Live data from Hacker News

43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

0x58ed.com

71–80 of 267 posts

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#71

Having taken the Zephyr before, despite not being practical, Amtrak is really stupidly beautiful. There's something stunning in being in the middle of the mountains with nothing around.

Woke up early on the Zephyr to peer out the window and see fields on fire sliding by in the morning darkness. That was pretty wild.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#72
post #8

My parents took me on a trip via the California Zephyr, Coastal Starlight, and Empire builder when I was 5 years old. I'm now in my 40s and that was one of the most memorable trips I've ever taken. I re-took the California Zephyr with my wife some years ago, and hope to take it again with my child some day. Memorable travel, not just memorable destinations.

I took my own daughters on the Zephyr a few times. This was because, as a child, my mother took my sister and I from Kansas City to Chicago on a train and it blew my child-mind. So, like you, I passed it on.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#73
Pro tip, if you take a trip with friends and book the two adjoining family bedrooms, the door that separates them is 'locked' using what equates to a fireplace key. I keep one in my luggage so I don't have to ask the attendant to lock/unlock the door.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#74

I think I recognize that section of Chicago's train station from my favorite scene of all time. That shootout scene from the movie The Untouchables. Correct me if I am wrong.

I was thinking the same, where they paid homage to the "Odessa Steps scene" from Battleship Potemkin.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#75
post #57

The post suggests that "freight trains have priority." By law, passenger travel is expected to have "precedence." Read: https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

Interesting! Your link suggests that legally passenger trains are supposed to have priority, but that in practice freight trains are given priority. I didn't know this, and it makes me even madder! But as far as an explanation for why Amtrak trains are so often delayed (which is how it appeared in OP?), it appears to be correct that it's because freight trains are given priority. It's just that... they're not suppose…

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 rail has optimized very hard on saving costs, and since they own the tracks, there's not much Amtrak can do to win.

I think the only real solution is dedicated, grade-separated tracks for passenger trains (ideally high speed), but that's unfortunately a pipe dream :(

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#76
Nice read. I wish we had train configurations like those I took years ago in Europe: cabins with with 6 seats that converted to bunk beds in the evening-- even in coach class.

I would guess maybe in American culture, people would not be willing to sleep in a room with strangers, too bad, because it seems that the USA in the past had developed exactly this type of sleeper car: http://streamlinermemories.info/?p=5983

I've come close to booking a long haul with roomette, when I've had the time and could work on the train. In the end always decided the cost was too much, and at the same time sleeping in coach on Amtrak is not a nice experience.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#78
post #67

If, as so many are here, you’re in the Bay Area, the Coast Starlight from San Jose is a great way to travel down to LA or up to Portland or Seattle. It’ll take a while - but the trip, and the scenery, are part of the point.

As a caveat: try not to do it around the holidays, though. Very busy and very little scenery in the PNW due to shortened days. ...and also sometimes you'll get a passenger who talks about chemtrails, a concessions stand worker who's Officially Had Enough Bullshit, a locomotive that stops working, and someone dying of a heart attack in the middle of nowhere. But I'd like to think that these are more exceptional circum…

You can minimize this by booking a room in a sleeper car and/or moving around or going to the observation car - if it’s not too busy to do so.

I have had some interesting tablemates in the restaurant car though - they always fill all seats so you never know who you’ll be sitting next to for a meal! In retrospect maybe that actually was part of the charm too?…

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#79
post #76

Nice read. I wish we had train configurations like those I took years ago in Europe: cabins with with 6 seats that converted to bunk beds in the evening-- even in coach class. I would guess maybe in American culture, people would not be willing to sleep in a room with strangers, too bad, because it seems that the USA in the past had developed exactly this type of sleeper car: http://streamlinermemories.info/?p=5983 I…

I wonder if anyone has tried a Japanese style capsule hotel configuration in a train.

Re: 43 Hours on the Amtrak Southwest Chief

#80
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn’t call them niche, but no, the long distance routes are not profitable and never will be. They were introduce by the Rail Passenger Service act of 1970, and probably were initially requested, for better or worse, to serve as political pork for Amtrak funding as they serve rural communities as well as tourists. One could also argue that Amtrak is kept hostage, and can never offer high quality service (prior t…

You're right in that the long distance routes don't really make sense on their own, but if you view them as a bunch of shorter commuter routes which happen to be there anyway, then connecting them up tip to tip with a daily "long distance" route makes a lot of sense. To the commuters, it doesn't matter that one of the trains they might board on a given day will continue going long after they get off. But the benefit…

I think there are some routes where a sleeper makes sense, the Empire Builder is one of them (and the Coast Starlight only sorta; like I said, with good connections Seattle-Sacramento should be enough), but ideally they should interline with a bunch of normal interurban. For example along the Empire Builder, there should be more frequent service between Chicago and Minneapolis there should be plenty of interurbans (and a couple that goes to Fargo), but beyond that a single daily sleeper to Seattle is probably enough (and nice for tourists and locals alike). On the other end we really need more frequent service between Seattle and Spokane as well.
Post reply on HN