4 ms·

Where/why are you going that you can spare two days?

danenania 7y ago
Anywhere, for any reason. I work remotely and could do so comfortably on the train, so what's the rush? I'd rather spend more time and have a good experience than be treated like livestock at the airport.
- eanzenberg 7y ago
  That’s sweet for you. Majority of the nation does not have the luxury to spend days traveling.
  - danenania 7y ago
    Maybe not the majority, but certainly many millions of people in all kinds of jobs could conceivably work remotely for a day or two while traveling by train and lose less productive time than they would by taking a plane. Also, if we really had bullet trains that could do 200+ MPH, you could have cross-country express trains that take less than 24 hours, so it wouldn't even have to be multiple days.
  - pandapower2 7y ago
    That is interesting actually. You could argue that the tiny amount of leave Americans typically receive contributes to emissions. With people being unable to spare additional time for travel there is a strong disincentive to use any form of transport apart from flying.
  - tonyedgecombe 7y ago
    If we don't solve this problem you won't have the luxury of travelling anywhere, we will be spending all our energy and capital just on surviving.
  - patall 7y ago
    However, one could also argue that the majority of the nation does not have the luxury to spend a single day traveling, so going by sleeper train is even better. I recently had a business trip to Switzerland and took the sleeper train from Berlin to Basel (9pm to 8am) where I arrived after a nice breakfast (in the train) so much more relaxed than after a hectic flight. Its more expensive but only because its basically hotel + trip.
    - vinay427 7y ago
      Right, but the equivalent of trains that take multiple days are sleeper/red-eye flights of 5+ hours during which many people can catch up on some sleep. I've taken that train as well and while it's nice for routes of around that distance, I'm not sure how it would be beneficial if you had to sit on it for days. That wouldn't be much of a sleeper trip.
- Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
  How does one "work comfortably on the train"? Assuming you are using a computer, or even do anything else intellectual including reading, the constant vibrations and movement of the train places a very definitive strain on the eyes (because they have to constanly work to even be able to focus on what you're looking at) and makes it harder to concentrate. Many people experience the rocking effect where they get very sleepy. The internet connection will just inevitably end up being worse and less reliable, completely off in some areas. You don't have access to a great desk, to a great chair, you are constantly distracted by noises. Dependent on what your seating arrangement is, you can be distracted by your neighbors, even if they don't talk to you. There is very little space, you can forget getting up and stretching well or taking short walks to gather your thoughts. How does any of this amount to "comfortable work"? Have you tried working on a train? It is an illusion that one could comfortably work on one. Even reading a book comfortably might be a stretch on some of them.
  - NeedMoreTea 7y ago
    s/train/{car|plane|coach|tram|bus|bicycle}/ No transport is free of movement or vibration, cars most especially. Far more get car and air sick than train sick. So unless you're advocating never travelling at all, I'm not sure what point you're making. From my experience of all, train is probably the most comfortable of the lot, with the best seating, most desk space - you get a proper table and even a mains point. You don't get forced to breathe dry low oxygen air, and avoid the nasty taste of road fumes. Biggest negative is the relative cost of train compared to all the other forms of transport, which speaks more of relative subsidy than inherent costs.
    - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
      The point I am making, which is clear if you read previous comments I was answering to, is that travelling for a whole day in a train is not in any way an equivalent, productivity-wise, to travelling 3 hours by plane and then working the rest of the day in an office or a home. There might be other reasons to take trains over airplanes, but "so I can comfortably work on it" is a very questionable one.
- b_tterc_p 7y ago
  Feels like a let them eat cake argument to me. I’m sure many others would like to have the luxury of remote work and leisurely paced travel. This isn’t a useful perspective for the majority of people
  - danenania 7y ago
    Yes, let them ride bullet trains! The downtrodden masses would surely rise up after being forced into such indignity.

Anywhere, for any reason. I work remotely and could do so comfortably on the train, so what's the rush? I'd rather spend more time and have a good experience than be treated like livestock at the airport.

eanzenberg 7y ago
That’s sweet for you. Majority of the nation does not have the luxury to spend days traveling.
- danenania 7y ago
  Maybe not the majority, but certainly many millions of people in all kinds of jobs could conceivably work remotely for a day or two while traveling by train and lose less productive time than they would by taking a plane. Also, if we really had bullet trains that could do 200+ MPH, you could have cross-country express trains that take less than 24 hours, so it wouldn't even have to be multiple days.
- pandapower2 7y ago
  That is interesting actually. You could argue that the tiny amount of leave Americans typically receive contributes to emissions. With people being unable to spare additional time for travel there is a strong disincentive to use any form of transport apart from flying.
- tonyedgecombe 7y ago
  If we don't solve this problem you won't have the luxury of travelling anywhere, we will be spending all our energy and capital just on surviving.
- patall 7y ago
  However, one could also argue that the majority of the nation does not have the luxury to spend a single day traveling, so going by sleeper train is even better. I recently had a business trip to Switzerland and took the sleeper train from Berlin to Basel (9pm to 8am) where I arrived after a nice breakfast (in the train) so much more relaxed than after a hectic flight. Its more expensive but only because its basically hotel + trip.
  - vinay427 7y ago
    Right, but the equivalent of trains that take multiple days are sleeper/red-eye flights of 5+ hours during which many people can catch up on some sleep. I've taken that train as well and while it's nice for routes of around that distance, I'm not sure how it would be beneficial if you had to sit on it for days. That wouldn't be much of a sleeper trip.
Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
How does one "work comfortably on the train"? Assuming you are using a computer, or even do anything else intellectual including reading, the constant vibrations and movement of the train places a very definitive strain on the eyes (because they have to constanly work to even be able to focus on what you're looking at) and makes it harder to concentrate. Many people experience the rocking effect where they get very sleepy. The internet connection will just inevitably end up being worse and less reliable, completely off in some areas. You don't have access to a great desk, to a great chair, you are constantly distracted by noises. Dependent on what your seating arrangement is, you can be distracted by your neighbors, even if they don't talk to you. There is very little space, you can forget getting up and stretching well or taking short walks to gather your thoughts. How does any of this amount to "comfortable work"? Have you tried working on a train? It is an illusion that one could comfortably work on one. Even reading a book comfortably might be a stretch on some of them.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  s/train/{car|plane|coach|tram|bus|bicycle}/ No transport is free of movement or vibration, cars most especially. Far more get car and air sick than train sick. So unless you're advocating never travelling at all, I'm not sure what point you're making. From my experience of all, train is probably the most comfortable of the lot, with the best seating, most desk space - you get a proper table and even a mains point. You don't get forced to breathe dry low oxygen air, and avoid the nasty taste of road fumes. Biggest negative is the relative cost of train compared to all the other forms of transport, which speaks more of relative subsidy than inherent costs.
  - Erlich_Bachman 7y ago
    The point I am making, which is clear if you read previous comments I was answering to, is that travelling for a whole day in a train is not in any way an equivalent, productivity-wise, to travelling 3 hours by plane and then working the rest of the day in an office or a home. There might be other reasons to take trains over airplanes, but "so I can comfortably work on it" is a very questionable one.
b_tterc_p 7y ago
Feels like a let them eat cake argument to me. I’m sure many others would like to have the luxury of remote work and leisurely paced travel. This isn’t a useful perspective for the majority of people
- danenania 7y ago
  Yes, let them ride bullet trains! The downtrodden masses would surely rise up after being forced into such indignity.