Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

0x58ed.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 267 posts

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#121

Post by jandrese »

CraigRo wrote: post #112

Tons of foamers in the HN community. I'm sure that it is a lovely experience, and seeing America is incredibly powerful. But the truth is that you are in an extremely heavy, expensive, and slow vehicle that requires over 1000 man-hours to carry fewer than 300 seats the whole length of the ride. That doesn't account for the capital costs of the vehicle or maintenance on the route, or overhead for the stations. Looseni…

Is the weight of the car really that much of an issue? With steel wheels it seems like the rolling resistance is going to be hardly affected by a few extra tons per car so it's just acceleration that suffers, and since you only stop once per every few hours of travel that seems quite marginal.

On the other hand, a train where you are crammed in like an airplane with no amenities but can travel quickly on high speed rail would be a lot more cost efficient, but at that point you're basically replicating the airline experience except that it will never be as fast over medium or long distances even with high speed rail.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#122

Post by chrismorgan »

In 2014, I took my recumbent tricycle to San Francisco, and cycled in the direction of St Louis. I got as far as Tucson in the time I had available, and there boarded a train the rest of the way: something like a hundred dollars (not sleeper), and an extra ten for my trike, considerably cheaper than flying, and more interesting. Good stuff.

In 2021, I returned home from India to Australia once I could, but with quarantine arrangements at the time, had to land in Darwin. I knew there was a train from Darwin to Adelaide, but sadly discovered it’s exclusively targeted at tourists, something like $1,200. So I flew to Melbourne instead, around $450. Disappointing.

Rail is delightful stuff. I live out in western Victoria, and vastly prefer taking the train from Ballarat to Melbourne, rather than driving. It’s often 5–10km from the highway and goes through beautifully picturesque areas, whereas the highway is comparatively boring.

Going slow is also great. I’ve made a few multi-week cycling trips now, in the USA and New Zealand (and single-week in Australia). Take the different way you experience things by rail, and amplify that considerably further, though in slightly different directions as you’re still largely tied to roads. Recumbent tricycles are particularly excellent for the endeavour, with their inherent stability, high capacity and greater comfort. (I use a Greenspeed GT-3: for air/rail conveyance, fold it in half and wrap it up in a tarp which can serve as a ground sheet when camping. Treat the rope you wrap it all up in to be consumable if dealing with the TSA: they’ve destroyed it thoroughly every time (like, longest remaining piece 1.5m out of a 10m rope, they’re putting effort into this), and significantly damaged the tarp a couple of times. Australia and New Zealand have never damaged either.)

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#123

Post by jandrese »

secabeen wrote: post #92
noahtallen wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is something called "Precision Scheduled Railroading" (PSR) which ultimately means that freight trains are longer than they used to be. ( https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105420 ) The result is that these long trains (even 3 miles long) can't fit on sidings, which means that they can't practically give way to, say, Amtrak, when there's only a single track. (Which is a lot of routes!) In other words, freight…

This is a good summary. The other element is that Amtrak only gets priority if they stay to their schedule. They have a slot where they are expected, and have full priority. However, if they get delayed, and miss their slot, then another train will get in front of them, and then they're further delayed, etc., etc. The dispatchers can give them priority when there are two trains waiting to enter a segment, but that do…

Is it impossible to expand the sidings? Maybe make them 5 miles long? Sure it's not free, but it doesn't seem like it should be outrageously expensive. Is this just classic underinvestment in infrastructure coming back to bite you in the butt?

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#124

Post by kccqzy »

munificent wrote: post #35

This past summer, I took the Coast Starlight from Seattle to Monterey with my wife and kids. I loved it. It's hard to convey how different it is from flying. Whenever I fly somewhere, especially these days when flying is such a miserable cramped experience, I always feel like my vacation starts after I endure the entire airport + plane experience. The whole travel part is in the same "chore" bucket as packing, findin…

I have taken the Coast Starlight multiple times. Unfortunately once I tried it with my wife who hated it. Granted we got the cheapest sleeper car option (roomette) but she found it far from comfortable. She'd rather take a flight and be done with the trip sooner.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#125

Post by secabeen »

jandrese wrote: post #123
secabeen wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a good summary. The other element is that Amtrak only gets priority if they stay to their schedule. They have a slot where they are expected, and have full priority. However, if they get delayed, and miss their slot, then another train will get in front of them, and then they're further delayed, etc., etc. The dispatchers can give them priority when there are two trains waiting to enter a segment, but that do…

Is it impossible to expand the sidings? Maybe make them 5 miles long? Sure it's not free, but it doesn't seem like it should be outrageously expensive. Is this just classic underinvestment in infrastructure coming back to bite you in the butt?

Not impossible, probably slow. Land must be acquired, base and track laid, switches moved, etc, etc.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#126

Post by jdwithit »

serf wrote: post #19
kylehotchkiss wrote: post #2

"enjoying comforts like ... the airport lounges." Hah! The credit card rewards ruined these. Now they're all crowded and it's just as hard to find a seat as it is outside the lounge. Plus the food in them isn't that great anymore. The best benefit is usually a better view out the window. Real frequent fliers just get PreCheck+Clear and arrive at the airport closer to departure time. I did this same train journey myse…

>2) Single riders should be given both seats on these journeys. I was like 19 when I did this journey and an unusual middle aged lady was placed next to me. She kept asking me for medicines and fell asleep on my shoulder. on one hand, I get it -- that experience would drive me nuts and I have had similar stuff occur. On the other hand , I've had a few good conversations with row-mates in planes. the forced interactio…

If I'm by myself on a plane, I REALLY do not want to talk to my row mates. Getting sat with someone chatty is my nightmare. It's nothing personal. It's just that it's the very rare occasion I am not flying with my young kids and I am relishing the opportunity to play a video game or watch a movie or read without anyone bugging me :)

The first time I had to travel for work after having kids was maybe the first time I'd actually enjoyed flying since pre-9/11. My point here isn't to crap on my kids, I love them dearly. But boy do they adjust your perception of everything.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#127

Post by josephcsible »

CraigRo wrote: post #112

Tons of foamers in the HN community. I'm sure that it is a lovely experience, and seeing America is incredibly powerful. But the truth is that you are in an extremely heavy, expensive, and slow vehicle that requires over 1000 man-hours to carry fewer than 300 seats the whole length of the ride. That doesn't account for the capital costs of the vehicle or maintenance on the route, or overhead for the stations. Looseni…

> Loosening regulations to reduce the staff, making the train itself go faster (if possible), and allowing for lower cost and lighter weight cars (possibly to include the much denser sleeping cars found on Chinese and Swedish railroads) would change the economics from 'taxpayer subsidized cruise' to 'reasonable form of luxury transit'

Trains are already more than 6 times as dangerous as planes (0.43 vs 0.07 deaths per billion passenger-miles, according to https://faculty.wcas.northwestern.edu/ipsavage/436-appendix....). Those ideas sound like they'd make them even worse.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#128

Post by wincy »

munificent wrote: post #35

This past summer, I took the Coast Starlight from Seattle to Monterey with my wife and kids. I loved it. It's hard to convey how different it is from flying. Whenever I fly somewhere, especially these days when flying is such a miserable cramped experience, I always feel like my vacation starts after I endure the entire airport + plane experience. The whole travel part is in the same "chore" bucket as packing, findin…

So, do normal people not feel like they’re going to throw up literally the entire train ride? I had a hard time taking a half hour train ride, much less a long one, but I also have a hard time being in the back seat of someone else’s car. I feel like they must not because it’s very seldom talked about.

But googling it says 1 in 3 people experience motion sickness. Maybe mine is just really severe? Without Dramamine or meclazine I’m hopeless on a train.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#129

Post by jdwithit »

kibwen wrote: post #41

You'll adore the California Zephyr. The passage through the high, snowy ravines in the Rockies and beyond into the painted deserts of Utah and Nevada is a glorious sight to behold. However, if you have a choice, get on in Denver rather than Chicago, unless you're keen to spend 20 hours marveling at the endless ocean of corn blanketing Iowa and Nebraska.

The OP is from Europe so there was probably some novelty to the 20 hours of endless corn the first time. But, yeah, once is enough. Having driven cross country several times for various reasons, the only appeal of the run from Chicago to Denver at this point is that you can do 100mph without much worry and get through it that much quicker.

I will say both Des Moines and Omaha are surprisingly nice to visit even as an awful "coastal elitist". Had some wonderful experiences in both.

Post reply on HN