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

401–410 of 468 posts

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

#401

Post by nickjj »

0xffff2 wrote: post #68
nickjj wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah that's a big difference. The regular seats are a much different story. I've never done it but I read about how it's basically 3 days of sitting shoulder to shoulder with someone and there's no showers. Can't imagine what that would be like in a car filled with 50+ people. I did take the Amtrak from CT To Boston once and it wasn't too bad, but that was a few hour trip. Much different than a few days.

I took an Amtrak train from LA to Chicago in coach many years ago. I spent practically all of my time in the observation car, so it didn't really matter to me what my nominal seat looked like. I probably did stink by the end of the trip, but I was 17 at the time so it didn't bother me (at least I don't remember one way or the other). I think there are two kinds of people in the world. One kind needs a sleeper for the…

I think I fall into the category of needing a sleeper to sleep. I wouldn't plan to stay in there during the day but there's no way I'd be able to fall asleep next to someone in the open like that.

I can't even sleep in a hotel unless there's a dead lock.

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

#402

Post by ineedasername »

dragonwriter wrote: post #225
ineedasername wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> See the high speed plans in California as an example, even with the recent reduction in scope. What recent reduction in scope? Letting aside all the confusion caused by either communications incompetence in the Newsome Administration or deliberate intent to provoke controversy, all Newsome announced was: (1) that construction work and related land acquisition would be focussed on the already-designated initial cons…

I thought the phase 2 was recently taken off the table? Maybe I misread something :/

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

#403

Post by ineedasername »

magduf wrote: post #362
ineedasername wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ot…

It's not a matter of how much I believe. I went back to the 50's & interstate highway precisely because there could be no debating that it was a time where infrastructure was prioritized. And yet, even then, there was no major build out of rail. Because the geographic realities and subsequent economics don't work for it. The interstates made more sense and in terms of freight capacity still allowed for coast-to-coast service by trucks, which have dominated the continental freight since (a slight resurgence in freight rail boosted things in the 80's which was a good thing)

I have further evidence on my interpretation of geographical circumstances greatly influencing this issue: Canada.

Canada has roughly similar ridership as the US. US has about 1.7 rides per person, Canada has about 2.1. Might seem a fair bit higher, but compare it to a country like the UK, which has 26 rides per person, and that's not even counting the London Tube. Why?

Because the US and Canada face very similar geographical circumstances.

Maybe my interpretation weighs geography slightly too much, but if so, yours seems to weigh it not at all. That simply isn't supported by either the data available or the historic evolution of rail travel in the US.

I really don't see what's so difficult to understand. For the most part it's a point to point network, and every link, due to the points being further apart, costs significantly more to build. The exceptions, like on the east coast where points are closer, actually do have better rail. Not great, but more comprehensive than the middle 90% of the country where geography is as I have described.

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

#404

Post by Gibbon1 »

city41 wrote: post #363
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.

Denver to Chicago would be perfect for high speed rail. An express high speed train could beat air travel door to door.

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

#405

Post by TkTech »

Aloha wrote: post #367
pacala wrote: post #357

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That is not true, Amtrak used to run a service called Mail & Express. One of the trains was indeed mixed passenger and freight.

That said, Amtrak engines are also often leased to other freight companies so you can frequently see freight trains being hauled by Amtrak branded engines.

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

#406

Post by jcranmer »

Gibbon1 wrote: post #404
city41 wrote: post #363

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Denver to Chicago would be perfect for high speed rail. An express high speed train could beat air travel door to door.

No it wouldn't. The ridership cliff for HSR is around the 3-4 hour mark, or about 500-600 miles--Denver-Chicago is 1,000 miles, well outside that range.

What would work quite well, though, would be something like the Auto Train: you can get an overnight ride that ferries your car and you don't have to drive the thoroughly boring drive of the Great Plains.

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

#407

Post by tungwaiyip »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #364
tungwaiyip wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 .

Sad. I thought I saw it coming.

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

#408

Post by justjash »

jcranmer wrote: post #406
Gibbon1 wrote: post #404

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Denver to Chicago would be perfect for high speed rail. An express high speed train could beat air travel door to door.

No it wouldn't. The ridership cliff for HSR is around the 3-4 hour mark, or about 500-600 miles--Denver-Chicago is 1,000 miles, well outside that range. What would work quite well, though, would be something like the Auto Train: you can get an overnight ride that ferries your car and you don't have to drive the thoroughly boring drive of the Great Plains.

That would be great. The drive across Kansas is torture.

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

#409

Post by jecxjo »

I've done so much air travel for work and would love to catch a train on the way back. But the fact that it costs such a ridiculous amount just doesn't work. The price really need to compete against driving your own vehicle. If you plan it right air travel can be very cheap, just wish I could afford taking a slow train on a Friday to be home in time for work Monday and cost me $100 or less

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

#410

Post by Kadin »

TkTech wrote: post #405
Aloha wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

That is not true, Amtrak used to run a service called Mail & Express. One of the trains was indeed mixed passenger and freight. That said, Amtrak engines are also often leased to other freight companies so you can frequently see freight trains being hauled by Amtrak branded engines.

In case anyone is interested in Mail and Express:

http://utahrails.net/pass/amtrak-mail-express.htm

It stopped in 2004, presumably due to declines in mail volume. (Which I wonder if it would make sense again now, due to more mail-order package shipping.)

Anyway, it's not really "freight" in the sense that most people think of a freight train. It's all Amtrak rolling stock.

They still do offer Express shipping services between some stations. It's a very cheap way to send something between NYC and Washington for same-day arrival, especially if it's a big box. You have to have someone go to the train station on either end to get your stuff, though. They move them around on the passenger trains that have baggage cars (the 'named' trains, typically at least on the East Coast).

Post reply on HN