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

211–220 of 468 posts

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

#211

Post by dfgert »

jointpdf wrote: post #209

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 Sure, the trains are outdated and a bit stanky, but it's just a perfect cross-section of American life (both people and landscapes).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,…

I agree. Train were so much more fun as I can recall from my childhood memories. Now I rarely see someone traveling via train, and those who do are trying to save some money(train fares are cheaper in other countries).

I guess time that's available to people has shortened so much that they can't afford to engage in fun once in a while. Even the damn vacation feels so hectic and stressful. I guess that's because most people's idea of vacation is going to new country/city that they have never visited(totally unfamiliar with things there) and try to cover all of it in 1-2 weeks(all they get in a year).

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

#212

Post by sl1ck731 »

ip26 wrote: post #204
rpiguy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Planes most likely benefit from the economies of scale, simply for the huge number of riders they service in comparison with trains for longer stretches.

The complicated area of railroad tracks probably doesn't help either. Someone is paying for them and the maintenance is frequent judging by the business my friends working on the railroads get.

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

#214

Post by hylaride »

ip26 wrote: post #204
rpiguy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are several reasons why flying can be so cheap in Europe:

1. The discount airlines have become masters at turnaround times. When the planes are sitting at the gate, they're not making money. They slashed these as much as they could.

2. They only fly one model of airplane (typically either the 373 or a320) to simplify maintenance.

3. Most major airports in Europe are privatised. One of the effects of this is that they've become giant malls that want to get people through them, so landing fees have steadily gone down (there are edge cases where the airports pay the airlines to go to them, but those are rather rare exceptions).

4. Some airlines (more specifically Ryanair) fly to cheaper/more outlier airports. If you take a Ryanair flight to Paris, you're landing in Beauvais Airport, which is almost halfway to the english channel. You'll then have to take a bus. When in europe, I usually prefer Easyjet for the reason that though they're more expensive, you're landing at an airport with decent transit to the city you're visiting.

5. There's no frills at all. If you're just flying with no luggage, you won't believe how cheap it can be (I flew from madrid to london for 25 euros). But the fills aren't cheap. Checked baggage is more than the cost of the flight, food is a rip off, etc.

Also, trains in europe are still often state-owned (not the case everywhere, I know), so they're forced to run uneconomical lines for political purposes, etc.

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

#215

Post by hnal943 »

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…

Opting in to that experience is one thing. I would hate it if someone I couldn't get away from started a sing-along.

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

#216

Post by xaybey »

gk1 wrote: post #12

For anyone interested in more train-travel stories I've written (partially) about my trip across Russia, starting with: https://www.gregkogan.com/journal/russia-trans-siberian-rail... Still have half the trip left to write about, which I'll do bit by bit.

This sparked a lot of memories. I really enjoyed it.

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

#217

Post by mcphage »

hudibras wrote: post #155
StavrosK wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does "sleeper car" mean you're getting a bed, or just that you're riding in that car but maybe in a seat? I'm not familiar with train travel, sorry.

Now you're just pulling my leg... Here's a recent article that I found that describes the sleeping cars in detail: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/03/20/magazine/trai...

That’s a pretty interesting article—I can think of a site where you can share that, people might like it.

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

#218

Post by ineedasername »

magduf wrote: post #169
ineedasername wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Undoubtedly there are cultural differences. However, you are attributing to cultural difference things that are more directly linked to geographical differences that have contributed to limited rail infrastructure and route availability. First & foremost, US rail is minimal in terms of routes offered and significantly more expensive. Compared to planes, it's at least double the cost, and 4x to 5x the cost if you want…

This is a terrible comparison. A better one is continental Europe as a whole, which has many rail lines spanning it. This is probably what the Swedish person was referring to, not simply staying in Sweden (the major cities in Sweden probably aren't far enough apart to fly between). Continental Europe is very roughly the size of the US, yet trains are used there extensively. The problem with the US isn't size, it's po…

Political will exists when the projects are on a smaller scale, a scale that would span countries in continental Europe. See the high speed plans in California as an example, even with the recent reduction in scope.

Trains are extensive in Europe in part because each country was able to make (relatively) smaller investments in their own networks. As time went by over the decades, these grew and were able to connect with each other. That type of gradual growth wasn't possible in the use where small incremental changes weren't useful. Decades ago, and still today, many routes that would be useful would need to span hundred of miles where there are no intervening points of interest. Meaning a massive investment would be required for a single point to point route.

It's too simplistic to point toward a single variable for something of this sort. Many variables come together to reach this point. Political will is only part of it, but even then, you have to ask why isn't there political will? It often has as much to do with economic and geographic realities, not a general unwillingness to invest in infrastructure. See our build out of the US interstate system beginning in the 50's as a counterexample to our lack of build out for trains.

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

#219

Post by NoNameHaveI »

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.

One Iowan to another: you didn't ride a train in Minneapolis. You rode a streetcar (tram in British). And yes, only the southeast corner of Iowa is served at all by passenger rail. Would be nice if they extended the Hawkeye Express to CR, or better yet, Amtrak service from Davenport to IC to DSM. Alas, not enough $$$ to make it worth doing.

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

#220

Post by ip26 »

hylaride wrote: post #214
ip26 wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There are several reasons why flying can be so cheap in Europe: 1. The discount airlines have become masters at turnaround times. When the planes are sitting at the gate, they're not making money. They slashed these as much as they could. 2. They only fly one model of airplane (typically either the 373 or a320) to simplify maintenance. 3. Most major airports in Europe are privatised. One of the effects of this is tha…

So in short, European flights have doggedly cut all ancillary costs while rail has not done so quite as heavily/aggressively?
Post reply on HN