9 ms·

In the US I would take a sleeper train from Seattle to Chicago instead of a plane provided the sleeper train runs 180 mph on average. That would put me in Chica

In the US I would take a sleeper train from Seattle to Chicago instead of a plane provided the sleeper train runs 180 mph on average. That would put me in Chicago in about 10-12 hours, meaning I could get to Union Station in Seattle, get on the train, sleep a full night, wake up, eat breakfast, and disembark in Chicago. The red-eye to Chicago, which is a comparable trip, really sucks because you only get about 3 hours of sleep in the most uncomfortable position imaginable. This means that you arrive in the city groggy and discombobulated. I would even pay airfare-level prices for that kind of service. And extra if there's a way to segregate families with small children from my cabin so I don't have to try to remain asleep while a toddler is screaming for 3 hours in the same cabin.

atoav 7y ago
I grew up in Central Europe and used the hell out of night trains. It is really one of the best ways to get around, if available.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
princekolt 7y ago
In Europe it is standard to have silent cabins, especially on first class.
CaptainZapp 7y ago
In the US I would take a sleeper train from Seattle to Chicago instead of a plane provided the sleeper train runs 180 mph on average. Not really doable for a lot of Austria and generally the Alpine regions. There are not many high speed tracks in Austria and Switzerland, the reason being that the countries are relatively small and that building high speed tracks through the alps is insanely expensive. Switzerland built two base tunnels through the alps: The Lötschberg[1] - and Gotthard[2] base tunnels, which are geared to a top speed of 250 km/h (ca. 155 miles/h) and a normal travel speed of 200 km/h (125). That's why it takes roughly 10 hours to get from Zurich to Vienna, but only 4 to get from Zurich to Paris (after Mulhouse the whole track is high speed capable and trains run with up to 320 kmh (200 m) on that track. Edited to add: Of course night trains make a lot of sense on that route. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6tschberg_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6tschberg_Base_Tunnel [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel
- jandrese 7y ago
  It's not every day you see someone bemoaning the sorry state of their European rail lines compared to the US.
  - CaptainZapp 7y ago
    Not bemoaning at all, it's a matter of size, geography and topology why HSR does not make much sense in a country like Switzerland. The country is roughly 300km long and ~200km high, add to that a lot of cities, which need to be serviced with relatively small distances. HSR only makes sense, when a train can travel big distances between nodes. Instead a different approach was chosen: The trains are dispatched by clock face scheduling[1], which makes much more sense. Trains leave nodes by the (usually) half hour and deliver passengers to connecting nodes within the time required to connect to transfer. This guarantees scheduled connections, even when there's no direct train. For example: If you want to get from Zurich to Lugano there are trains leaving at 5:10pm, 6:10pm, 7:10pm, etc. The first and the last are direct trains, with the 6:10 you need to get out at Arth Goldau to connect with another train, which leaves 4 minutes later. For a small country like Switzerland this concept makes far more sense than HSR. It's probably one of the most efficient train networks with the exception of Japan. So bemoaning generally happens on a very high level, if at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock-face_scheduling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock-face_scheduling
- ido 7y ago
  In Austria if you're traveling between big cities you're probably traveling to a neighboring country (very common to travel to Germany, Czech, Hungary, etc by rail). Unfortunately Germany is the only neighbor with an extensive high-speed rail network that Austria has.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  > Not really doable for a lot of Austria and generally the Alpine regions. On the other hand that distance is a lot smaller than Chicago-Seattle (4x) so the lack of high speed in the alpine region isn't as noticable for a night train because the distances are much shorter. The thing about sleeper trains is that you need the distance to be 8-15 hours. If it's less than 8h you'd get uncomfortable departure or arrival times. 10h for Zurich-Vienna is perfect for a sleeper.
briffle 7y ago
For those that don't know the route, this route is currently >40 hours, with something like 45 stops along the way. (almost every congressional district, imagine that)
- jcranmer 7y ago
  Note that Montana and North Dakota, which provide most of the mileage of the route, each have just one congressional district.
  - briffle 7y ago
    I guess you are right. But those 7 stops in ND, and 12 in MT, are there really enough people there to justify those stations? Maybe have an 'express' and a regular train?
    - jcranmer 7y ago
      Probably. If you look at the sensitivity of passenger traffic to travel time, the graph is roughly a logistic curve with the inflection point around the 3 hour mark. On a 40-hour trip, the number of people you'd add to the train by cutting out 4 hours of stops is probably on the order of 10-100 people per trip. If those stations collectively serve more than that number of people, then you're losing people by cutting those stops.
    - objectivetruth 7y ago
      If nobody is boarding or getting off at a non-staffed station, I think Amtrak skips it. Since Amtrak has to exclusively use private cargo rail lines, none of which support high-speed rail, it's kind of a chicken and egg situation.
    - rtkwe 7y ago
      It's a question of demand really and maybe driven by a chicken and egg problem. Trains are slow and expensive so people prefer to fly leading to a lack of demand to support both a slow every stop train and an express point to point train. Also I imagine prices would increase on an express train compared to current trains because it will be picking up less passengers from those intermediate stations. It's tough to setup a lot of different trains because tracks are afaik one per direction in most locations and lines so you're very harshly limited on the scheduling side of things.
VBprogrammer 7y ago
Taking the night train between London and Edinburgh used to me and my partners absolute favourite way of making that journey. If you get yourself into a deep enough sleep (admittedly I didn't always manage) it can feel like magic to wake up at your destination having wasted no useful time; having not been irradiated or felt up; and not being subject to enforced retail operations.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- growlist 7y ago
  Yeah generally I used to find a sleeping pill mandatory for sleepers, the downside being that one tends to leave at least one possession behind in the cabin the morning after.
ido 7y ago
"airfare-level prices"? In Germany and Austria my experience was that flying was generally cheaper than the train, and sleeper trains more expensive still. I'm on a (day) train between Berlin and Vienna this very minute and it costed me €99 (one way!) where as a flight would have been about €50. You can get cheaper tickets if booking well in advance (months) but the same applies to budget airlines.
- alkonaut 7y ago
  > where as a flight would have been about €50. To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport.
  - thesimon 7y ago
    >To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport. Vienna should be less than 5€ for the airport + VOR ticket.
    - ido 7y ago
      A bit over €3 for a Berlin ABC ticket I believe.
  - sunebeck 7y ago
    Berlin AB ticket (for Tegel airport), EUR 2.80. Berlin ABC ticket (for Schönefeld airport), EUR 3.40.
- mschuster91 7y ago
  The joke is that airfare is way too cheap compared to the damage it causes - be it noise, exhaust gases or land usage for airport infrastructure. In addition jet fuel in Europe is tax-free which enables these ultra low prices.
  - dexen 7y ago
    Air travel is comparable in fuel usage to trains [1]. Which surprised me a bit, as I expected much better mileage for the air travel, thanks to the exceptionally low drag of the rarified air up there as compared to wheels on rails. However the railway ought to be more expensive overall due to the other costs: requires build-out and maintenance of extensive ground based network, including some prime real estate; requires much longer occupancy of vehicles; requires much more man-hours for each vehicle crew. Sadly in most settings (like continental Europe) the fixed costs of rail are barely visible to our considerations due to the governmental funding. Meanwhile airplanes only require build-out of the end-points, and the crew required is minimal. The only meaningful way of fixing the problems with rail is 1) high speed (Mach 0.5 ... 1); 2) de-coupling from wheels-on-rails as the source of noise, drag and speed limitation; 3) de-coupling from expensive on-the-ground infrastructure as cause of high costs and NIMBYism; 4) high automation, little to no amenities; 5) smaller vehicles, more frequent departures. All in all, going in the airplane-like direction. Hyperloop may just be the thing, if it ever becomes large scale commercial. [1] per passenger * km. Example: https://www.theprch.com/this-vs-that/fuel-efficiency-planes-vs-train-bus-car/ https://www.theprch.com/this-vs-that/fuel-efficiency-planes-...
martythemaniak 7y ago
Knowing the fate of the California HSR project, what makes you think this is realistic in any way, shape or form? I mean, I would pay airline-level prices for an autonomous electric air drone taxi from my house in Seattle to my destination in Chicago, and as crazy as that sounds, it still might be more realistic than what you're asking for.
- jschwartzi 7y ago
  I'm not an expert in large-scale civil engineering projects, and I resent the implication that I should be before I'm allowed to express any desires.
rolltiide 7y ago
or just dont try to get sleep for 3 hours and arrive at your destination in 3 hours? how are these comparable If US had high speed rail I would have a different answer, but it doesnt
- alistairSH 7y ago
  I believe the OP's point is a 3-hour red-eye isn't a great travel option. But, it's a fairly common flight when traveling West-to-East in the US. He'd prefer a 10 hour trip (via train, or blimp, or anything else) if the pricing was in the same ballpark. The 10 hour over-night doesn't "waste" any time - you're eating and sleeping those hours regardless.
MaconBacon 7y ago
You would have to pay 1st class airfare level prices for a such a thing, maybe even more.

atoav 7y ago

I grew up in Central Europe and used the hell out of night trains. It is really one of the best ways to get around, if available.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

princekolt 7y ago

In Europe it is standard to have silent cabins, especially on first class.

CaptainZapp 7y ago

In the US I would take a sleeper train from Seattle to Chicago instead of a plane provided the sleeper train runs 180 mph on average. Not really doable for a lot of Austria and generally the Alpine regions. There are not many high speed tracks in Austria and Switzerland, the reason being that the countries are relatively small and that building high speed tracks through the alps is insanely expensive. Switzerland built two base tunnels through the alps: The Lötschberg[1] - and Gotthard[2] base tunnels, which are geared to a top speed of 250 km/h (ca. 155 miles/h) and a normal travel speed of 200 km/h (125). That's why it takes roughly 10 hours to get from Zurich to Vienna, but only 4 to get from Zurich to Paris (after Mulhouse the whole track is high speed capable and trains run with up to 320 kmh (200 m) on that track. Edited to add: Of course night trains make a lot of sense on that route. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6tschberg_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%C3%B6tschberg_Base_Tunnel [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gotthard_Base_Tunnel

jandrese 7y ago
It's not every day you see someone bemoaning the sorry state of their European rail lines compared to the US.
- CaptainZapp 7y ago
  Not bemoaning at all, it's a matter of size, geography and topology why HSR does not make much sense in a country like Switzerland. The country is roughly 300km long and ~200km high, add to that a lot of cities, which need to be serviced with relatively small distances. HSR only makes sense, when a train can travel big distances between nodes. Instead a different approach was chosen: The trains are dispatched by clock face scheduling[1], which makes much more sense. Trains leave nodes by the (usually) half hour and deliver passengers to connecting nodes within the time required to connect to transfer. This guarantees scheduled connections, even when there's no direct train. For example: If you want to get from Zurich to Lugano there are trains leaving at 5:10pm, 6:10pm, 7:10pm, etc. The first and the last are direct trains, with the 6:10 you need to get out at Arth Goldau to connect with another train, which leaves 4 minutes later. For a small country like Switzerland this concept makes far more sense than HSR. It's probably one of the most efficient train networks with the exception of Japan. So bemoaning generally happens on a very high level, if at all. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock-face_scheduling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clock-face_scheduling
ido 7y ago
In Austria if you're traveling between big cities you're probably traveling to a neighboring country (very common to travel to Germany, Czech, Hungary, etc by rail). Unfortunately Germany is the only neighbor with an extensive high-speed rail network that Austria has.
alkonaut 7y ago
> Not really doable for a lot of Austria and generally the Alpine regions. On the other hand that distance is a lot smaller than Chicago-Seattle (4x) so the lack of high speed in the alpine region isn't as noticable for a night train because the distances are much shorter. The thing about sleeper trains is that you need the distance to be 8-15 hours. If it's less than 8h you'd get uncomfortable departure or arrival times. 10h for Zurich-Vienna is perfect for a sleeper.

briffle 7y ago

For those that don't know the route, this route is currently >40 hours, with something like 45 stops along the way. (almost every congressional district, imagine that)

jcranmer 7y ago
Note that Montana and North Dakota, which provide most of the mileage of the route, each have just one congressional district.
- briffle 7y ago
  I guess you are right. But those 7 stops in ND, and 12 in MT, are there really enough people there to justify those stations? Maybe have an 'express' and a regular train?
  - jcranmer 7y ago
    Probably. If you look at the sensitivity of passenger traffic to travel time, the graph is roughly a logistic curve with the inflection point around the 3 hour mark. On a 40-hour trip, the number of people you'd add to the train by cutting out 4 hours of stops is probably on the order of 10-100 people per trip. If those stations collectively serve more than that number of people, then you're losing people by cutting those stops.
  - objectivetruth 7y ago
    If nobody is boarding or getting off at a non-staffed station, I think Amtrak skips it. Since Amtrak has to exclusively use private cargo rail lines, none of which support high-speed rail, it's kind of a chicken and egg situation.
  - rtkwe 7y ago
    It's a question of demand really and maybe driven by a chicken and egg problem. Trains are slow and expensive so people prefer to fly leading to a lack of demand to support both a slow every stop train and an express point to point train. Also I imagine prices would increase on an express train compared to current trains because it will be picking up less passengers from those intermediate stations. It's tough to setup a lot of different trains because tracks are afaik one per direction in most locations and lines so you're very harshly limited on the scheduling side of things.

VBprogrammer 7y ago

Taking the night train between London and Edinburgh used to me and my partners absolute favourite way of making that journey. If you get yourself into a deep enough sleep (admittedly I didn't always manage) it can feel like magic to wake up at your destination having wasted no useful time; having not been irradiated or felt up; and not being subject to enforced retail operations.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
growlist 7y ago
Yeah generally I used to find a sleeping pill mandatory for sleepers, the downside being that one tends to leave at least one possession behind in the cabin the morning after.

ido 7y ago

"airfare-level prices"? In Germany and Austria my experience was that flying was generally cheaper than the train, and sleeper trains more expensive still. I'm on a (day) train between Berlin and Vienna this very minute and it costed me €99 (one way!) where as a flight would have been about €50. You can get cheaper tickets if booking well in advance (months) but the same applies to budget airlines.

alkonaut 7y ago
> where as a flight would have been about €50. To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport.
- thesimon 7y ago
  >To be fair to travel betwee Berlin and Vienna City centres you'd need to add at least a €10 in each end for ground transport. Vienna should be less than 5€ for the airport + VOR ticket.
  - ido 7y ago
    A bit over €3 for a Berlin ABC ticket I believe.
- sunebeck 7y ago
  Berlin AB ticket (for Tegel airport), EUR 2.80. Berlin ABC ticket (for Schönefeld airport), EUR 3.40.
mschuster91 7y ago
The joke is that airfare is way too cheap compared to the damage it causes - be it noise, exhaust gases or land usage for airport infrastructure. In addition jet fuel in Europe is tax-free which enables these ultra low prices.
- dexen 7y ago
  Air travel is comparable in fuel usage to trains [1]. Which surprised me a bit, as I expected much better mileage for the air travel, thanks to the exceptionally low drag of the rarified air up there as compared to wheels on rails. However the railway ought to be more expensive overall due to the other costs: requires build-out and maintenance of extensive ground based network, including some prime real estate; requires much longer occupancy of vehicles; requires much more man-hours for each vehicle crew. Sadly in most settings (like continental Europe) the fixed costs of rail are barely visible to our considerations due to the governmental funding. Meanwhile airplanes only require build-out of the end-points, and the crew required is minimal. The only meaningful way of fixing the problems with rail is 1) high speed (Mach 0.5 ... 1); 2) de-coupling from wheels-on-rails as the source of noise, drag and speed limitation; 3) de-coupling from expensive on-the-ground infrastructure as cause of high costs and NIMBYism; 4) high automation, little to no amenities; 5) smaller vehicles, more frequent departures. All in all, going in the airplane-like direction. Hyperloop may just be the thing, if it ever becomes large scale commercial. [1] per passenger * km. Example: https://www.theprch.com/this-vs-that/fuel-efficiency-planes-vs-train-bus-car/ https://www.theprch.com/this-vs-that/fuel-efficiency-planes-...

martythemaniak 7y ago

Knowing the fate of the California HSR project, what makes you think this is realistic in any way, shape or form? I mean, I would pay airline-level prices for an autonomous electric air drone taxi from my house in Seattle to my destination in Chicago, and as crazy as that sounds, it still might be more realistic than what you're asking for.

jschwartzi 7y ago
I'm not an expert in large-scale civil engineering projects, and I resent the implication that I should be before I'm allowed to express any desires.

rolltiide 7y ago

or just dont try to get sleep for 3 hours and arrive at your destination in 3 hours? how are these comparable If US had high speed rail I would have a different answer, but it doesnt

alistairSH 7y ago
I believe the OP's point is a 3-hour red-eye isn't a great travel option. But, it's a fairly common flight when traveling West-to-East in the US. He'd prefer a 10 hour trip (via train, or blimp, or anything else) if the pricing was in the same ballpark. The 10 hour over-night doesn't "waste" any time - you're eating and sleeping those hours regardless.

MaconBacon 7y ago

You would have to pay 1st class airfare level prices for a such a thing, maybe even more.