Live data from Hacker News

43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

0x58ed.com

261–267 of 267 posts

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#261
post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a route that so many bikers have been waiting for in Atlanta of, taking amtrak west, getting off at the first stop (Anniston Alabama, 1 hour car drive away), and then riding all of the mountain bike trails at Coldwater Mountain. You could conceivably take the train back, or camp overnight in Piedmont Alabama and then ride the silver comet rail trail all the way back at some point. Or just skip the mountain bi…

> But! Amtrak won't let you take your bike off the train at Anniston. You have to go all the way to new orleans. It's really dumb and frustrating. With some chatting up of the staff/conductor before you reach your actual desired premature destination, it's not uncommon for them to be cooperative on getting the bike out of the luggage car and into one of the entrances near the other carry-on luggage for you to get off…

In Canada on what local trains exist you can take your canoe and they will stop at a river crossing where you can get your canoe off. There's quite a few flag stops in the middle of nowhere for settlements, lodges and camps.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#262
post #187
post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hahaha!! Yep! I rode the Coast Starlight north through the Sierra Nevadas(?) 15-20 years ago. It was a 24hour trip, and I was delayed 24hours. We hit a pedestrian then an avalanche had us back up 2-3 hours until a Greyhound picked us up and took us the rest of the way. Adventure: Check I didn’t mind one bit. Great people.

> We hit a pedestrian Uh what?

A relative was considerably delayed a couple of times on NE Corridor trips by the trains hitting pedestrians. Both apparently were suicides.

And persons not out to end their lives occasionally do, crossing a train track where the view is obstructed in one direction or another. Cars try to make it across the track a few seconds too late.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#263
post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Amtrack has a page on it, with no route performing delivering more than half of riders on-time https://www.amtrak.com/on-time-performance

Part of the allure! “We’ll get ya there…sometime.” It’s not their fault. Passenger trains in the US run almost exclusively on freight lines. They are high risk, low revenue…burdens(?) from that perspective.

> “We’ll get ya there…sometime.”

That sums it up, I rode the coastliner wen as sot up to +$5 in 2008 and I had to be tere by 6am to et to my destination at 10:30am; if I had nothing to worry about it mit ave been a pleasant experience. As the author indicates, you an meet lots of people on these trips, at first I met lots of travelers/tourists and made plans to meet up later in the week as I was being dropped off in San Diego marina every day so it was a large hub, the problem was I was waking up at 5am and getting home at 11pm most of the week which meant that my trips were usually a way to et a nap before leading into my next location and doing another 7 our stint.

Often I set an alarm on my flip phone, but Id sleep right through it and stressed I had miss my stop only to find out we were just delayed yet again for x reason.

I also did the trip from Colorado to California several times, and I eve wrote a pilot for a dining car tv show I wanted to pitch. It's pretty stunning to see, but after the 12t hour you start to realize that maybe you really should have just gotten a plane after all if you have something or somewhere to be.

I rode te train all over Europe as well, DB/Trenitalia/SBB and had a halb tax for the first year, but after the romanticism wore off I soon realized that cheap flights were a better option wit bus trips in between as my time commitments became more pressing.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized. You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out. > The Amtrack is…

> You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out. But that’s what I’m trying to tell you, I’m not comparing them because the comparison doesn’t make sense when both receive subsidies but passenger rail in the US receives little support. > Because those were profi…

> But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable.

You can't just build a rail station and expect anything to happen; you also have to build the railroad. And this is currently not a profitable investment in the United States.

> But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too.

We do subsidize rail. That's what Amtrak is. We've been subsidizing it for 50 years now.

> > Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.

> I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t

If you don't even know what Acela is, you literally don't know the first thing about passenger rail in the United States. Thanks for conceding my entire argument.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#265

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 loved it. It's hard to convey how different it is from flying.

> Then you get on the train and you get to completely relax. I brought a book to read and some stuff like that, but I spent more than half the time literally just looking out the windows.

One of my dreams was doing a transcontinental train trip in the US, and in the months before our child was born, my wife sensibly let me know that "now" was a great time to do it, so I took a 10 day trip around the country that would start in Boston and end in San Antonio, where my wife was traveling for work.

As it turned out, her trip was cancelled, so I made a round trip: Boston -> Washington DC -> Chicago -> Sacramento -> Los Angeles -> Chicago (via Texas) -> Boston.

The trip took 10 days and nights, 7 of which were on the train. I loaded my Zune with as many Sopranos episodes and movies as it would carry, and had some books to pass away the time. I'm pretty sure I made it through about 30 minutes of one Sopranos episode. I went to bed near dusk, awoke and showered at dawn, and spent the rest of the time chatting with folks in the lounge or diner, or watched the world go by from my room. Total cost at the time was $1800 for the entire trip, including hotels and meals for non-train nights.

One moment really stood out to me. We were in the Nevada desert somewhere (this is early 2000's, so no smart phone or GPS for me), and I didn't know where I was, what time it was, or even what day it was. What I did know was that I had a 5pm dinner in the dining car. It was, by several orders of magnitude, the most relaxed I've ever been in my entire life.

Time and life move differently from the overnight train. When a leg of your trip is a 24 or 48 hour end-to-end journey, a couple hours delay on either end doesn't make much of a difference. Seeing the US from this perspective is amazing, from fields to factories to mountains to deserts to valleys and everything else.

>Taking a sleeper car train ride isn't cheap in terms of time or money, but I would highly recommend it. I can't wait to do it again.

I have the benefit of in-laws living in FL in a town that has a train stop, so I managed to convince my family to take the train one time. They liked it, though they did think it got a little long in the end. However, given that our last trip via an airline took 20 hours, including sleeping on benches in an airport, I might be able to convince them to take the train again. Being late isn't fun, but it's far more palatable in a conveyance where you have your own room, can get up and walk around, and has both seated dining and a cafe.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it I don’t think this is completely unreasonable. In FY20, Amtrak made $2.4B in revenue from riders and had $5B in costs. I like trains and this post made me want to take a long ride. But the California Zephyr only serves 250k riders a year. How much should politicians subsidize these trains? Is the money better spent subsidizing Disneyland? I’m not sure what the righ…

I don't think ridership on the Zephyr has much at all to do with population density --- it's hitting Reno, SLC, Denver, and Omaha on that route, too. The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco; you're basically getting people to sign up for a vacation of spending an extended period of time on a train. I get why that appeals to some people, but it's obviously a pretty u…

> The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco

You are correct, and that's why most long distance routes don't have end-to-end riders as the main customers. In 2019, for example, Chicago to/from Emeryville (endpoints of the train) was the 4th most popular city pair. The station with the most people embarking/disembarking is Denver. I suspect end-to-end ridership isn't lower on the Zephyr because it's a big tourist draw for the portion through the Rockies.

One of the most salient stats for me is that over half of trip (53%) are less than 500 miles. Trains excel in the too short to fly or too long to take the bus (for me, that's about 2 hours) segment.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 outcom…

Amtrak was outcompeted by cars long before it was outcompeted by airlines.
Post reply on HN