7 ms·

I've taken the California Zephyr between Chicago and SF a couple times now, it's a wonderful experience. 2 1/2 days of solitude from a world with increasingly

I've taken the California Zephyr between Chicago and SF a couple times now, it's a wonderful experience. 2 1/2 days of solitude from a world with increasingly few remote corners. If you're at all interested, I recommend riding soon. These admittedly impractical long-distance routes are going to be the first to go when budget cuts necessitate it.

ng12 8y ago
Google say it takes 31h to drive between the two -- any idea why the Amtrak takes twice that time?
- yareally 8y ago
  Probably having to yield for other trains.
- praneshp 8y ago
  33 stops.
  - redorb 8y ago
    I do live in a bad spot for trains (Oklahoma) however they keep trying to build more rails (which make no sense in our region).. to determine how much sense they made to me personally I studied a trip to chicago from oklahoma city. Turns out I couldn't find any destination where trains beat driving or flying in the metrics of time or cost even. I do get that trains work in some regions in the US ~ but we should define those regions or what makes a region good for rail and focus there. Amtrak to me is one of the largest scams the government does - it's a constant money losing operation. It takes in so much money - and loses money on every thing it sells from the tickets to the drinks and food.
    - dima55 8y ago
      Building roads is also a money losing operation. Complain about something else. There's plenty here.
      - borkt 8y ago
        Reconstructing an existing road is even worse. Want to repair a failing street? OK, but only if you make every aspect of the supporting infrastructure ADA compliant with the most current laws. We are legislating ourselves out of modern infrastructure.
        matthewmacleod 8y ago
        Or, just maybe, it’s good to make infrastructure accessible?
        noonespecial 8y ago
        He's got an unpopular opinion (and calling out the ADA specifically is probably the worst of the examples that can be chosen) but its worth a thought. When the choice is forced to be "perfect, or none at all", a possible outcome is none at all. On the balance, I find most of these rules to be acceptable most of the time, but it should always be considered that it can be taken too far.
        closeparen 8y ago
        Regulation is a commitment that we prefer "none at all" to the status quo. No more, no less. We talk about regulation creating desirable outcomes, but that's an oversimplification - the ADA does not hire or conscript anyone into the business of creating accessible infrastructure. It threatens that if they won't make their infrastructure accessible, they can't have any. The threat of "none at all" is the whole mechanism.
        noonespecial 8y ago
        Which is just fine so long as we remember that none at all is inaccessible to everyone.
        vkou 8y ago
        Is opposing accessibility the hill you want to die on? Do you have a ballpark for the financial and human cost of making our basic infrastructure not-accessible?
    - cortesoft 8y ago
      Umm, the purpose of government is not to make money, it is to serve the public. While you can make arguments whether or not trains are where we should put public money, but you can't use the argument that 'it loses money'.
    - niftich 8y ago
      Discontinuing Amtrak's long-distance services -- which are clearly not competitive in terms of ticket price or travel time with alternatives -- comes up time and time again, by members of Congress and commentators alike. However, successive directors of Amtrak have always opposed the discontinuation of long-distance routes. Congress could likely force the issue, but it's interesting that Amtrak leadership always leans in favor of them. There are some routes in the northeast that Amtrak turns a profit on [1][2][3], and some others are subsidized by states enough to still make them worthwhile to operate (CA, IL, NC). But if the long-distance routes were defunded, they'd likely never come back under the Amtrak banner, and significant layoffs would ensue. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968720#15976146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968720#15976146 [2] http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012-cost-recovery.html http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012... [3] http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report
      - anderber 8y ago
        A lot of the issue, I believe, is that those long-distance services cater to a lot of small towns that have no airport or good bus service. So Senators don't want to lose that service in their state. And they fight to keep the service, even if they are conservative.
    - jrnichols 8y ago
      I'm still surprised that Oklahoma City to Fort Worth route exists. It's 2-3 cars, and stops in such exciting places as Gainesville, TX. (sarcasm definitely intended.) Yet every day, there it goes. Bypassing a city like Denton, TX where a lot of people live and commute to Dallas or Fort Worth. The opportunity for commuter rail is there... it's just not happening, and I wish that it would.
  - borkt 8y ago
    It often runs a bit late in the morning as well.
- closeparen 8y ago
  3 days is a relatively aggressive schedule for the road trip. The train makes up for its low average speed by not needing to sleep overnight. The real problem is that the cost is greater than or equal to a 4-hour flight.
  - dvtrn 8y ago
    Why is train travel so much more expensive? Fewer tickets being sold comparatively?
    - geerlingguy 8y ago
      For shorter routes, it's the inverse; I go from STL to CHI (and back) often, and it's $30-40 for a pretty enjoyable short trip; 5-6 hours (compared to driving (4-5 hours), or flying (1 hour, but 2.5+ with airport time and stress included). Flights are usually $90+.
    - akshat_h 8y ago
      Also, maintaining tracks is expensive, especially in a large country like USA, as compared to just maintaining two airports. Kinda makes me wonder how much money is spent on road maintenance that we are not thinking as a cost while driving.
      - protomyth 8y ago
        Amtrak doesn't own most of the track they use. They pay track usage payments to the freight railroads that actually own the track. In FY 2009 that was $115.4 million (3.3% of total operation cost). Cannot find the current numbers. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjD-7i738naAhWD3oMKHa6JADkQFggsMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.dot.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FAMTRAK%2520Access%2520Fees%2520%2528Final%2520redacted3%2529.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ogNTkB73VBhoBulz6Q8Mp https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
        jandrese 8y ago
- hyperbovine 8y ago
  I see you have never taken Amtrak before :)
  - drchiu 8y ago
    I’ve not taken the train before, but I’ve heard that the experience is quite different in a good way. No traffic. No hustle and bustle.
- objectivetruth 8y ago
  A few reasons: the train has to slow down and then get back up to speed for each stop; there are stops in a few cities for refueling / shift change / restocking onboard supplies. These stops take a lot longer than just filling up your gas tank on a road trip, anywhere from 1 to 3 hours. And the article points out that Amtrak is lower priority than freight when track conflicts occur, so you will spend some time sitting on the prairie waiting for a freight train to go by. Realistically, nobody's making that drive in 31 hours anyway without a lot of caffeine and breaking the speed limit.
  - Fins 8y ago
    With that much caffeine you'd be making a lot of pit stops. I did do it in 40 hours and some change, but with one speeding ticket in Utah, and by the time I got home I knew I ain't doing that on "google schedule" again.
- Spooky23 8y ago
  Driving in shifts for 31h is pretty awful. It’s really an apples to oranges comparison. That’s really a 3 day trip, especially if you’re targeting hotel check in times. The train is generally pleasant and relaxing. I used to do Albany->NYC a few times a month. It takes less time in that case, but I always looked forward to that trip to work, reflect or just observe. The problem with the trains is inconsistent times. They share track with freight in many routes and there is little rhyme or reason for many trips. The error bar for arrival for a Boston->Buffalo trip is 3-4 hours, easy.
  - ng12 8y ago
    I'm not asking about the feasibility of driving nonstop, I'm asking why the average speed of the train is significantly slower.
- enos 8y ago
  American rail is built for cargo, so there are no sections as fast as a freeway. Also there are several sections that are particularly slow. The track through the Rockies is the original 1869 route, with original curvy single track and original tunnels. Speed there is around 20mph. Sometimes you come close to I-70, where cars are going 60-80mph. The Sierras also have slow sections. That said, those were my favorite parts of the trip.
  - niftich 8y ago
    This is mostly true, but in fact the route currently used by the California Zephyr through the Rockies (Salt Lake City - Soldier Summit - Moffat Tunnel - Denver) was built by the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad or its predecessors [1]; the section in question was completed no earlier than 1883. The more famous railroad finished in 1869 takes a more northerly route, through Ogden instead of Provo, and through Rawlins, Laramie, and Cheyenne in Wyoming instead of adjacent to I-70 through Grand Junction and Denver. The mountainous sections of the Zephyr, specifically the crossings of the Rockies and the Sierras, are indeed the least competitive vs. driving. Based off of the official timetable [2], the Zephyr takes: ~9 hours between Chicago and Omaha vs. 7.5 hours driving ~8.5 hours between Omaha and Denver vs. 7.5 hours driving ~15 hours between Denver and Salt Lake City vs. 8 hours driving 9 hours between Salt Lake City and Reno vs. 7.5 hours driving 7.5 hours between Reno and Emeryville vs. hours 3.5 driving Lengthening the driving time to include breaks, the train is viable between Chicago and Denver, and between Salt Lake and Reno, but is nearly twice as slow as driving on other parts of the route. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_and_Rio_Grande_Western_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_and_Rio_Grande_Western_... [2] https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/timetables/California-Zephyr-Schedule-072017.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
    - chx 8y ago
      Stating the obvious here, I know, but Chicago-Denver has so many flights it's not even funny, United, American, Spirit, Southwest, Frontier, well over twenty flights any day.
  - 8y ago
- niftich 8y ago
  If you're driving alone -- a reasonable assumption if you'd be in the market for a train -- a 31-hour "Google Maps" roadtrip takes 3 days, assuming ~10 hours of "map-time" driving, followed by 6+ hours of civilized sleep. The biggest constraint is "civilized" sleep, which is best had in a real bed at a real hotel, whose locations are constrained by settlements and whose typical availability hours begin at 15:00 local time and end at 11:00 local time. When you're driving west and passing through timezones, you can gain an extra hour that you can use for rest, while if you're driving east, you're racing doubly against the clock, as you're losing an extra hour you could be sleeping in a hotel at every timezone. My longest "map-time" drive sprint (not including stops) between sleeps is 19 hours, which was filled with delirium towards the end, and I would never recommend. I've done a 16-hour sprint to similar results, and have done multiple ~12-hour sprints with no issues whatsoever. In my experience, 12 hours is around the upper limit of how much "map-time" distance one can safely drive between sleeps, especially if one is to perform a comparable drive for three consecutive days.
  - bluGill 8y ago
    Over the road truckers are limited to 11 hours per day for good reason, your brain thinks falsely it can safely do more, but studies show otherwise. I have found on my cross country trips that there are plenty of small towns scatters across the US to make finding a hotel within an hour easy (though I'm sure you can find exceptions). I have also found a lot of interesting "small town" parks and culture because I forced myself to stop and find something (anything!) to do after 11 hours on the road.
  - ng12 8y ago
    Yes, but trains don't need to sleep. I'm not saying I'd recommend driving 31h at a time, I'm saying I don't understand why that would be so much faster.
    - icelancer 8y ago
      Plenty of stops and built-in delays with overlaid industrial trains. Additionally, you aren't going generally as fast as a car can, especially on long stretches of rural highways.
- trimbo 8y ago
  Wendover Productions has a good video that explains this and many other reasons why trains suck in the US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ Spoiler: freight companies own most of the track
- mindslight 8y ago
  Track work, waiting on local traffic (especially commuter), train police pulling someone off the train, etc. You can tell the people who've never taken the train before when they start asking why it's stopped. I say this out of love, to set expectations. Cross country, if you want to get somewhere ASAFP take a plane. If you want to enjoy a leisurely week+, drive. If you're willing to spend a few days for the scenery of a road trip without having to do the logistics, take the train.
- improbable22 8y ago
  The timetable is set partly so that you sleep during the boring bits and have daylight in the mountains. At least it was when I did Chicago -> SF a few years ago. It was great, after the prairies you woke up in Denver & lots more people got on, spent a day going through the Rockies, sleep, and then a day in the Sierras. (I'm pretty sure we spent some of the night parked in a siding.)
- dredmorbius 8y ago
  The rights-of-way are shared with, and subservient to, freight rail, and the roads themselves are owned by the freight lines. Top speed is limited to 79 mph, and is lower in many areas. As with software development, delays tend to be additive, and not made up. Any service disruption (track, equipment, weather, accidents, crews) means hours, occasionally (though fairly rarely) days of delays.
ghaff 8y ago
You're probably right. The California Zephyr or the Empire Builder are on my "should do once when the stars align" list but they probably won't be an option forever. I should probably consider doing one of them at some point when the stars get at reasonably in the vicinity.

ng12 8y ago

Google say it takes 31h to drive between the two -- any idea why the Amtrak takes twice that time?

yareally 8y ago
Probably having to yield for other trains.
praneshp 8y ago
33 stops.
- redorb 8y ago
  I do live in a bad spot for trains (Oklahoma) however they keep trying to build more rails (which make no sense in our region).. to determine how much sense they made to me personally I studied a trip to chicago from oklahoma city. Turns out I couldn't find any destination where trains beat driving or flying in the metrics of time or cost even. I do get that trains work in some regions in the US ~ but we should define those regions or what makes a region good for rail and focus there. Amtrak to me is one of the largest scams the government does - it's a constant money losing operation. It takes in so much money - and loses money on every thing it sells from the tickets to the drinks and food.
  - dima55 8y ago
    Building roads is also a money losing operation. Complain about something else. There's plenty here.
    - borkt 8y ago
      Reconstructing an existing road is even worse. Want to repair a failing street? OK, but only if you make every aspect of the supporting infrastructure ADA compliant with the most current laws. We are legislating ourselves out of modern infrastructure.
      - matthewmacleod 8y ago
        Or, just maybe, it’s good to make infrastructure accessible?
        noonespecial 8y ago
        He's got an unpopular opinion (and calling out the ADA specifically is probably the worst of the examples that can be chosen) but its worth a thought. When the choice is forced to be "perfect, or none at all", a possible outcome is none at all. On the balance, I find most of these rules to be acceptable most of the time, but it should always be considered that it can be taken too far.
        closeparen 8y ago
        Regulation is a commitment that we prefer "none at all" to the status quo. No more, no less. We talk about regulation creating desirable outcomes, but that's an oversimplification - the ADA does not hire or conscript anyone into the business of creating accessible infrastructure. It threatens that if they won't make their infrastructure accessible, they can't have any. The threat of "none at all" is the whole mechanism.
        noonespecial 8y ago
        Which is just fine so long as we remember that none at all is inaccessible to everyone.
      - vkou 8y ago
        Is opposing accessibility the hill you want to die on? Do you have a ballpark for the financial and human cost of making our basic infrastructure not-accessible?
  - cortesoft 8y ago
    Umm, the purpose of government is not to make money, it is to serve the public. While you can make arguments whether or not trains are where we should put public money, but you can't use the argument that 'it loses money'.
  - niftich 8y ago
    Discontinuing Amtrak's long-distance services -- which are clearly not competitive in terms of ticket price or travel time with alternatives -- comes up time and time again, by members of Congress and commentators alike. However, successive directors of Amtrak have always opposed the discontinuation of long-distance routes. Congress could likely force the issue, but it's interesting that Amtrak leadership always leans in favor of them. There are some routes in the northeast that Amtrak turns a profit on [1][2][3], and some others are subsidized by states enough to still make them worthwhile to operate (CA, IL, NC). But if the long-distance routes were defunded, they'd likely never come back under the Amtrak banner, and significant layoffs would ensue. [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968720#15976146 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15968720#15976146 [2] http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012-cost-recovery.html http://reasonrail.blogspot.com/2012/12/amtrak-routes-by-2012... [3] http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report http://www.riarp.org/blog/2014/11/25/september-amtrak-report
    - anderber 8y ago
      A lot of the issue, I believe, is that those long-distance services cater to a lot of small towns that have no airport or good bus service. So Senators don't want to lose that service in their state. And they fight to keep the service, even if they are conservative.
  - jrnichols 8y ago
    I'm still surprised that Oklahoma City to Fort Worth route exists. It's 2-3 cars, and stops in such exciting places as Gainesville, TX. (sarcasm definitely intended.) Yet every day, there it goes. Bypassing a city like Denton, TX where a lot of people live and commute to Dallas or Fort Worth. The opportunity for commuter rail is there... it's just not happening, and I wish that it would.
- borkt 8y ago
  It often runs a bit late in the morning as well.
closeparen 8y ago
3 days is a relatively aggressive schedule for the road trip. The train makes up for its low average speed by not needing to sleep overnight. The real problem is that the cost is greater than or equal to a 4-hour flight.
- dvtrn 8y ago
  Why is train travel so much more expensive? Fewer tickets being sold comparatively?
  - geerlingguy 8y ago
    For shorter routes, it's the inverse; I go from STL to CHI (and back) often, and it's $30-40 for a pretty enjoyable short trip; 5-6 hours (compared to driving (4-5 hours), or flying (1 hour, but 2.5+ with airport time and stress included). Flights are usually $90+.
  - akshat_h 8y ago
    Also, maintaining tracks is expensive, especially in a large country like USA, as compared to just maintaining two airports. Kinda makes me wonder how much money is spent on road maintenance that we are not thinking as a cost while driving.
    - protomyth 8y ago
      Amtrak doesn't own most of the track they use. They pay track usage payments to the freight railroads that actually own the track. In FY 2009 that was $115.4 million (3.3% of total operation cost). Cannot find the current numbers. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjD-7i738naAhWD3oMKHa6JADkQFggsMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.oig.dot.gov%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2FAMTRAK%2520Access%2520Fees%2520%2528Final%2520redacted3%2529.pdf&usg=AOvVaw2ogNTkB73VBhoBulz6Q8Mp https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&c...
      - jandrese 8y ago
hyperbovine 8y ago
I see you have never taken Amtrak before :)
- drchiu 8y ago
  I’ve not taken the train before, but I’ve heard that the experience is quite different in a good way. No traffic. No hustle and bustle.
objectivetruth 8y ago
A few reasons: the train has to slow down and then get back up to speed for each stop; there are stops in a few cities for refueling / shift change / restocking onboard supplies. These stops take a lot longer than just filling up your gas tank on a road trip, anywhere from 1 to 3 hours. And the article points out that Amtrak is lower priority than freight when track conflicts occur, so you will spend some time sitting on the prairie waiting for a freight train to go by. Realistically, nobody's making that drive in 31 hours anyway without a lot of caffeine and breaking the speed limit.
- Fins 8y ago
  With that much caffeine you'd be making a lot of pit stops. I did do it in 40 hours and some change, but with one speeding ticket in Utah, and by the time I got home I knew I ain't doing that on "google schedule" again.
Spooky23 8y ago
Driving in shifts for 31h is pretty awful. It’s really an apples to oranges comparison. That’s really a 3 day trip, especially if you’re targeting hotel check in times. The train is generally pleasant and relaxing. I used to do Albany->NYC a few times a month. It takes less time in that case, but I always looked forward to that trip to work, reflect or just observe. The problem with the trains is inconsistent times. They share track with freight in many routes and there is little rhyme or reason for many trips. The error bar for arrival for a Boston->Buffalo trip is 3-4 hours, easy.
- ng12 8y ago
  I'm not asking about the feasibility of driving nonstop, I'm asking why the average speed of the train is significantly slower.
enos 8y ago
American rail is built for cargo, so there are no sections as fast as a freeway. Also there are several sections that are particularly slow. The track through the Rockies is the original 1869 route, with original curvy single track and original tunnels. Speed there is around 20mph. Sometimes you come close to I-70, where cars are going 60-80mph. The Sierras also have slow sections. That said, those were my favorite parts of the trip.
- niftich 8y ago
  This is mostly true, but in fact the route currently used by the California Zephyr through the Rockies (Salt Lake City - Soldier Summit - Moffat Tunnel - Denver) was built by the Denver and Rio Grande Western Railroad or its predecessors [1]; the section in question was completed no earlier than 1883. The more famous railroad finished in 1869 takes a more northerly route, through Ogden instead of Provo, and through Rawlins, Laramie, and Cheyenne in Wyoming instead of adjacent to I-70 through Grand Junction and Denver. The mountainous sections of the Zephyr, specifically the crossings of the Rockies and the Sierras, are indeed the least competitive vs. driving. Based off of the official timetable [2], the Zephyr takes: ~9 hours between Chicago and Omaha vs. 7.5 hours driving ~8.5 hours between Omaha and Denver vs. 7.5 hours driving ~15 hours between Denver and Salt Lake City vs. 8 hours driving 9 hours between Salt Lake City and Reno vs. 7.5 hours driving 7.5 hours between Reno and Emeryville vs. hours 3.5 driving Lengthening the driving time to include breaks, the train is viable between Chicago and Denver, and between Salt Lake and Reno, but is nearly twice as slow as driving on other parts of the route. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_and_Rio_Grande_Western_Railroad https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denver_and_Rio_Grande_Western_... [2] https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/public/documents/timetables/California-Zephyr-Schedule-072017.pdf https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...
  - chx 8y ago
    Stating the obvious here, I know, but Chicago-Denver has so many flights it's not even funny, United, American, Spirit, Southwest, Frontier, well over twenty flights any day.
- 8y ago
niftich 8y ago
If you're driving alone -- a reasonable assumption if you'd be in the market for a train -- a 31-hour "Google Maps" roadtrip takes 3 days, assuming ~10 hours of "map-time" driving, followed by 6+ hours of civilized sleep. The biggest constraint is "civilized" sleep, which is best had in a real bed at a real hotel, whose locations are constrained by settlements and whose typical availability hours begin at 15:00 local time and end at 11:00 local time. When you're driving west and passing through timezones, you can gain an extra hour that you can use for rest, while if you're driving east, you're racing doubly against the clock, as you're losing an extra hour you could be sleeping in a hotel at every timezone. My longest "map-time" drive sprint (not including stops) between sleeps is 19 hours, which was filled with delirium towards the end, and I would never recommend. I've done a 16-hour sprint to similar results, and have done multiple ~12-hour sprints with no issues whatsoever. In my experience, 12 hours is around the upper limit of how much "map-time" distance one can safely drive between sleeps, especially if one is to perform a comparable drive for three consecutive days.
- bluGill 8y ago
  Over the road truckers are limited to 11 hours per day for good reason, your brain thinks falsely it can safely do more, but studies show otherwise. I have found on my cross country trips that there are plenty of small towns scatters across the US to make finding a hotel within an hour easy (though I'm sure you can find exceptions). I have also found a lot of interesting "small town" parks and culture because I forced myself to stop and find something (anything!) to do after 11 hours on the road.
- ng12 8y ago
  Yes, but trains don't need to sleep. I'm not saying I'd recommend driving 31h at a time, I'm saying I don't understand why that would be so much faster.
  - icelancer 8y ago
    Plenty of stops and built-in delays with overlaid industrial trains. Additionally, you aren't going generally as fast as a car can, especially on long stretches of rural highways.
trimbo 8y ago
Wendover Productions has a good video that explains this and many other reasons why trains suck in the US https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mbEfzuCLoAQ Spoiler: freight companies own most of the track
mindslight 8y ago
Track work, waiting on local traffic (especially commuter), train police pulling someone off the train, etc. You can tell the people who've never taken the train before when they start asking why it's stopped. I say this out of love, to set expectations. Cross country, if you want to get somewhere ASAFP take a plane. If you want to enjoy a leisurely week+, drive. If you're willing to spend a few days for the scenery of a road trip without having to do the logistics, take the train.
improbable22 8y ago
The timetable is set partly so that you sleep during the boring bits and have daylight in the mountains. At least it was when I did Chicago -> SF a few years ago. It was great, after the prairies you woke up in Denver & lots more people got on, spent a day going through the Rockies, sleep, and then a day in the Sierras. (I'm pretty sure we spent some of the night parked in a siding.)
dredmorbius 8y ago
The rights-of-way are shared with, and subservient to, freight rail, and the roads themselves are owned by the freight lines. Top speed is limited to 79 mph, and is lower in many areas. As with software development, delays tend to be additive, and not made up. Any service disruption (track, equipment, weather, accidents, crews) means hours, occasionally (though fairly rarely) days of delays.

ghaff 8y ago

You're probably right. The California Zephyr or the Empire Builder are on my "should do once when the stars align" list but they probably won't be an option forever. I should probably consider doing one of them at some point when the stars get at reasonably in the vicinity.