4 ms·

"If I absolutely must travel, I take a train or drive. " The problem with train is it is expensive and time consuming in the States. I could take a train from

by jetti 9y ago

"If I absolutely must travel, I take a train or drive. " The problem with train is it is expensive and time consuming in the States. I could take a train from Chicago to Orlando and it would take around 30 hours and cost just as much, if not more, than a plane ticket. Not only that, the 19 hour second leg of the ride has no food car.

leggomylibro 9y ago
It is definitely not a saving on cost or time, but I don't have to travel too much and the vastly improved experience is worthwhile for me, especially within a 2-3 state radius. Amtrak tickets will rival a plane in cost while taking longer, but they tend to be less crowded. They often have designated quiet cars. There's far less invasive security theater. The seats are comfortable. It's an environment that I can actually relax or work in, unlike a plane, which I find makes up for the extra time.
- spc476 9y ago
  The one time I took a train (Amtrak) I found it was nearly impossible to work due to the swaying of the train. The other down side was the return train was a few hours late (Amtrak does not own the track where I was traveling). On the plus side, the seats were large and comfortable, and the food was surprisingly good.
  - jetti 9y ago
    Was food included or did you have to pay?
    - spc476 9y ago
      Had to pay, but there was an actual menu to order from, unlike an airplane with one (or no) meals.
      - jetti 9y ago
        Ah ok. Were the prices reasonable or overpriced as it is a captive market?
        spc476 9y ago
        A bit high, as it is a captive audience.
chucksmash 9y ago
This is exactly the thought that occurred to me, except for New York to Atlanta. I've looked into taking the train a couple of times and balked each time at the idea of paying the same price for 10-15x the transit time. 40 hours in transit is going to be a non-starter for so many kinds of trips, unless you're specifically doing something like [1] where the transit is the whole point of the trip. [1]: http://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/rockies-and-pacific/toronto-vancouver-canadian http://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/roc...
- martinald 9y ago
  The thing is it is way more expensive to provide a train for 40 hours than a plane for 2. The plane could do 20 journeys in that time, for 20x the nominal revenue. This is why high speed rail is so good: it can actually really decrease operational costs Vs normal rail as your train, crew, station etc does 2-3x the volume of passengers, and therefore revenue, compared to slower alternatives.
WorldMaker 9y ago
Passenger train is just generally severely crippled in the US. From Louisville, KY you get to factor in the greyhound bus to Chicago, as the nearest passenger train station, because the passenger trains haven't run to Louisville in more than a decade. So far as I can tell, that's the most direct route via train: northwest by bus to go southeast by train, eventually. You could do it somewhat more directly using a sequence of bus transfers instead, but that's also entirely inconvenient in its own way.

by jetti 9y ago

leggomylibro 9y ago

It is definitely not a saving on cost or time, but I don't have to travel too much and the vastly improved experience is worthwhile for me, especially within a 2-3 state radius. Amtrak tickets will rival a plane in cost while taking longer, but they tend to be less crowded. They often have designated quiet cars. There's far less invasive security theater. The seats are comfortable. It's an environment that I can actually relax or work in, unlike a plane, which I find makes up for the extra time.

spc476 9y ago
The one time I took a train (Amtrak) I found it was nearly impossible to work due to the swaying of the train. The other down side was the return train was a few hours late (Amtrak does not own the track where I was traveling). On the plus side, the seats were large and comfortable, and the food was surprisingly good.
- jetti 9y ago
  Was food included or did you have to pay?
  - spc476 9y ago
    Had to pay, but there was an actual menu to order from, unlike an airplane with one (or no) meals.
    - jetti 9y ago
      Ah ok. Were the prices reasonable or overpriced as it is a captive market?
      - spc476 9y ago
        A bit high, as it is a captive audience.

chucksmash 9y ago

This is exactly the thought that occurred to me, except for New York to Atlanta. I've looked into taking the train a couple of times and balked each time at the idea of paying the same price for 10-15x the transit time. 40 hours in transit is going to be a non-starter for so many kinds of trips, unless you're specifically doing something like [1] where the transit is the whole point of the trip. [1]: http://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/rockies-and-pacific/toronto-vancouver-canadian http://www.viarail.ca/en/explore-our-destinations/trains/roc...

martinald 9y ago
The thing is it is way more expensive to provide a train for 40 hours than a plane for 2. The plane could do 20 journeys in that time, for 20x the nominal revenue. This is why high speed rail is so good: it can actually really decrease operational costs Vs normal rail as your train, crew, station etc does 2-3x the volume of passengers, and therefore revenue, compared to slower alternatives.

WorldMaker 9y ago

Passenger train is just generally severely crippled in the US. From Louisville, KY you get to factor in the greyhound bus to Chicago, as the nearest passenger train station, because the passenger trains haven't run to Louisville in more than a decade. So far as I can tell, that's the most direct route via train: northwest by bus to go southeast by train, eventually. You could do it somewhat more directly using a sequence of bus transfers instead, but that's also entirely inconvenient in its own way.