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

141–150 of 225 posts

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#141

Post by db48x »

lobster_johnson wrote: post #114
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 was considering taking a trip from NYC, since I like railway journeys. The NYC-Montreal (10.5 hours) and NYC-Toronto (12.5 hours) trips would be perfect... but they only have the café cars, which means microwaved, pre-made airline food. Apparently Amtrak considers these to be "short-distance" journeys, which don't have dining cars. I don't know if these ever had dining cars, but the idea of spending an entire day w…

From the price you were probably looking at the larger bedroom, rather than the roomette, which is generally half the price.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#142

Post by ascagnel_ »

pzone wrote: post #126
riffic wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Taxpayers should barely subsidize trains, if at all. If they're not profitable it's a very strong sign they shouldn't be run in the first place. (Or prices should be increased.) America is very different from Europe and Japan. Japan's population is concentrated in a single megalopolis. Europe is denser than America as well, 700 million people in roughly the same area. Another reason sprawling rail networks aren't a g…

Ironically, one of the biggest problems Amtrak faces is that it's forced, by Congressional decree, to service unprofitable routes on track time that must be paid to freight carriers.

If Amtrak operated only the Northeast Corridor, and could reinvest in that region instead of having to beg for nickels, the US could have train service in a region that more closely mimics the relative density of Europe. Acela is a step in that direction, but a half-step at best.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#143

Post by ascagnel_ »

gascan wrote: post #89
johan_larson wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to scrap it all, just the parts that require hefty subsidies to serve places that have realistic alternatives. US households usually have cars and for those that don't, intercity buses tend to serve even very tiny burgs. So most people most do have realistic alternatives. Trains are the right solution in some cases. Commuter rail often makes sense. And in some densely populated regions, intercity trains…

the parts that require hefty subsidies to serve places that have realistic alternatives You realize roads are built & maintained entirely at public expense? But we are so used to taking roads for granted. Public money spent on rail, is public money that doesn't need to be spent on roads. So, IMO, the first question is how many passenger-miles we get per dollar on rail, and how many per dollar on roads.

You also can't discount the benefits of modal redundancy in transit. Trains don't just carry people around -- they also take drivers off the road. When NJTransit's rail-workers union was agitating for a strike a few years ago, the state DOT advised drivers to expect a few hundred thousand extra trips per day to make up for the service outage.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#144

Post by ng12 »

niftich wrote: post #34
ng12 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google say it takes 31h to drive between the two -- any idea why the Amtrak takes twice that time?

If you're driving alone -- a reasonable assumption if you'd be in the market for a train -- a 31-hour "Google Maps" roadtrip takes 3 days, assuming ~10 hours of "map-time" driving, followed by 6+ hours of civilized sleep. The biggest constraint is "civilized" sleep, which is best had in a real bed at a real hotel, whose locations are constrained by settlements and whose typical availability hours begin at 15:00 local…

Yes, but trains don't need to sleep. I'm not saying I'd recommend driving 31h at a time, I'm saying I don't understand why that would be so much faster.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#145

Post by ng12 »

Spooky23 wrote: post #24
ng12 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Google say it takes 31h to drive between the two -- any idea why the Amtrak takes twice that time?

Driving in shifts for 31h is pretty awful. It’s really an apples to oranges comparison. That’s really a 3 day trip, especially if you’re targeting hotel check in times. The train is generally pleasant and relaxing. I used to do Albany->NYC a few times a month. It takes less time in that case, but I always looked forward to that trip to work, reflect or just observe. The problem with the trains is inconsistent times.…

I'm not asking about the feasibility of driving nonstop, I'm asking why the average speed of the train is significantly slower.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#146

Post by yongjik »

gascan wrote: post #89
johan_larson wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't want to scrap it all, just the parts that require hefty subsidies to serve places that have realistic alternatives. US households usually have cars and for those that don't, intercity buses tend to serve even very tiny burgs. So most people most do have realistic alternatives. Trains are the right solution in some cases. Commuter rail often makes sense. And in some densely populated regions, intercity trains…

the parts that require hefty subsidies to serve places that have realistic alternatives You realize roads are built & maintained entirely at public expense? But we are so used to taking roads for granted. Public money spent on rail, is public money that doesn't need to be spent on roads. So, IMO, the first question is how many passenger-miles we get per dollar on rail, and how many per dollar on roads.

> You realize roads are built & maintained entirely at public expense? But we are so used to taking roads for granted.

Reminds me of the famous (and probably fake) quote: "Where was the government when I was on food stamps?"

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#147

Post by cge »

cc439 wrote: post #75
tspike wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Most of those trips appear to be under 3.5 hours each way... Why not drive since it's likely faster and cheaper than the train?

In my case: my frequent travel by train is around 3 to 3.5 hours one-way, on routes that would be around 1h40m to 2 hours by car. Using a $0.30/mile figure for driving, the train is around the same price, or a bit cheaper, than driving myself, so long as I am using multi-ride tickets.

However, the train is a comfortable environment for me to do other things. I can read, write, and do quite a bit of research work; I can comfortably use my laptop and usually have a decent internet connection.

If I drive myself, I can do very little else but drive during the time; if I have someone else drive, I can do some things, but it can be quite difficult and rather nauseating, no matter how nice the car.

Thus, my choice is usually between a 3.5 hour trip where I can pretty much do much of what I'd be doing were I not traveling during that time, or a 2 hour trip that will actually hinder the better uses of my attention: the shorter duration trip ends up taking much more of my time.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#148

Post by envoked »

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…

Whoah, another Hacker News reader from Bingen/White Salmon?

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#149

Post by closeparen »

noonespecial wrote: post #118
matthewmacleod wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or, just maybe, it’s good to make infrastructure accessible?

He's got an unpopular opinion (and calling out the ADA specifically is probably the worst of the examples that can be chosen) but its worth a thought. When the choice is forced to be "perfect, or none at all", a possible outcome is none at all. On the balance, I find most of these rules to be acceptable most of the time, but it should always be considered that it can be taken too far.

Regulation is a commitment that we prefer "none at all" to the status quo. No more, no less. We talk about regulation creating desirable outcomes, but that's an oversimplification - the ADA does not hire or conscript anyone into the business of creating accessible infrastructure. It threatens that if they won't make their infrastructure accessible, they can't have any. The threat of "none at all" is the whole mechanism.

Re: Want airline food? Take Amtrak

#150

Post by lobster_johnson »

db48x wrote: post #141
lobster_johnson wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was considering taking a trip from NYC, since I like railway journeys. The NYC-Montreal (10.5 hours) and NYC-Toronto (12.5 hours) trips would be perfect... but they only have the café cars, which means microwaved, pre-made airline food. Apparently Amtrak considers these to be "short-distance" journeys, which don't have dining cars. I don't know if these ever had dining cars, but the idea of spending an entire day w…

From the price you were probably looking at the larger bedroom, rather than the roomette, which is generally half the price.

No, roomette. Chicago-Portland direct round trip, in mid-May, is $1,900 for the two-person "Superliner Roomette". I checked a bunch of possible journeys, and the cheapest round-trip roomette ticket was $1,000.
Post reply on HN