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

371–380 of 468 posts

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

#371

Post by Aloha »

ken wrote: post #348
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.

In other words, it doesn't enjoy the level of government subsidies that other forms of travel currently do?

Yes, exactly.

The question I'd ask is, other than preserving the way of operating that amtrak has, is it worth the subsidy - I'd say yes, preserving the knowledge of how to operate LD trains is important, so is offering the rural communities it serves transportation, I'd like to expand rail service even.

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

#372

Post by ghaff »

okmokmz wrote: post #252
ghaff wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people are fine with taking the train in the US when it's remotely competitive in terms of time and price. However, in practice, that mostly means a subset of the Northeast Corridor (the whole thing is about an 8-hour trip vs. a short flight) or a handful of various city pairs that are only a few hundred miles apart. But it's simply not practical for me to take the train from Boston to Chicago, much less San Fra…

I've never been in a situation in the US where a train was even close to competitive in terms of time and price

Maybe your criteria are different but lots of people in the US Northeast Corridor find trains a better value than the alternatives for a lot of segments.

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

#373

Post by jganetsk »

munk-a wrote: post #246
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…

My wife and I were (up here in Canada) looking for a nice mellow train ride with scenery, out of Vancouver you can catch a train to Jasper and on northward to Prince George but... the cost of both of us to ride and have a cabin for two is 5k, so alternative to taking a 4 day train ride is flying out to london three separate times for the weekend. Alternatively we could book a fancy hotel room in down-town for two wee…

Because countries' railroad networks tend to optimize either for freight or for passenger service. They compete with each other. America has one of the best freight networks in the world. https://www.thetransportpolitic.com/2011/06/29/freight-as-pa...

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

#374

Post by Spooky23 »

Aloha wrote: post #328
Zimahl wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For those that don't know, the Empire Builder from Seattle stops in Spokane to hook up with a train that is coming from Portland. The combined train then goes all the way to Chicago. If either are delayed it can result in waiting for the other and long delays are apparently the norm and not the exception. My wife and her grandfather took the train from Portland to Minnesota in the fall of last year. There were a numb…

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.

If you’re on CSX track, you sit. I’ve been on trains that left precisely on schedule that were impacted this way.

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

#375

Post by TheRealEdAbbey »

reaperducer wrote: post #280
hjdehdfhjkj wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thats because there is a cultural difference between how americans and europeans see trains. For americans its something quaint and wild whereas for europeans its just a basic form of transportation.

That's a wild generalization, based on a lack of experience or knowledge. A number of passenger railroads in the United States also have quiet cars. Metra comes to mind, but I know I've seen others. For americans its something quaint and wild whereas for europeans its just a basic form of transportation You're either repeating outdated cliches from the internet, or you must not live in a large metropolitan area with…

In America, "large metropolitan area with passenger train service" is the exception, not the norm.

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

#376

Post by sjmulder »

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?

This came up in something related: the Dutch Greens have been campaigning recently to reduce or eliminate flights to and from Schiphol within a 750 km radius, in favour of trains.

Answering your question, on the issue of price they note that no fuel tax is is paid on airplanes fuel and no VAT (21%) on flight tickets.

I think it’s a clever win/win play: reducing short haul flights in favour of railways not only reduces emissions and noise pollution, but it also frees up some capacity at Schiphol.

And there’s been some success already: the house has accepted a motion to eliminate the Schiphol-Brussels route.

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

#377

Post by [deleted] »

munk-a wrote: post #246
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…

My wife and I were (up here in Canada) looking for a nice mellow train ride with scenery, out of Vancouver you can catch a train to Jasper and on northward to Prince George but... the cost of both of us to ride and have a cabin for two is 5k, so alternative to taking a 4 day train ride is flying out to london three separate times for the weekend. Alternatively we could book a fancy hotel room in down-town for two wee…

[deleted]

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

#378

Post by barrkel »

rayiner wrote: post #307
barrkel wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you always ignore what people write? Is that how you think you win arguments?

TfL. Transport for London.

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

#379

Post by segmondy »

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…

I just priced from my Midwest to West Coast and it's almost $5,000 for 2. As if that didn't giving me pause, your comment really put the nail on the lid.

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

#380

Post by inferiorhuman »

ghaff wrote: post #325
inferiorhuman wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

at least for the cities it services And that's the catch. I've been told that years ago it was better, but try to catch a train to a secondary city in New England and you'll often find that the only offering is an occasional Amtrak branded bus.

Fair enough. It's mostly the coastal corridor that's good with a couple on inland spurs from NY/New Haven up to St. Albans and Montreal that aren't terrible. But otherwise, there's something of a gap between commuter rail systems (which are pretty hub and spoke in any case) and what Amtrak covers.

New Haven? Ugh. Connecticut fucks with Amtrak relentlessly. Take a look at how Acela slows to a crawl out there.
Post reply on HN