There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway • Hacker News Board

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#41

Post by Kiro » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:08 PM UTC

elbasti wrote: post #33

Kiro wrote: post #19

This article shows how culturally different Sweden and U.S. are. In Sweden it has become taboo to use the plane for any travel destination where you can go by train, to the level where we see the complete opposite headlines here ("There is no reason to fly when you can take the train"). You need to have a very good reason to fly at all or the pitchforks will get you. I've personally completely stopped flying.

To be fair, NY → LA is over 4,000 KM. Would you fly to say, Bulgaria? Southern Italy?

Yes, there's a big movement promoting night trains in Europe right now. I see "night train maps" in my feed all the time. Additionally one of the fastest growing Instagram accounts is one shaming influencers who are flying instead of taking the train.

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#42

Post by 0898 » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

Caity Weaver used to write for Gawker. I've always loved her work – I think she's one of the best writers of our generation.

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#43

Post by bluGill » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #19

This article shows how culturally different Sweden and U.S. are. In Sweden it has become taboo to use the plane for any travel destination where you can go by train, to the level where we see the complete opposite headlines here ("There is no reason to fly when you can take the train"). You need to have a very good reason to fly at all or the pitchforks will get you. I've personally completely stopped flying.

Sweden is a small country. Would you take the train from Sweden to Italy? Even that trip is much less distance than the trip in question here, but it is the closest example I can think of that ought to be possible. A more comparable trip would be Sweden to Kazakhstan.

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#44

Post by chrisseaton » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:09 PM UTC

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #39

chrisseaton wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I had never considered it by train - seems harder to just stop off and meet people Could you take the train, but instead of a non-stop journey just jump off when you pass through an interesting town, and then resume your journey the next day?

It seems to lack the flexibility I was hoping for - lunch in this town, dinner in that. plus i suspect it entails excitingly expensive tickets and fun timetable management :-)

Ah I'm used to roughly hourly trains - I guess some of them in the USA only pass through once a week even.

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#45

Post by Kiro » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

criddell wrote: post #32

Kiro wrote: post #19

This article shows how culturally different Sweden and U.S. are. In Sweden it has become taboo to use the plane for any travel destination where you can go by train, to the level where we see the complete opposite headlines here ("There is no reason to fly when you can take the train"). You need to have a very good reason to fly at all or the pitchforks will get you. I've personally completely stopped flying.

Yeah, but Sweden is small. In the US, people routinely drive distances where you would be flying or using the train. The mountains make things a bit different, but I think in general it's true.

The argument would be that you don't need to travel where you can't take the train. If you have a job that requires it, quit.

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#46

Post by ghaff » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:10 PM UTC

csomar wrote: post #35

I tried the Amtrack against advice not to. I went from DC to NYC and then to Boston. The train was not luxurious but it was "fine". I took the cheapest option (which was not cheap given the train was slow and the distance is short). [I'm comparing prices to EU]. - The seats were large and comfortable enough. But I'm a small sized person. - The trains were on time. - The stations were not renovated or nice but functio…

The Northeast Corridor Amtrak route is fine. The Acela trains are nicer and a bit faster but IMO not so much so that I typically will pay out of my own pocket at 2x the price. (The pricing is really for business travelers for which they only really need to be competitive with air.)

I much prefer those routes to flying. But Penn Station in NYC really is a disaster. (It's a long and sad story dating back to the Penn Central bankruptcy.) Although things are slowly being fixed up as part of a massive building project.

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#47

Post by bluGill » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:11 PM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #29

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #24

I'm planning to take my family on an RV across the US (The Lincoln Highway in other words) partly cos it's always been a dream of mine, and partly to get the kids introduced to real travelling rather than holidays. I had never considered it by train - seems harder to just stop off and meet people, something I consider the point of travelling (yes landscapes are lovely but I am a Homo Sapiens Bigot)

> I had never considered it by train - seems harder to just stop off and meet people Could you take the train, but instead of a non-stop journey just jump off when you pass through an interesting town, and then resume your journey the next day?

Maybe, maybe not. Some routes are one trail per week, some 3x a week. There are many interesting places not reachable by train at all. If your trip works with those limits then there is a pass you can buy.

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#48

Post by criddell » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

Kiro wrote: post #45

criddell wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but Sweden is small. In the US, people routinely drive distances where you would be flying or using the train. The mountains make things a bit different, but I think in general it's true.

The argument would be that you don't need to travel where you can't take the train. If you have a job that requires it, quit.

You've convinced me. This is my last day as an airline pilot!

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#49

Post by ineedasername » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:13 PM UTC

lupire wrote: post #37

Kiro wrote: post #19

This article shows how culturally different Sweden and U.S. are. In Sweden it has become taboo to use the plane for any travel destination where you can go by train, to the level where we see the complete opposite headlines here ("There is no reason to fly when you can take the train"). You need to have a very good reason to fly at all or the pitchforks will get you. I've personally completely stopped flying.

How often do you take 3-day train journeys from Sweden?

Trick question. Sweden isn't large enough to require trips longer than a day. I'm going to bet they fly when, for example, they need to go from Stockholm to Madrid, roughly the distance from New York to California.

Re: There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

#50

Post by tialaramex » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 2:15 PM UTC

Scheduled aviation means altitude which means pressure change which fucks with my ears. So, I'm useless for a day or two either side.

Unless traveling across an ocean there will be a way to get there without a plane that only takes the 2-3 data I'd be out of action anyway.

One of the very few down sides of this era is that the fast passenger liner isn't a thing any more. Titanic sank trying to get to New York quickly. I can get a passenger ticket to New York today, from Southampton where I live, but now it's a leisure market, they don't schedule them for rapid travel just as a cruise, so it's not practical to go back and forth that way.