4 ms·

An absolute fortune. I've looked into this, and it isn't economical in any way, shape, or form. Flying across the continent is MUCH cheaper, and with your num

by magduf 8y ago

An absolute fortune. I've looked into this, and it isn't economical in any way, shape, or form. Flying across the continent is MUCH cheaper, and with your number of vacation days usually being limited, gives you a lot more time at your destination. The only reason to do this is because you really want to spend your vacation time sitting in a train watching rural American scenery go by in states like Montana. It's sort of like taking a cruise ship, except a lot more expensive and the food isn't as good (or even included in the price I think) and there's not much to do on the train except watch the scenery and talk to people. If we had 300mph bullet trains going across the country, it would make some sense because you'd get there a lot faster while still seeing the sights, it'd be more comfortable than an airplane's economy seats, and the ridership would probably be higher (which would lead to lower costs). As it is, long-distance rail travel in the US is an expensive disaster.

veryworried 8y ago
$2k is hardly an "absolute fortune". For the typical hackernews software developer this is something like a week's worth of work for one of the most unforgettable experiences of their lives.
- CaptainZapp 8y ago
  I totally agree with you. But compared to a one way flight, which can be had for as little as 100 bucks it's still pretty steep. Alas, the experience certainly cannot be compared. It's not about getting to the destination, when you take the train. You pay for the entire experience.
- magduf 8y ago
  I can go to Europe for 2 weeks for $2k or so, all-inclusive. Spending that much money just to sit on a train and look out a window sounds like a fortune to me. Maybe for very sedentary people it's an attractive option. Even a cruise ship is a more active experience, since there's a LOT more to do on a cruise ship, and you can probably do that for less than $2k as well if you avoid all the extras.
CaptainZapp 8y ago
I just looked it up. A sleeper for one is ~1'800$. About 300 more if you're two. That's about half of a yearly train pass for Switzerland (2nd class). The pass allowes you to travel in virtually any mode of transportation without restrictions. Except for taxis, some boats and some mountain railways. So yeah, that's pretty steep.
- zeveb 8y ago
  In fairness, the continental United States are over 195 times the size of Switzerland.
  - dspig 8y ago
    but only 12 times the width
- billfruit 8y ago
  A similar cross country sleeper trip could be around 50$ in India, though by Indian speeds it may take the train several days, it is common for train rides India to last more than 2 full days. The longest distance passenger train on the Indian network takes close to 80 hours one way.
  - selimthegrim 8y ago
    Amtrak was selling Phoenix-New Orleans tickets for $79 around the new year (not sleeper though). These days you can get bargains on certain east coast routes on roomette tickets if you go on trains that they’ve pulled the dining car off of.
doggydogs94 8y ago
We can build your bullet train as soon as California finishes theirs.
CWuestefeld 8y ago
As pure transit, I agree with you. But that price includes the sleeper and meals. If you view this as the vacation itself, it's not far off the price you'd be paying for hotels and meals.
- magduf 8y ago
  Yeah, that's why I compared it to a cruise ship. But on the cruise ship, the food is probably a lot better, you have lots of activities on board (games, casinos, gym, massage parlor, fancy restaurants, shows, concerts, swimming pool, tennis court, etc.) and lots of space to walk around, and it stops at several ports of call during the trip. With the train, you get none of that, maybe a few short stops in rural towns on the way but not long enough to get off. I guess if you want to spend your whole vacation just sitting down and looking out a window, it's ok...
saalweachter 8y ago
I'd indeed say it costs more than most people are willing to pay. That said, a sleeper car on Amtrak gets you: a flat surface to lie down on, your own toilet (note the toilet is just there in the roomette, next to the bunk, prison style), access to a shower (your own shower in the rooms, one per car for the roomettes), access to the first class lounges, and includes meals in the dining car. Rooms have a slightly wider lower bunk versus roomettes to sleep 2 (skinny) people and an enclosed toilet so you don't lose mystery from your romantic or work relationships. Roomettes are too small for a first world prison cell but have the beds oriented parallel to the direction of travel, which many people find more comfortable -- the rocking of the train is more soothing and less jarring. If you have the time, don't mind paying four-star hotel prices for a two-star experience, and hate flying or have a medical condition that makes it infeasible you should definitely consider it. Or, if you're on this site, it's a great excuse to sit in a small room with a view and not talk to anyone for several days, just read, write and program.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  > Or, if you're on this site, it's a great excuse to sit in a small room with a view and not talk to anyone for several days, just read, write and program. This sounds like fun. I wonder if there are any European routes that are as long/uninterrupted that I could try that on.
  - lmm 8y ago
    Not really - the only trains taking longer than 24 hours in Europe are the sleepers to Moscow, and the longest of those (Nice-Moscow) only takes 48 hours. There are then much longer trains from Moscow into Asia though, up to the famous Trans-Siberian (6 days). I went London-Japan overland but my longest single segment was two and a half days (Moscow-Shymkent), and that was about right - time to relax and do nothing for a bit, but by the third morning I had definitely spent enough time in the same compartment, as nice as it was.
  - dboreham 8y ago
    >I wonder if there are any European routes that are as long/uninterrupted that I could try that on. The London to Ft. William sleeper, when there's leaves on the line?
thatfrenchguy 8y ago
>If we had 300mph bullet trains going across the country, it would make some sense because you'd get there a lot faster while still seeing the sights You should take a TGV, you'll realize that at 300kph you don't see the sights.
- magduf 8y ago
  Yes, you would in America. It's a question of simple geometry and perspective. I haven't ridden TGV, but I'm guessing you're talking about smaller things, probably man-made ones (e.g. buildings), maybe trees, relatively close to the train. You're not going to see anything like that when riding a train across Montana. Instead, you're going to see enormous wide-open natural spaces, with absolutely nothing really close to the train. So even at a speed 2-4x that of Amtrak's, you'll see it just fine.
  - thatfrenchguy 8y ago
    All TGVs run at 300kph in the countryside, which is (on a smaller scale), just open spaces. The speed reduces your field of vision.

by magduf 8y ago

veryworried 8y ago

$2k is hardly an "absolute fortune". For the typical hackernews software developer this is something like a week's worth of work for one of the most unforgettable experiences of their lives.

CaptainZapp 8y ago
I totally agree with you. But compared to a one way flight, which can be had for as little as 100 bucks it's still pretty steep. Alas, the experience certainly cannot be compared. It's not about getting to the destination, when you take the train. You pay for the entire experience.
magduf 8y ago
I can go to Europe for 2 weeks for $2k or so, all-inclusive. Spending that much money just to sit on a train and look out a window sounds like a fortune to me. Maybe for very sedentary people it's an attractive option. Even a cruise ship is a more active experience, since there's a LOT more to do on a cruise ship, and you can probably do that for less than $2k as well if you avoid all the extras.

CaptainZapp 8y ago

I just looked it up. A sleeper for one is ~1'800$. About 300 more if you're two. That's about half of a yearly train pass for Switzerland (2nd class). The pass allowes you to travel in virtually any mode of transportation without restrictions. Except for taxis, some boats and some mountain railways. So yeah, that's pretty steep.

zeveb 8y ago
In fairness, the continental United States are over 195 times the size of Switzerland.
- dspig 8y ago
  but only 12 times the width
billfruit 8y ago
A similar cross country sleeper trip could be around 50$ in India, though by Indian speeds it may take the train several days, it is common for train rides India to last more than 2 full days. The longest distance passenger train on the Indian network takes close to 80 hours one way.
- selimthegrim 8y ago
  Amtrak was selling Phoenix-New Orleans tickets for $79 around the new year (not sleeper though). These days you can get bargains on certain east coast routes on roomette tickets if you go on trains that they’ve pulled the dining car off of.

doggydogs94 8y ago

We can build your bullet train as soon as California finishes theirs.

CWuestefeld 8y ago

As pure transit, I agree with you. But that price includes the sleeper and meals. If you view this as the vacation itself, it's not far off the price you'd be paying for hotels and meals.

magduf 8y ago
Yeah, that's why I compared it to a cruise ship. But on the cruise ship, the food is probably a lot better, you have lots of activities on board (games, casinos, gym, massage parlor, fancy restaurants, shows, concerts, swimming pool, tennis court, etc.) and lots of space to walk around, and it stops at several ports of call during the trip. With the train, you get none of that, maybe a few short stops in rural towns on the way but not long enough to get off. I guess if you want to spend your whole vacation just sitting down and looking out a window, it's ok...

saalweachter 8y ago

I'd indeed say it costs more than most people are willing to pay. That said, a sleeper car on Amtrak gets you: a flat surface to lie down on, your own toilet (note the toilet is just there in the roomette, next to the bunk, prison style), access to a shower (your own shower in the rooms, one per car for the roomettes), access to the first class lounges, and includes meals in the dining car. Rooms have a slightly wider lower bunk versus roomettes to sleep 2 (skinny) people and an enclosed toilet so you don't lose mystery from your romantic or work relationships. Roomettes are too small for a first world prison cell but have the beds oriented parallel to the direction of travel, which many people find more comfortable -- the rocking of the train is more soothing and less jarring. If you have the time, don't mind paying four-star hotel prices for a two-star experience, and hate flying or have a medical condition that makes it infeasible you should definitely consider it. Or, if you're on this site, it's a great excuse to sit in a small room with a view and not talk to anyone for several days, just read, write and program.

jplayer01 8y ago
> Or, if you're on this site, it's a great excuse to sit in a small room with a view and not talk to anyone for several days, just read, write and program. This sounds like fun. I wonder if there are any European routes that are as long/uninterrupted that I could try that on.
- lmm 8y ago
  Not really - the only trains taking longer than 24 hours in Europe are the sleepers to Moscow, and the longest of those (Nice-Moscow) only takes 48 hours. There are then much longer trains from Moscow into Asia though, up to the famous Trans-Siberian (6 days). I went London-Japan overland but my longest single segment was two and a half days (Moscow-Shymkent), and that was about right - time to relax and do nothing for a bit, but by the third morning I had definitely spent enough time in the same compartment, as nice as it was.
- dboreham 8y ago
  >I wonder if there are any European routes that are as long/uninterrupted that I could try that on. The London to Ft. William sleeper, when there's leaves on the line?

thatfrenchguy 8y ago

>If we had 300mph bullet trains going across the country, it would make some sense because you'd get there a lot faster while still seeing the sights You should take a TGV, you'll realize that at 300kph you don't see the sights.

magduf 8y ago
Yes, you would in America. It's a question of simple geometry and perspective. I haven't ridden TGV, but I'm guessing you're talking about smaller things, probably man-made ones (e.g. buildings), maybe trees, relatively close to the train. You're not going to see anything like that when riding a train across Montana. Instead, you're going to see enormous wide-open natural spaces, with absolutely nothing really close to the train. So even at a speed 2-4x that of Amtrak's, you'll see it just fine.
- thatfrenchguy 8y ago
  All TGVs run at 300kph in the countryside, which is (on a smaller scale), just open spaces. The speed reduces your field of vision.