5 ms·

When I lived as a poor vagabond couch-surfer in China, I did almost 100% of my traveling by train. I'm convinced there's no better way to travel. When you tra

When I lived as a poor vagabond couch-surfer in China, I did almost 100% of my traveling by train. I'm convinced there's no better way to travel. When you travel by airplane, you're pretty much rapidly moving from huge city to huge city. You miss everything in-between, from the terrain to seeing how people outside of the cities live. Even driving from one place to another, you're confined to the freeways. You see a little bit more, but you're still in this weird world which was built around the freeway. When you travel by train, however, you follow the lay of the land. That takes you into some interesting, fascinating places. Combine that with the fact that you can get a sleeper car and food, and it's an entire experience, not just a rush to get from point A to point B. I spent most of my time reading and looking out the window. It's bliss.

ksk 11y ago
How is a train better than a car in this regard? You don't have to take the freeway if you don't want to.
- tkinom 11y ago
  You don't have to drive? If just yourself, driving 3000 miles cost more time, $, mental energy.
  - coldtea 11y ago
    >You don't have to drive? You don't have to take the freeway ("interstate"). You can always go for smaller roads. >If just yourself, driving 3000 miles cost more time, $, mental energy. If time, $ and mental energy is at premium, train is not the solution either. A plane ticket will be the same cost or less and take 1/40 the time. If we're talking about seeing places and travelling to see the "real side, kooky, etc" as he mentions, then driving is a far better option. It doesn't take reading Jack Kerouac to know this.
    - thebaer 11y ago
      > You don't have to drive? They're saying you don't have to focus on driving. On a train you can watch the scenery pass and not pay attention to piloting your mode of transportation.
    - austenallred 11y ago
      > If time, $ and mental energy is at premium, train is not the solution either. A plane ticket will be the same cost or less and take 1/40 the time. That's part of the the point; you don't have to think that way. You actually don't have to think or plan at all. You're not trying to consciously get from point A to point B. You're just sitting, thinking, reading, and going where the train takes you. It generally takes you to some really interesting places, far from the well-beaten path. I suppose Jack Keroac or someone who would write Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance may do the same thing in a car, but I've never done so.
      - coldtea 11y ago
        >It generally takes you to some really interesting places, far from the well-beaten path. You have a point on the "relaxing" thing. OTOH, the problem I see with that is that it doesn't really "take" you to those places, it just passes through them. You can watch them go by, but not stop and check them out.
        austenallred 11y ago
        Yeah, for sure. I don't really want to stop and dwell, I like moving through things quickly.
    - mindslight 11y ago
      It really depends what you're up for. I would take the train again in a heartbeat if it lined up logistically. But I'm not currently looking to invest in another road trip. A plane makes a single day into a complete waste, plus the stress of having to deal with blue shirted fondlers and their enabling hordes who worship that "terrorism" tripe. But it gets you there the quickest. Driving interstates/secondary highways direct wastes several days, but perhaps you have a bunch of stuff to transport. If you did this and enjoyed "seeing the country", you owe it to yourself to plan another trip with more time. Taking the train uses several days, but they're relaxing and you can appreciate the scenery transitions without having to worry about logistics. It's probably the easiest way to "see things" while your goal is still the destination. A proper road trip will let you see what you can see from the train, plus a whole lot more, plus actually stopping and checking things out rather than just passing by. But the journey itself has to be your goal. I wouldn't recommend it for any less than 8 days (one way), otherwise you're just doing a slower canonball run.
- enraged_camel 11y ago
  It's several orders of magnitude safer, for one thing.
  - qntty 11y ago
    According to this, it's only about 1 order of magnitude safer http://election.princeton.edu/2015/05/13/train-travel-is-incredibly-safe/ http://election.princeton.edu/2015/05/13/train-travel-is-inc...
drzaiusapelord 11y ago
>Even driving from one place to another, you're confined to the freeways. Plane to train is also the same as train to car. The US has all sorts of non-expressway routes that are fun to drive and you see so much culture, culture you can actually stop and interact with trivially. For example, the classic Route 66, which you can still drive today. Or make your own routes with all this fancy GPS stuff we have today. There's something wonderful about cars that I think we're going to miss as we continue to urbanize and move into self-driving taxi's or other exotic tech. The few long drives I've take out of the city have been very pleasurable.
- CWuestefeld 11y ago
  My wife and I always do this with pleasure trips. For a premium of 10%-20% time versus the Interstate, you can see and experience so much more. One of my favorite things is to stop and photograph the crumbling remains of past glory. I've got a vague idea of collecting the works together into a show or book, trying to illustrate the fleeting nature of our dreams.
wcummings 11y ago
You also get to see a lot of freight trains.

ksk 11y ago

How is a train better than a car in this regard? You don't have to take the freeway if you don't want to.

tkinom 11y ago
You don't have to drive? If just yourself, driving 3000 miles cost more time, $, mental energy.
- coldtea 11y ago
  >You don't have to drive? You don't have to take the freeway ("interstate"). You can always go for smaller roads. >If just yourself, driving 3000 miles cost more time, $, mental energy. If time, $ and mental energy is at premium, train is not the solution either. A plane ticket will be the same cost or less and take 1/40 the time. If we're talking about seeing places and travelling to see the "real side, kooky, etc" as he mentions, then driving is a far better option. It doesn't take reading Jack Kerouac to know this.
  - thebaer 11y ago
    > You don't have to drive? They're saying you don't have to focus on driving. On a train you can watch the scenery pass and not pay attention to piloting your mode of transportation.
  - austenallred 11y ago
    > If time, $ and mental energy is at premium, train is not the solution either. A plane ticket will be the same cost or less and take 1/40 the time. That's part of the the point; you don't have to think that way. You actually don't have to think or plan at all. You're not trying to consciously get from point A to point B. You're just sitting, thinking, reading, and going where the train takes you. It generally takes you to some really interesting places, far from the well-beaten path. I suppose Jack Keroac or someone who would write Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance may do the same thing in a car, but I've never done so.
    - coldtea 11y ago
      >It generally takes you to some really interesting places, far from the well-beaten path. You have a point on the "relaxing" thing. OTOH, the problem I see with that is that it doesn't really "take" you to those places, it just passes through them. You can watch them go by, but not stop and check them out.
      - austenallred 11y ago
        Yeah, for sure. I don't really want to stop and dwell, I like moving through things quickly.
  - mindslight 11y ago
    It really depends what you're up for. I would take the train again in a heartbeat if it lined up logistically. But I'm not currently looking to invest in another road trip. A plane makes a single day into a complete waste, plus the stress of having to deal with blue shirted fondlers and their enabling hordes who worship that "terrorism" tripe. But it gets you there the quickest. Driving interstates/secondary highways direct wastes several days, but perhaps you have a bunch of stuff to transport. If you did this and enjoyed "seeing the country", you owe it to yourself to plan another trip with more time. Taking the train uses several days, but they're relaxing and you can appreciate the scenery transitions without having to worry about logistics. It's probably the easiest way to "see things" while your goal is still the destination. A proper road trip will let you see what you can see from the train, plus a whole lot more, plus actually stopping and checking things out rather than just passing by. But the journey itself has to be your goal. I wouldn't recommend it for any less than 8 days (one way), otherwise you're just doing a slower canonball run.
enraged_camel 11y ago
It's several orders of magnitude safer, for one thing.
- qntty 11y ago
  According to this, it's only about 1 order of magnitude safer http://election.princeton.edu/2015/05/13/train-travel-is-incredibly-safe/ http://election.princeton.edu/2015/05/13/train-travel-is-inc...

drzaiusapelord 11y ago

>Even driving from one place to another, you're confined to the freeways. Plane to train is also the same as train to car. The US has all sorts of non-expressway routes that are fun to drive and you see so much culture, culture you can actually stop and interact with trivially. For example, the classic Route 66, which you can still drive today. Or make your own routes with all this fancy GPS stuff we have today. There's something wonderful about cars that I think we're going to miss as we continue to urbanize and move into self-driving taxi's or other exotic tech. The few long drives I've take out of the city have been very pleasurable.

CWuestefeld 11y ago
My wife and I always do this with pleasure trips. For a premium of 10%-20% time versus the Interstate, you can see and experience so much more. One of my favorite things is to stop and photograph the crumbling remains of past glory. I've got a vague idea of collecting the works together into a show or book, trying to illustrate the fleeting nature of our dreams.

wcummings 11y ago

You also get to see a lot of freight trains.