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

201–210 of 468 posts

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

#201

Post by dboreham »

jplayer01 wrote: post #148
saalweachter wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd indeed say it costs more than most people are willing to pay. That said, a sleeper car on Amtrak gets you: a flat surface to lie down on, your own toilet (note the toilet is just there in the roomette, next to the bunk, prison style), access to a shower (your own shower in the rooms, one per car for the roomettes), access to the first class lounges, and includes meals in the dining car. Rooms have a slightly wide…

> Or, if you're on this site, it's a great excuse to sit in a small room with a view and not talk to anyone for several days, just read, write and program. This sounds like fun. I wonder if there are any European routes that are as long/uninterrupted that I could try that on.

>I wonder if there are any European routes that are as long/uninterrupted that I could try that on.

The London to Ft. William sleeper, when there's leaves on the line?

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

#202

Post by 72deluxe »

cubano wrote: post #151
chrisseaton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Even if the guy was really good? I personally think a well-executed acoustic guitar singalong can add a lot of real joy to any group experience. I've played in rock bands since I was 15 (I'm north of 50 now), and I've been on stage in front of a thousand people and I've played to killer mosh pits and all that, but my best memories of all those years were the after-parties where it was just me and my bassist with acou…

I think Brits find public singing embarrassing, and even more so if the person doing it is right next to you, and a complete stranger. It gets worse if it involves a guitar.

Of course, this changes if alcohol is involved.

I get the feeling that showcasing some skill in a public fashion is loved in the USA, not so much in the UK. We typically want to sit and not disturb others, and find any other kind of disturbance awkward; we try to sit quietly and pretend it isn't even happening, eg. not even looking at the person making the disturbance. eg. some people arguing at the back of the bus probably won't make people at the front of the bus turn around or tell them to shut up.

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

#203

Post by CWuestefeld »

frosted-flakes wrote: post #110
chrisseaton wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But some people might want the observe the sights and not have a lot of noise around them, right? Not really sure it's fair to pollute a public space with your music when not everyone might like it, or have the confidence to say when they don't like it. Not very nice to say to people you're going to subject them to music and if they don't like it their only option is to leave. Doesn't really sound right does it?

The train was stopped, so if someone left the viewing car they weren't missing anything.

A bit more of the story. Where we were stopped was the the side of a mountain. On the uphill side was a similarly-stopped freight train, with an oil tanker car right next to us. Below us was a raging, flooded, river (on account of the same storms that washed out the track). And up above was a cliff, with a boulder on top that seemed maybe a little precarious.

So we were sitting there wondering if the same storm that eroded the tracks had maybe eroded the cliff around that boulder, allowing it to tumble down through the oil tanker to send us plunging into the flood waters below.

Brooding over that was less fun than the distraction of the sing-along.

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

#204

Post by ip26 »

rpiguy wrote: post #180
iandanforth wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

So long as fuel is reasonably priced, planes can take more people farther, faster it is simple economics. Trains are still preferable for local trips and even some medium range trips, but to go all the way across Europe by train would be terribly expensive compared to taking a cheap flight.

That doesn't really answer the question. What about planes is cheaper? For simple economics to apply, they have to do something cheaper than trains, and it's not obvious what that is. As far as I know, for example, trains are significantly more fuel efficient per passenger-mile.

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

#205

Post by herodotus »

There is no appetite for high-speed rail service in the US or Canada. Mainly because of distances. But the Fuxing Hao CR400AF/BF can reach speeds of 249 mph. Now at an average of, lets say, 180mph, it would take about 15 hours to travel from Vancouver to Toronto. (Yes, rough calculation, but just to get the idea.) So I could leave work early, say at 3pm, leave the stations at 4pm, enjoy the view as the rockies whip by, go to bed, wake up and have breakfast on the train, and be ready to have my meeting with the Toronto VCs at 8:30 in the morning. Use electric power instead of diesel, and this would be my preferred way for this route.

Of course, the cost to build this might drain the treasury for the foreseeable future...

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

#206

Post by CWuestefeld »

luckydata wrote: post #159
chrisseaton wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Are you Carl?

I am not now nor have I ever been Carl.

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

#207

Post by tzs »

cjensen wrote: post #149
StavrosK wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's worth it, really How much does it cost?

When evaluating the price, consider that it is also a hotel room and comes with free meals. Compare it to air fare + hotel room for X days + decent meals for X days and the price becomes less painful.

I'm not sure that is the right comparison. Let's take a New York to Los Angeles trip.

That would be 3 days on Amtrak, or about 6 hours by plane.

I'd guess that for most cases flying instead of taking the train doesn't mean we spend the 6 days that we would have spent on the train (round trip) in a Los Angeles hotel eating expensive restaurant meals. I think most people would simply leave home later and leave Los Angeles earlier if flying, so that the time difference is spent at home eating whatever they normally eat.

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

#208

Post by degenerate »

ams6110 wrote: post #56

Took Amtrak from Chicago to Las Vegas once. Worst travel experience of my life. Hit a car, had a breakdown in the mountains, and they lost my checked luggage. Over 24 hours late. Never again. If you are ever tempted, just fly. It's cheaper, much faster, and you can spend the time and money you saved on something interesting.

This is what I heard from every single person who took a train long distance somewhere (>300mi)... some said it was an "experience" but they would never do it again, and flying is just as cheap, faster, better, less hassle.

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

#209

Post by jointpdf »

I've taken Amtrak cross-country (CA Chicago via California Zephyr / SW Chief) about a dozen times in my life. If you're not in a hurry to get from A to B, there's no better way to travel IMO. Sure, the trains are outdated and a bit stanky, but it's just a perfect cross-section of American life (both people and landscapes).

It's a perfect place to zen out and burrow into a book / creative project for a few days. Plus, you can just show up right before the train arrives and you're on your way (perfect for people who run on wizard time, like me).

You definitely have to prepare a bit if you want to get a decent night of sleep in coach, though. Here's a short survival kit: -Tylenol PM / Benadryl (or your preferred sleep aid of choice) -Warm clothes / travel blanket (it can get cold) -Pillow/neck pillow/some way to keep your head immobilized -Earplugs + noise cancelling headphones -Eyemask -Patience/equanimity

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

#210

Post by kibwen »

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…

I'll take economic umbrage at "don't sit with the cattle". When I traveled from Chicago to SF on the California Zephyr (40-ish hours), a seat was $100 and a sleeper car was over $1,000; for reference, a flight between the two is about $200. Being able to afford such a sleeper car is the sort of luxurious expense that most vacationers will likely prefer to spend on going to a more exotic destination by plane.

(I do recommend the California Zephyr, and second the parent's suggestion of spending the whole of it in the observation car, but skip the part of the route between Chicago and Denver; Denver and onward is where the real action's at.)

Post reply on HN