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

281–290 of 468 posts

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

#281

Post by pacifist »

moosey wrote: post #139

I've used a number of carbon output calculators, and one of my major carbon outputs are two flights from the Inland Northwest to the Northeast part of the country each year (work related). It seems that in the case of my travel, my lowest carbon option (according to at least one calculator I've used) is actually an economy ticket on an aircraft. It also clarified that for shorter trips, the greyhound bus is without e…

The problem with airplanes is that the carbon is released in exactly the wrong place[0] so your intuitions are correct. We are stuck between a rock and a hard place as far as air travel is concerned: don't fly and we lose a major component of global dimming[1], fly and and it puts CO2 in the upper atmosphere speeding us toward global warming on an apocalyptic scale. If you can read a graph you know we are in big trouble.

[0] - https://globalwarmingisreal.com/2013/03/20/earthtalk-airplan... [1] - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/11218772_Climatolog...

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

#282

Post by kibwen »

cycrutchfield wrote: post #268
kibwen wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll take economic umbrage at "don't sit with the cattle". When I traveled from Chicago to SF on the California Zephyr (40-ish hours), a seat was $100 and a sleeper car was over $1,000; for reference, a flight between the two is about $200. Being able to afford such a sleeper car is the sort of luxurious expense that most vacationers will likely prefer to spend on going to a more exotic destination by plane. (I do re…

If you're buying a sleeper car ticket, you should be comparing it to an international business class flight with a lie-flat seat. Not a domestic flight in economy.

I'd agree only if our benchmark of comparison is "I want to travel while sleeping", but the value of flying is that you get there so fast that you usually don't even need to sleep. The journey from Chicago to SF is eight times longer by train than by plane, and, price aside, the only value proposition is a (very) scenic view; considering price, you can either spend half the price of flying in exchange for two rough nights stretched diagonally across two train seats, or five times the price of flying for two nights of decent sleep.

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

#283

Post by WorldMaker »

ctingom wrote: post #277

Doesn't the government run Amtrak?

Sort of, but not really. The US Government is king of weird semi-privatized public partnerships that are the worst of both worlds. Amtrak is very similar to the current iteration of the USPS, in that Amtrak is run as its own "for profit" somewhat publicly traded company, yet has to answer to the US Congress as its largest shareholder.

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

#284

Post by jandrese »

ip26 wrote: post #204
rpiguy wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So long as fuel is reasonably priced, planes can take more people farther, faster it is simple economics. Trains are still preferable for local trips and even some medium range trips, but to go all the way across Europe by train would be terribly expensive compared to taking a cheap flight.

That doesn't really answer the question. What about planes is cheaper? For simple economics to apply, they have to do something cheaper than trains, and it's not obvious what that is. As far as I know, for example, trains are significantly more fuel efficient per passenger-mile.

Not having to maintain thousands of miles of rail seems like a big cost savings right up front. Trains should have lower fuel costs, but fuel really isn't that expensive in the grand scheme of things. People are also willing to give up some creature comforts if the trip is short which helps airlines. Trains also have a lower throughput of passengers compared to employee hours, so salary costs per passenger are higher.

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

#285

Post by Tepix »

moosey wrote: post #139

I've used a number of carbon output calculators, and one of my major carbon outputs are two flights from the Inland Northwest to the Northeast part of the country each year (work related). It seems that in the case of my travel, my lowest carbon option (according to at least one calculator I've used) is actually an economy ticket on an aircraft. It also clarified that for shorter trips, the greyhound bus is without e…

Reducing carbon output by traveling by train stead of plane is a super valid reason. It's probably the no. 1 reason why kerosene will eventually get high taxes on it worldwide (the sooner the better).

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

#286

Post by camelNotation »

CWuestefeld wrote: post #18

My wife and I did this several years back, New York to Chicago to San Francisco, and it really was a wonderful experience. But get a sleeper compartment, don't sit with the cattle. It's worth it, really. And that's even though we spent little time in our compartment almost the whole trip we were up in the observation car watching the American landscape roll by. One highlight of the trip was when storms over Helper, U…

One thing I've noticed that makes it such a wonderful experience is that the trains still use the old tracks (not literally the same metal, but the same paths) that were laid down decades or even centuries prior. So as you roll through these small towns, you are often seeing the old parts that are full of character and charm, not the strip-malls or Wal-Marts. I love that.

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

#287

Post by rayiner »

abalone wrote: post #278
rayiner wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yay government-run train service.

Other governments do it just fine.

Who? In most of Asia trains are privatized. In Europe, the passenger rail companies are in various stages of privatization. Rail in the UK is more or less privatised. Deutche Bahn, SNCF, Trenitalia, DSB, etc., are private companies. The government is involved in the sense they are the largest or sole shareholder, but they are run as for-profit corporations. For example, they compete in other countries. Many, such as SNCF, are on the path to further privatization: https://www.railway-technology.com/features/french-rail-refo.... Amtrak, though legally an independent corporation, is in practice operated like a government agency.

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

#288

Post by jaclaz »

Kurtz79 wrote: post #229
CWuestefeld wrote: post #18

My wife and I did this several years back, New York to Chicago to San Francisco, and it really was a wonderful experience. But get a sleeper compartment, don't sit with the cattle. It's worth it, really. And that's even though we spent little time in our compartment almost the whole trip we were up in the observation car watching the American landscape roll by. One highlight of the trip was when storms over Helper, U…

In Europe there has historically been an "Interrail" ticket, aimed to allow backpackers to travel in EU countries outside of their own with a single, dirt cheap pass, valid for a month or so on each country's rail network (of course, cheapest seating and class). I did two of them and they are some of the best travel experiences I had in my life.

Yep, and it was also a sort of "rite of passage" that every 18 year old took or wished to take.
Post reply on HN