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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 468 posts

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

#191

Post by aidenn0 »

chrisseaton wrote: post #31
CWuestefeld wrote: post #18

My wife and I did this several years back, New York to Chicago to San Francisco, and it really was a wonderful experience. But get a sleeper compartment, don't sit with the cattle. It's worth it, really. And that's even though we spent little time in our compartment almost the whole trip we were up in the observation car watching the American landscape roll by. One highlight of the trip was when storms over Helper, U…

> While waiting, there was a guy with a guitar in the observation car, and we had a nice sing-along. That bit sounds like hell to me but I'm glad you had fun! In the UK we have special carriages where you're not allowed to make a noise so you can avoid that kind of thing.

At least in the northeast corridor (basically the only place in the US where trains are usable as transportation), there are "quiet cars" as well.

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

#192

Post by haldean »

dustindiamond wrote: post #161

So, how feasible is this as a remote worker? What I am really asking is, how reliable is wifi/internet and is it available through the entire journey? I would not mind a workcation this way, but probably could not afford a satphone’s data plan.

Extremely unreliable; I've only taken the Lake Shore Limited and California Zephyr, so I can't speak for the whole thing, but I'd say I had cell reception about half the time, maybe less.

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

#193

Post by beat »

war1025 wrote: post #103
chrisseaton wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once saw a large party of school children going on a trip on the Caltrain. Turned out they weren't going anywhere... it was just going on the train that was the activity. A commuter train running alongside a highway through urban sprawl. They were whooping when it pulled into the station.

I've taken the train in Minneapolis from the mall to downtown several times, purely for the novelty of it. We have a lot of freight trains in Iowa. Passenger, not so much.

I live a few blocks from that train, so I wind up taking it all the time to get to the mall or downtown. The novelty wears off, and you wind up mostly worried about having to share your ride with packs of unruly teenagers, or sports fans heading downtown who can't resist saying racist things about our various African immigrant neighbors. It's a pleasure or a drag, depending on the manners of those who share the ride.

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

#194

Post by GrifMD »

komali2 wrote: post #124
chrisseaton wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I once saw a large party of school children going on a trip on the Caltrain. Turned out they weren't going anywhere... it was just going on the train that was the activity. A commuter train running alongside a highway through urban sprawl. They were whooping when it pulled into the station.

>large party of school children going on a trip on the Caltrain. Haha when I took Caltrain daily to mountain view this was my nightmare. Bluetooth headphones and a white noise app were a requirement. Those field trip days, and the rides home on baseball game days... I do not miss that commute.

Knowing I was going to miss the last "Baby Bullet" out of SF to San Jose because a meeting ran late was one of the biggest kick in the guts. I do not miss that commute at all.

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

#195

Post by magduf »

thatfrenchguy wrote: post #182
magduf wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An absolute fortune. I've looked into this, and it isn't economical in any way, shape, or form. Flying across the continent is MUCH cheaper, and with your number of vacation days usually being limited, gives you a lot more time at your destination. The only reason to do this is because you really want to spend your vacation time sitting in a train watching rural American scenery go by in states like Montana. It's sor…

>If we had 300mph bullet trains going across the country, it would make some sense because you'd get there a lot faster while still seeing the sights You should take a TGV, you'll realize that at 300kph you don't see the sights.

Yes, you would in America. It's a question of simple geometry and perspective. I haven't ridden TGV, but I'm guessing you're talking about smaller things, probably man-made ones (e.g. buildings), maybe trees, relatively close to the train. You're not going to see anything like that when riding a train across Montana. Instead, you're going to see enormous wide-open natural spaces, with absolutely nothing really close to the train. So even at a speed 2-4x that of Amtrak's, you'll see it just fine.

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

#196

Post by jointpdf »

dustindiamond wrote: post #161

So, how feasible is this as a remote worker? What I am really asking is, how reliable is wifi/internet and is it available through the entire journey? I would not mind a workcation this way, but probably could not afford a satphone’s data plan.

There is no WiFi on Amtrak trains--you'd have to tether to your phone. And for most Amtrak routes, you'd be going through some significant service deadzones (depending on the route, you could be in the middle of a mountain wilderness).

But I can't think of a better workcation spot if you can be offline periodically. For me, the train is simultaneously relaxing and stimulating, a perfect place to zone in on work while still embarking on an adventure.

Edit: Apparently there is WiFi on some Amtrak trains, but I wouldn't count on it.

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

#197

Post by CWuestefeld »

dagw wrote: post #133
rtkwe wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The sleepers are all individual rooms of some description with 1-2 beds. There are some larger up to 4 adults. There are no hostel style bunk cars on trains. You're either sleeping in seats or in a room. https://www.amtrakvacations.com/blog/3-important-things-to-k... (just googling 'amtrak sleeper' gets you this info!)

Then $1000 doesn't seem that expensive really, especially if that includes in-room shower and toilet

Common showers, but this wasn't a problem at all for us.

The NYChicago line had toilets in the compartment - but I mean in the compartment, not a separate bathroom. So not so great.

The California Zephyr (ChicagoSF) has common toilets. The one in our sleeper car was broken for the whole trip, for which Amtrak only gave us the slightest nod of recognition.

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

#198

Post by elif »

iandanforth wrote: post #153
ritchiea wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trains can also be pretty quaint in Europe today now that low cost airlines like Easyjet and Ryanair offer cheap flights to most major cities. I live in Berlin and even domestic trains are far more expensive than domestic flights to medium and large cities.

Ignorant American question. Why is this the case? What are the costs that railroads are having to pay that makes them more expensive?

I'm also an ignorant american, but I've traveled Europe for months by rail and air.

By american standards, both methods are dirt cheap.

Ryanair cuts every cost you can imagine. No free water or pretzels, tiny seating area, no first class, outskirts airports, no checked or carry on, tarmac boarding.

On trains you get sufficient space to stretch your legs, a power outlet, wifi, unlimited baggage etc. and you get to arrive and depart in the city center.

I think the pricing is based upon consumer value more than service costs.

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

#199

Post by magduf »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #112
magduf wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An absolute fortune. I've looked into this, and it isn't economical in any way, shape, or form. Flying across the continent is MUCH cheaper, and with your number of vacation days usually being limited, gives you a lot more time at your destination. The only reason to do this is because you really want to spend your vacation time sitting in a train watching rural American scenery go by in states like Montana. It's sor…

As pure transit, I agree with you. But that price includes the sleeper and meals. If you view this as the vacation itself , it's not far off the price you'd be paying for hotels and meals.

Yeah, that's why I compared it to a cruise ship. But on the cruise ship, the food is probably a lot better, you have lots of activities on board (games, casinos, gym, massage parlor, fancy restaurants, shows, concerts, swimming pool, tennis court, etc.) and lots of space to walk around, and it stops at several ports of call during the trip. With the train, you get none of that, maybe a few short stops in rural towns on the way but not long enough to get off. I guess if you want to spend your whole vacation just sitting down and looking out a window, it's ok...

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

#200

Post by bluGill »

isostatic wrote: post #156
bluGill wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Sweden is a small country It's about 1500 miles from one end to the other, and not exactly "dense". Sure it's small compared with Russia or Canada, but it's larger than most. Realistically anything upto about 500 miles shouldn't need flights -- that's 2-3 hours on a train. Once you go over 1000 miles then train stops making sense, it's 5 or 6 hours compared with 2 on a plane. 5 hours might work for an evening meal/…

This story is about the US though. The distance across the Us is over 2000 miles. Very few cities in the US are as close as 500 miles.
Post reply on HN