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

241–250 of 267 posts

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#241

Post by philwelch »

ericmay wrote: post #211
dreamcompiler wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amtrak has also been starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it, so they don't have the funds to properly maintain their rolling stock. Engine breakdowns are frequent.

Exactly. If we spent as much on rail as we did airline infrastructure we wouldn’t have as many issues. I don’t have a big problem with it like travel, but it’s like a car. Should be used less frequently and walking (riding the train) should be more common.

Airlines are (barely) profitable. Amtrak is not, outside of the Acela corridor.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#242

Post by selimthegrim »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #162
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).

Between Lafayette and New Orleans isn’t so bad

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#243

Post by seanmcdirmid »

qwezxcrty wrote: post #182
baby wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did Shanghai Beijing. 15hours, no seats. Man I will never do this again.

Understandable, I used to take a K train twice every year before my grandparents passed away. I could always manage to get a seat as my route was less busy. It's certainly not a enjoyable experience. However, I'd recommend to try again with the high speed trains. Chinese railway has changed a lot in the last 15 years. 5 hours between Beijing and Shanghai (that's more than 1200 km), on time, comfortable seats and quic…

I always did that route overnight in either hard or soft sleeper. But these days that route is HSR so you are only on it 4 or so hours anyways, I’m pretty sure the HSRs do not sell no seat tickets. I don’t think they offer the overnight train between BJ and SH anymore, but I could be wrong.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#244

Post by asjkaehauisa »

rhaway84773 wrote: post #165

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…

You're right. Probably 90% of passengers are retired persons and bloggers/vloggers. Nobody is taking it seriously in terms of transportation.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#245

Post by chiph »

IIAOPSW wrote: post #51
escapecharacter wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would totally pay a +30% add on to any train ticket to add a cool murder mystery to my ride.

Hear me out, I had a genius idea. Take one of the platforms at Grand Central in NY (they have more than the current railroad needs), load it up with a bunch of historic Pullman sleeper cars, and open it as a novelty hotel. Maybe roll out the red carpet to give that 20th Century limited feel. For an extra 30% add on, a bunch of actors will come along and play out a mystery crime on a train interactive theater cliche,…

The secret platform that FDR and other presidents have used is presently empty-ish (the railcar he used to carry his limo is abandoned there). But if you do this hotel, it will no longer be a secret..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TnUGY7Y8trc

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#246

Post by mark-ruwt »

rhaway84773 wrote: post #234
mark-ruwt wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Fewer than 300 seats" feels somewhat disingenuous--Seat Miles is the stat that matters. People riding from end-to-end is the exception not the rule. The majority of Amtrak's usage outside of the Northeast Corridor is providing transport to small, underserved communities, not vacation trips like in this post.

Wouldn’t it be better to run more frequent shuttle trains between those underserved communities connecting them to major cities where they can take a plane or train from than running a 43 hour train that probably runs once a day?

It'd be tons more convenient! But the Class I Railroads won't let that happen.

The reason why Amtrak is great in the Northeast Corridor and so mediocre everywhere else is because the Class Is own the tracks and control all of the traffic flow. Amtrak would run more trains tomorrow if they could.

https://www.railwayage.com/regulatory/amtrak-eyes-stb-invest...

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#247

Post by ericmay »

philwelch wrote: post #241
ericmay wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly. If we spent as much on rail as we did airline infrastructure we wouldn’t have as many issues. I don’t have a big problem with it like travel, but it’s like a car. Should be used less frequently and walking (riding the train) should be more common.

Airlines are (barely) profitable. Amtrak is not, outside of the Acela corridor.

Sure but please note I said airline infrastructure which would include airports, ATC, Etc.

We could built train stations instead of airports, for example.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#248

Post by steelframe »

logifail wrote: post #174
fumeux_fume wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I find it pretty unsettling how many people are raving about travel by train Last August I travelled from Paris to Innsbruck by train with my 6 year-old daughter. Despite a misconnect in Germany after a delay to our TGV and then a cancelled ICE causing us over an hour's delay (although that was an excuse for a surprisingly good impromptu stir-fry for lunch at Mannheim station), then subsequently having to run, with…

> then subsequently having to run, with five separate items of luggage

When my spouse and I did a 3-week vacation in Europe and then a 2-week vacation in Japan, my one steadfast condition was that we were allowed one 19-liter backpack and one 23-liter backpack, full stop. If it didn't pack into one of the backpacks' zippered pouches, we didn't take it with us. It takes some planning and hacking to do well, including optimizing clothing, toiletries, and electronics for traveling with that little space, but the handful of times we had to get from point A to point B quickly through a crowd, it was glorious.

It's also nice knowing that all of my luggage trivially fits under the seat on the airplane. Takes away any stress relating to "OMG will there be enough overhead space?" panic that everyone goes through when jockying for a spot in line to board. I try to be the very last person on the plane, because I don't ever see the point of being in a hurry to squeeze myself into that tube before I absolutely have to.

It turned out we didn't miss the luggage we couldn't fit in the backpacks at all. The last time the family went to Hawaii and then to San Diego, it was the same story. One 19L backpack for me and each of the kids and a 23L backpack for the spouse. Again, no problem at all and totally worth it.

I couldn't help but think, "Heh, amateur!" when I read about the OP needing a grotesque 45L of luggage for a few days of travel mostly just sitting on a train. I guess I'm officially now one of those ultralight traveling snobs. If I'm not debating whether I really need 5 pairs of nylon underwear or if I could get by with 4 or maybe 3, I'm feeling like I'm not putting in enough mental effort in preparing for the trip.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#250

Post by philwelch »

ericmay wrote: post #247
philwelch wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Airlines are (barely) profitable. Amtrak is not, outside of the Acela corridor.

Sure but please note I said airline infrastructure which would include airports, ATC, Etc. We could built train stations instead of airports, for example.

Airports are also profitable though. And for that matter, rail infrastructure in the US is also profitable for cargo, which is its primary use.

Passenger rail (including its privately owned infrastructure, such as the railroads themselves) used to be profitable across the US and still is profitable in the Acela corridor and in densely populated parts of Europe and Asia. It stopped being profitable due to being outcompeted by airlines, which is why the US government nationalized it under Amtrak in the first place.

Post reply on HN