourapostasy »

mschuster91 wrote: post #20
FTA wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amtrak offers this with "roomettes" all the way up to 4-person rooms, though whether it's an overnight or a day trip depends on your origin and destination (for example, Chicago to Dallas is an overnight). You mention that Germany had eliminated all but the profitable ones--well, the U.S. government loses money on these routes to keep them running even in spite of the high prices. I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for C…

> I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for CHI->DAL; By car (and Google Maps measuring) that's about 3.000km total. Hamburg-Munich is about 1.500km total, so half the distance. But ÖBB Nightjet tickets start for ~160€ to 250€ roundtrip, about half the price and Amtrak is losing money? How is that even possible?

> ...about half the price and Amtrak is losing money?

>

> How is that even possible?

Amtrak runs routes across a very large area, they run more infrequently than European schedules, and their capital equipment is aging. Combine these with the factors the Economist article brought up that user totalZero wrote about, and you end up with a very messy, expensive, customer-inconvenient situation.

The American freight rail system is the envy of the world, but it comes at the cost of the passenger rail system, which doesn't access to nearly the same scale of subsidies that road and air transport networks enjoy in the US.

If you are traveling by yourself, can book well in advance, don't require access to a shower facility, have lots of flexibility with your timetable, and have your own means of an Internet connection, then Amtrak is a great, low-stress, inexpensive, energy-efficient travel option for this inter-city range to longer ranges.

Among some use cases where Amtrak doesn't fit as well are:

* If you worry about securing valuables while sleeping (cable lock alarms work as long as you fit the valuables into overhead space, of which there is always plenty, but if you have more than that to worry about, then ship ahead if you can).

* If you have a restrictive diet that Amtrak doesn't cater to (bring your own works well, freeze ahead of time and that will get you through a continuous 3-day itinerary).

* Traveling with children (the rooms with beds are more expensive than equivalent airfare for everyone in many cases).

* Must have continuous cell-based Internet access (big swathes of land in Western US have simply zero cell signal coverage, and a speeding steel tube isn't the best platform to pick up signals even in the best cell coverage areas, an observation car if you have one is the best, I'm trying a satellite phone next time I ride Amtrak into the Western US).

Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight

#43

Post by jetti »

mschuster91 wrote: post #20
FTA wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amtrak offers this with "roomettes" all the way up to 4-person rooms, though whether it's an overnight or a day trip depends on your origin and destination (for example, Chicago to Dallas is an overnight). You mention that Germany had eliminated all but the profitable ones--well, the U.S. government loses money on these routes to keep them running even in spite of the high prices. I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for C…

> I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for CHI->DAL; By car (and Google Maps measuring) that's about 3.000km total. Hamburg-Munich is about 1.500km total, so half the distance. But ÖBB Nightjet tickets start for ~160€ to 250€ roundtrip, about half the price and Amtrak is losing money? How is that even possible?

There is more to it than just a single rail line. Who owns the rail that ÖBB Nightjet uses? Amtrak has to make payments to the owners of the rail that they ride on. They are incremental payments and not access fees but that is still a cost. Second, Amtrak has many more employees (including their own police force), which will add cost. Third, Amtrak also owns at least 2 train stations (Union Station in Chicago and Penn Station in NYC) which will add to their liabilities. Finally, the routes in the US are much longer (typically) than what would be in Europe. That means less riders in a given timeframe which would mean an increase in ticket prices.

Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight

#44

Post by rustoo »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #10

> the current route is a perfect example of that awkward travel distance to which there is no good solution. Others abound, such as Washington-Boston or London-Edinburgh There is a very good sleeper train, the Caledonian Sleeper, between London and Edinburgh (and several other points in Scotland). That's a "good solution" for that route, and I'm more than a little surprised that the London-based Economist seems not t…

Such buses are quite common in India too. Many people prefer sleeper buses even though the prices are similar to flights. One reason is that they have to travel to the airport (city a) and then travel from the airport (city b).

A couple of interesting links:

http://www.indiatimes.com/boyz-toyz/cars-and-bikes/sleeper-a...

http://www.deccanherald.com/content/599348/scania-drive-1st-...

Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight

#45

Post by jetti »

nine_k wrote: post #34
mschuster91 wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'd usually pay $800 roundtrip for CHI->DAL; By car (and Google Maps measuring) that's about 3.000km total. Hamburg-Munich is about 1.500km total, so half the distance. But ÖBB Nightjet tickets start for ~160€ to 250€ roundtrip, about half the price and Amtrak is losing money? How is that even possible?

You don't have to maintain the air you fly through, but you must maintain the track you travel by. Unless there is a lot of freight traffic, the maintenance will be more expensive than your income from tickets. Europe is just much denser than US Midwest, so both passenger and freight traffic is more intense for a unit of track length, thus more economical.

Just FYI ÖBB Nightjet is a train and not a plane. I looked it up to see comparisons but I had the same assumption as you based on the name.

Also, Amtrak doesn't maintain the track that is up to the track owner to do the maintenance. Amtrak does pay money to each track owner to use their tracks but it isn't an access fee and it is incremental.

Re: Why an eight-hour bus ride from Los Angeles to San Francisco might beat a flight

#50

Post by arjie »

Doctor_Fegg wrote: post #10

> the current route is a perfect example of that awkward travel distance to which there is no good solution. Others abound, such as Washington-Boston or London-Edinburgh There is a very good sleeper train, the Caledonian Sleeper, between London and Edinburgh (and several other points in Scotland). That's a "good solution" for that route, and I'm more than a little surprised that the London-based Economist seems not t…

I thought it was average at best. I've taken long-distance sleeper trains all my life, but the Caledonian Sleeper has rubbish breakfast, poor bedding, and you have to exit the train right after it arrives.

I mean, one of these three is fine, but all three and it was worthless for its objective. It costs a hundred quid and this is what you get? I could take Virgin for half the price and be there in 5 hours and actually sleep in my own bed instead. It's what I'll do next time.

I suppose the one plus is you get to use the lounge at the station, which is about the one place that Waverly Station has plug points for a charger.

Post reply on HN