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

#301

Post by ghaff » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:27 PM UTC

munk-a wrote: post #251

NoNameHaveI wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is worth your 8 minutes of time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ I love trains, but the economics of rail travel in the USA can't be overcome. Until robot trains.

I have seen that and agree that country-wide train service is indeed expensive, but there really should be better offerings on the east coast that could compete against bus service. Being on a train with plenty of room has a huge quality advantage over buses and the scaling of their carrying capacity means that companies can be more free in allowing luggage and seating space than the economics of planning the layout…

Train service in the US Northeast is pretty good at least for the cities it services. It's not price-competitive with Megabus but is train anywhere competitive pricewise with discount buses?

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

#302

Post by Scoundreller » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:29 PM UTC

Symbiote wrote: post #258

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?

In no particular order: 1) Fuel tax. There's no tax on jet fuel, but rail companies pay tax on their diesel or electricity 2) Inflexible service, but high expectations. The European rail timetable is changed twice a year, and those trains will run (in normal circumstances). There will be a train from X→Y every hour from 5am until midnight, and those trains run even if very few people use them on a particular day. An…

Railways also have the externality of stopping all traffic.

More of an issue for lumbering freight trains than passenger trains though.

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

#303

Post by ghaff » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

jaclaz wrote: post #288

Kurtz79 wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe there has historically been an "Interrail" ticket, aimed to allow backpackers to travel in EU countries outside of their own with a single, dirt cheap pass, valid for a month or so on each country's rail network (of course, cheapest seating and class). I did two of them and they are some of the best travel experiences I had in my life.

Yep, and it was also a sort of "rite of passage" that every 18 year old took or wished to take.

I never did it (though I have taken quite a few trains in Europe) but in the 70s or thereabouts spending a summer after graduation or whenever traveling with a "Eurail Pass" (whatever the proper name was) was almost a chiche.

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

#304

Post by rayiner » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

taoistextremist wrote: post #293

rayiner wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who? In most of Asia trains are privatized. In Europe, the passenger rail companies are in various stages of privatization. Rail in the UK is more or less privatised. Deutche Bahn, SNCF, Trenitalia, DSB, etc., are private companies. The government is involved in the sense they are the largest or sole shareholder, but they are run as for-profit corporations. For example, they compete in other countries. Many, such as…

Amtrak isn't a government agency though. It's a public-private partnership AFAIK

Amtrak is a corporation owned by the U.S. government. That structure is typical for rail operators. What's different is that Amtrak is operated like part of the government, while European rail operators are actually operated like private companies. For example, the CEO of Deutsche Bahn is paid like a private CEO, while the CEO of Amtrak is paid like a senior government officer (and right now, actually, not being paid at all).

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

#305

Post by tcpekin » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

kibwen wrote: post #210

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 re…

I did Denver -> SF this past summer and it was absolutely unreal. I was extremely happy I did it, the sights were gorgeous, and it was an awesome time to just sit and think while some of the West's most gorgeous scenery passes by.

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

#306

Post by rayiner » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #298

rayiner wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yay government-run train service.

You know, I have a suspicion that the reason the US has poor government services compared to other countries is in large part because too manypeople in the US believe government services are poor. If the wrong people get in charge (and very likely if the ideology is widespread) they make little effort to improve things other than to cut costs. Competition usually improves things, it's true, but natural monopolies are…

Government services in the U.S. are both bad and expensive. The NYC MTA spends seven times as much money to build subway per mile than London or Paris. It spends about twice as much per passenger mile for subway service as London's Tube. We spend more per student than almost anyone else on schools. Why would someone in the U.S., confronted with the evidence, believe that government services aren't poor?

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

#307

Post by rayiner » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

barrkel wrote: post #300

rayiner wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who? In most of Asia trains are privatized. In Europe, the passenger rail companies are in various stages of privatization. Rail in the UK is more or less privatised. Deutche Bahn, SNCF, Trenitalia, DSB, etc., are private companies. The government is involved in the sense they are the largest or sole shareholder, but they are run as for-profit corporations. For example, they compete in other countries. Many, such as…

UK network is run by https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_Rail and the train operators are on government franchise. More importantly though it's pretty much universally recognised in London that TfL (the tube and overground) is much better and more reliable than the rail companies, and TfL is a government body directly.

In the UK, a government entity owns the rails. But the actual operation of train service is contracted to fully private companies.

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

#308

Post by plopz » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:41 PM UTC

reaperducer wrote: post #275

otachack wrote: post #269

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe the reason is because freight gets higher priority on the rails than travelers in the U.S.

Yes, and no. To the railroads it gets higher priority. But if a freight train bocks a passenger train the railroad gets fined by the hour (quarter hour?). However, the freight railroads often just eat the fine as a cost of doing business. Like delivery companies do with parking tickets.

Fined by who? Aren't all the railways privately owned and just licensed by Amtrak?

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

#309

Post by ghaff » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:42 PM UTC

cjensen wrote: post #256

tzs wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 Ange…

My base assumption is that one goes on Amtrak for the scenery. So it's not at all like being at home; it's more like being at a scenic resort. Note that some people use Amtrak because they are afraid of flying. This way of looking at the prices does not apply to them.

The scenery, the experience, and (while I don't really like the term) the "bucket list" nature of it.

Personally, I sort of want to do at least a section of the Empire Builder or the California Zephyr at some point. And I'd also like to take a transatlantic liner (well, the Queen Mary 2) from NY to Southampton. But probably only once and I'm fully prepared for the idea to be more enticing than the reality.

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

#310

Post by osdiab » Thu, Mar 21, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

I took a long-haul, slow train in China from Shanghai to Guilin (18 hours or so) and that was a great experience - watching the Chinese landscape go by, really cheap to get a sleeper car with my friends, and no delays.

The high speed rail is good too if you want to be quick, both in China and Japan (though Japan is much more expensive); I took the Chinese ones frequently but longest haul I did was Shenzhen to Shanghai (8 hours or so) and that was both smooth, nice views and comfortable.