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

361–370 of 468 posts

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

#361

Post by tungwaiyip »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #75
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’ve done Shanghai to Urumqi before in a hard sleeper. I don’t think I really saw much outside (no observation car, monotonous farming fields), but the people on the train were really interesting (eg Pakistani traders using the train to get back home).

One of the most memorable ride was a trip from Vietnam to Kunming in the 90s. I hope this old line is still running. The train travels along a canyon. The view is incomparably stunning.

China rail have pretty bad hygiene at that time. The passengers freely throw their trash on the floor and out of the window. The attendants swiped the floor every few hours. Every time they pushed a mountain of peanut husk away. There was a peasant family on board with a baby. The baby needed to relief. So the parents held him up to have him shit on the floor. The attendant saw it and really lost it. She scolded the hell out of the family.

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

#362

Post by magduf »

ineedasername wrote: post #218
magduf wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

This isn't true at all. The size of the US isn't the problem, at all, no matter how much you want to believe it is. The best places for high-speed train routes aren't across the continent (even with HSR, it wouldn't be terribly competitive with airlines unless you're going partway, e.g. DC to Houston), it's along the coasts. The northeast corridor is the most obvious place to put HSR (no, Acela doesn't count). The other obvious place is along the west coast: SD-LA-SF-Portland-Seattle). Just a rail line between SanFran and LA would make a lot of sense, but the US simply cannot make it happen, even when it's all within a single state.

And yes, it really is a general unwillingness to invest in infrastructure. You can see it in everything else going on in the US these days. No, the 50s interstate system is not a counterpoint, because that was 60-70 years ago now, and things in this country have changed a lot since then. The US was good at lots of infrastructure in those days, not just highways.

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

#363

Post by city41 »

kyleblarson wrote: post #238

My (now) wife and I took the Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago about 10 years ago. We purchased a private cabin. We were 8 hours late leaving Seattle and couldn't get into our cabin until we got to Spokane because of some sort of merge of trains coming from Portland and Seattle. Got to Spokane, got our cabin, another 6 hour delay. By the time we reached the upper Midwest, they were rationing food, literally cutt…

That's too bad. I've taken the train from Denver to Iowa and from Chicago to Iowa several times. Very relaxing and very enjoyable. It's my favorite form of travel. You of course have to accept it takes much, much longer than flying and even driving.

Good to be aware longer train rides might not be as nice.

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

#364

Post by seanmcdirmid »

tungwaiyip wrote: post #361
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’ve done Shanghai to Urumqi before in a hard sleeper. I don’t think I really saw much outside (no observation car, monotonous farming fields), but the people on the train were really interesting (eg Pakistani traders using the train to get back home).

One of the most memorable ride was a trip from Vietnam to Kunming in the 90s. I hope this old line is still running. The train travels along a canyon. The view is incomparably stunning. China rail have pretty bad hygiene at that time. The passengers freely throw their trash on the floor and out of the window. The attendants swiped the floor every few hours. Every time they pushed a mountain of peanut husk away. There…

I heard about that rail line, it was supposed to be very slow given the gauge of the line put in by the French who built it. Passenger service stopped in 2005 according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kunming–Haiphong_railway.

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

#365

Post by improbable22 »

darrenf wrote: post #97
jjoe wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But get a sleeper compartment, don't sit with the cattle. Cattle?

"Cattle class" is a kinda faux-pejorative term for economy/coach/whatever the cheapest cabin is in some mode of transport.

"Cattle class" is an established joke, best employed by those actually riding in it.

"Don't sit with the cattle" is (IMHO) pretty harsh, and unnecessary.

And, for the record, cattle class seats are (or were) about the size of first-class airline seats, in the days before the bed capsules. It's not a cabin but it might be the least-cramped train seating you will ever encounter.

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

#366

Post by fwip »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #81
rubidium wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By sleeper car, train is luxurious and much more relaxed. By vehicle you can sleep each night in a hotel and take a shower each day. Both have + and -'s. But my ranking would be Sleeper Car train > Driving > non-sleeper car train. Trains can be much more social.

You can get lower with a greyhound bus. Sure they stop at every prison along the way, but the views are actually quite nice. The social is also there, but can be a bit scary depending on your appetite for adventure.

I took a Greyhound from Pittsburgh to Seattle once. It was a 4 day experience and I think it took a week for my brain to reboot afterwards. Plus, we had a 24-hour layover due to weather - I think I slept on the floor of the bus station.

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

#367

Post by Aloha »

pacala wrote: post #357
Aloha wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Passenger trains do get priority in the US, your mileage may vary by railroad to how forgiving they are for schedule delays. Basically Amtrak has to keep to a specific schedule, if ut misses it's window it loses the priority it had.

I took a train from Chicago to LA almost 20 years ago. There were 6 passenger cars attached to 60+ freight cars. There was a 20+ hours delay. All the stops were in dilapidated industrial areas. A ridiculous experience. Never again. For a transcontinental trip: drive a car or a van.

Amtrak has never run Mixed freight trains, so this must not have been on amtrak.

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

#368

Post by improbable22 »

Symbiote wrote: post #259
123jay7 wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think that's true. Have you seen how they move cattle in trucks? Maybe more space than a human because they take up more space, but they stacked right next to each other.

Have you seen the commuter trains in some larger European cities, like London, Paris, Brussels (I think)...? People sometimes aren't just stacked, they're squashed.

India produces some real champions in this sport, the euros don't stand a chance. They have leagues up to "super-dense crush load", 14-16 people per square meter. It's still hard to believe this is possible...

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

#369

Post by zehaeva »

333c wrote: post #340
godot wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took the Coast Starlight (connects SF and LA) a couple of times in the past 10 years, and I have had a pleasant experience each time. Food was good and while the train wasn't sparkling clean, at least in the areas I cared about (my seat and car) it was fine. Just the bathrooms weren't great. Admittedly this is a shorter trip than yours; this one is only an 8~10 hours ride.

I've taken the Coast Starlight about 4-6 times between SF (well, Emeryville) and Portland/Seattle. Most were pretty much on time, except for one time when the train hit a person/car on its trip up from LA. It arrived around 5 hours late at the station and ended up being something like 10 hours late by the time we disembarked. It can be frustrating to experience long delays if you have a tight schedule, but otherwise…

I took the California Zephyr ... uh ... 25 years ago? It was a lot of fun! And a beautiful ride! I hope you enjoy it!

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

#370

Post by takk309 »

landryraccoon wrote: post #360
Aloha wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no good economic rationale for long distance trains. The only part of Amtrak that is actually profitable is the NEC, the rest of it generally loses money.

The federal highway system must be even worse then. It brings in zero revenue and costs way, way more than the trains.

Don't forget the usage tax we all pay for the highways via the Federal fuel tax. But I suppose that is not directly considered revenue.
Post reply on HN