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

161–170 of 267 posts

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#161

Post by pyrophane »

wincy wrote: post #128
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 o…

I get motion sickness but generally find it much less severe on a train compared to a car.

For example, I usually have a hard time reading when riding in a car, but not on a train.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#162

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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 find train travel so much better in Asia or Europe. I can’t really find it enjoyable in the states, even for a short jaunt from Portland to Seattle (though it still makes sense vs flying). I did a 3 night hard sleeper from Shanghai to Urumqi once, and the scenery was nice, I can’t imagine it being that nice in the states even with a better bed (hard sleepers are a bit cheap).

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#163

Post by dreamcompiler »

hackernewds wrote: post #160
dreamcompiler wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't, but if you're upstairs you'll notice the "inverted pendulum swaying effect" much more. I slightly prefer downstairs roomettes on Amtrak for this reason, even though they may be a bit noisier. It doesn't make me sick but it's distracting when I'm trying to sleep.

what is this effect you speak of?

The train sways side-to-side as it rolls down the track. The effect is more pronounced at the top of the car since it's farther from the track.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#164

Post by jcampbell1 »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #52
voidfunc wrote: post #26

Are these niche Amtrak routes profitable or just political pork necessary to get politicians on board with funding Amtrak?

Do you judge any other form of transit by its standalone profitability? Are you holding road construction and public airports to the same standard?

I do. The federal government should be break even on roads through fuel taxes. Break even on airline ticket fees. At various times both have been true. Rail is horrendously subsidized to the tune of 20 cents per passenger mile. That is an insane subsidy.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#165

Post by rhaway84773 »

This well written article has had the unfortunate effect of turning me into someone who now believes Amtrak, outside the NE corridor, should basically be abolished. At least long distance Amtrak routes.

Amtrak is subsidized because it’s considered transportation. But any 40+ hour trip cannot be considered transportation. As the author points out, it’s basically best treated like a cruise trip.

Why are we subsidizing people’s day+ vacations?

There appears to be absolutely no benefit to this and any incremental environmental benefits provided by a few hundred people traveling between Chicago and LA by train instead of plane each day is negligible.

This isn’t an indictment of train travel. It’s an indictment of Amtrak.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#166

Post by rajeshp1986 »

As someone who was born in India and spent a good 30 years of my life there before moving to US, I miss the train journeys so much. Most Indians like me who grew up taking train journeys to visit grandparents in the summer or that vacation trip(generally visiting some family or relatives) is a nostalgic experience but there is something magical about train journeys where you see the life moving in front of you. After every 100 kilometeres or so the landscape completely changes and you see life in a different way.

I really like what OP said in the blog post : "Taking a train slows you down and gets you 34,000 feet closer to life on earth" While growing up, we didn't had access to air travel so the only option was life up close but I'm really joyed someone described in this way.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#167

Post by rhaway84773 »

josephcsible wrote: post #127
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 pe…

Those fatality rates for Amtrak are quite clearly a result more of the denominator being too low than anything else.

Increasing passenger miles covered will lower the final rates far more than increased safety.

Especially when the lowered safety is likely also a result of low usage and low funding thanks to low usage.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#168

Post by zerocrates »

fumeux_fume wrote: post #144
wincy wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

I find it pretty unsettling how many people are raving about travel by train. If your standards are insanely low then I suppose you can say the food is good, dining with random people is fun and the cabins are comfortable.

It's a low bar to clear when you're comparing to the comfort and food on a typical flight nowadays.

Of course, the train trip will be longer so, tradeoffs.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#169

Post by rhaway84773 »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #52
voidfunc wrote: post #26

Are these niche Amtrak routes profitable or just political pork necessary to get politicians on board with funding Amtrak?

Do you judge any other form of transit by its standalone profitability? Are you holding road construction and public airports to the same standard?

The blog implicitly (and explicitly) makes the argument that this isn’t a form of transit. It’s recreation.

43 hours for what would be a 4 hr flight plus it’s more expensive to boot.

So should such long distance train rides actually be compared to transit or golfing?

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#170

Post by rafram »

yafbum wrote: post #141
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 did this once (different trip, but similar distance) and freaking hated it. The beautiful buildings in downtown are full of vagrants and the restaurants there suck. The train kept being stopped to let freight go first on single track sections. On the return trip our train was 90 minutes late and there was absolutely nothing to do in the station while waiting. Americans don't know how to do trains right.

> The beautiful buildings in downtown are full of vagrants

In every single town along Amtrak routes in the United States?

Post reply on HN