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

Want airline food? Take Amtrak

railwayage.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 225 posts

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#61

Post by scyclow »

I took the Empire Builder a couple weeks ago, and the Lakeshore Limited + California Zephyr last year. As much as I enjoyed the trips, I have to admit that they longer lines are incredibly impractical. Amtrak is operating at a huge loss per passenger ($32 on average)[1], and the prices aren't even that much cheaper than flying. It's viable for people with more time than money, but most of the passengers are just weirdos who enjoy wasting their time taking the train cross-country in 2018 (like me).

In any case, I'm sorry to see them thinking about nixing the dining car, since it was one of my favorite parts. The food is surprisingly good (if not over priced), and it's a great way to meet random people from around the country. Coming from the liberal New York tech-bubble, I definitely met a bunch of people I wouldn't have otherwise had a chance to talk to.

But at least they're not getting rid of the observation car! Sitting in it through the Rockies on the Zephyr was a great way to see that beautiful stretch.

[1] https://www.downsizinggovernment.org/transportation/privatiz...

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#62

Post by pkaye »

mistercleo wrote: post #49
pkaye wrote: post #31

I didn't have a good experience the last time I took Amtrak and had dining on board. It was the only time in my life I felt I was discriminated against in a dining setting. It was near the end of dinner time and food was likely running low so i didn't expect much. However after seating us, she took on two other groups and continued to fully serve them drinks and meal before coming back to our table for drinks. And by…

Were you dining à la carte or without a reservation? Maybe the later arriving parties had already had their food set aside in the kitchen because they were traveling on a ticket with meals included and/or had a reservation. I travelled only once with bedroom accommodations and recall we were assigned reservation times when to show for our pre-paid meals.

Yes without a reservation. However, the first half of dinner hour was for reservations then they took people in without reservations. By the time we were called, anyone with reservations would have long been accommodated. I understand that food might run out but they could have atleast asked us about drinks.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#63

Post by anderber »

Redoubts wrote: post #54
gascan wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you want rail to be scrapped?

Why should it be kept?

It's a great option of travel. It's good for us to have a variety of ways to travel. Sure, the government doesn't subsidize train travel as much as it does for air and road, but I believe it's important, and so do others.

"Yes, Amtrak is subsidized. So are all competing forms of transportation. Highways cover only 51 percent of their costs from all user fees, including the gas tax. The rest is paid by subsidies of one form or another, especially from local property taxes. Airlines receive massive subsidies in the form of airports and the air traffic control system. The day after 9/11, the airlines ran to Capitol Hill and were immediately given billions of dollars in additional taxpayer money, no questions asked."

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/dont-railroa...

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#64

Post by vkou »

borkt wrote: post #44
dima55 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Building roads is also a money losing operation. Complain about something else. There's plenty here.

Reconstructing an existing road is even worse. Want to repair a failing street? OK, but only if you make every aspect of the supporting infrastructure ADA compliant with the most current laws. We are legislating ourselves out of modern infrastructure.

Is opposing accessibility the hill you want to die on?

Do you have a ballpark for the financial and human cost of making our basic infrastructure not-accessible?

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#65

Post by shriphani »

scyclow wrote: post #61

I took the Empire Builder a couple weeks ago, and the Lakeshore Limited + California Zephyr last year. As much as I enjoyed the trips, I have to admit that they longer lines are incredibly impractical. Amtrak is operating at a huge loss per passenger ($32 on average)[1], and the prices aren't even that much cheaper than flying. It's viable for people with more time than money, but most of the passengers are just weir…

I took the california zephyr after 2 harsh years (professionally); from Chicago to SF.

So many inner demons were vanquished on that trip. That train route is truly a love-letter to America - the Colorado river, the Sierra Nevada, beautiful life-changing stuff.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#66

Post by tspike »

scyclow wrote: post #61

I took the Empire Builder a couple weeks ago, and the Lakeshore Limited + California Zephyr last year. As much as I enjoyed the trips, I have to admit that they longer lines are incredibly impractical. Amtrak is operating at a huge loss per passenger ($32 on average)[1], and the prices aren't even that much cheaper than flying. It's viable for people with more time than money, but most of the passengers are just weir…

I don't disagree with your comment, but the thing that often gets lost in these discussions is that at least for the Empire Builder, people generally aren't using it to go from Chicago to Portland or Seattle.

Sure, a flight from Chicago to Seattle would be much faster and cheaper. But what about getting from Minot to Whitefish? Or Spokane to Wenatchee?

I personally use it 2-3 times a week to go between Bingen and Portland. Most of the people I ride with eastbound are going to Pasco or Sandpoint or Spokane, not Chicago.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#67

Post by rdl »

Taxpayers (and freight customers) shouldn't be subsidizing a novelty form of transportation for rail fans. If there's a subset of people who want this service, they should pay sufficient fares to cover the cost of service. Amtrak isn't doing that.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#68

Post by riffic »

rdl wrote: post #67

Taxpayers (and freight customers) shouldn't be subsidizing a novelty form of transportation for rail fans. If there's a subset of people who want this service, they should pay sufficient fares to cover the cost of service. Amtrak isn't doing that.

You're correct - taxpayers should be subsidizing an improved form of rail transit instead (see china, europe, japan.)

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#69

Post by scyclow »

tspike wrote: post #66
scyclow wrote: post #61

I took the Empire Builder a couple weeks ago, and the Lakeshore Limited + California Zephyr last year. As much as I enjoyed the trips, I have to admit that they longer lines are incredibly impractical. Amtrak is operating at a huge loss per passenger ($32 on average)[1], and the prices aren't even that much cheaper than flying. It's viable for people with more time than money, but most of the passengers are just weir…

I don't disagree with your comment, but the thing that often gets lost in these discussions is that at least for the Empire Builder, people generally aren't using it to go from Chicago to Portland or Seattle. Sure, a flight from Chicago to Seattle would be much faster and cheaper. But what about getting from Minot to Whitefish? Or Spokane to Wenatchee? I personally use it 2-3 times a week to go between Bingen and Por…

That's a fair point. As uneconomical as it is for Amtrak, there really isn't much in the way of long-distance transportation options for people in some of these small towns.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#70

Post by rdl »

dvtrn wrote: post #23
closeparen wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

3 days is a relatively aggressive schedule for the road trip. The train makes up for its low average speed by not needing to sleep overnight. The real problem is that the cost is greater than or equal to a 4-hour flight.

Why is train travel so much more expensive? Fewer tickets being sold comparatively?

Also because it's so slow. You're tying up a lot of personnel on the train, as well as capital equipment, for multiple days, rather than hours for a plane. With the same personnel (which cost about as much as pilots/cabin crew), you could run ~10 equivalent flights. Capital equipment is cheaper for rail than in the air, but the portion of rail capex/opex (either directly, or usually via fees to freight lines) is also high.

This video is a good analysis. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwjwePe-HmA

Post reply on HN