3 ms·

I just used Amtrak to travel across the US as I didn't want to bring my electric skateboard on a plane. It is a very high quality service.

rayiner 7y ago
Did you get there on time?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jrockway 7y ago
  I don't think you pick Amtrak to arrive somewhere on time. You bring some books, read them, relax, stare out the window, chat with people in the dining car, and eventually reach your destination. Chilling out on the train is part of your vacation. (I rode the California Zephyr from Chicago to Oakland when I was like 10, and still remember most of the trip. It was amazing, even for an easily-bored 10 year old.) The reality is, intercity trains are not an efficient way to travel in the United States. Most of the important cities are far apart, because it's a very large country with a lot of empty space. If you need to be somewhere, book a flight. It's less expensive and if you give yourself a day of leeway you will probably never be late to your thing, barring some sort of natural disaster. I am a huge railfan but I have accepted that the geography of the US doesn't make train travel as viable as say, Japan. Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka are the three largest cities and are comparable in distance between each other like Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis. If New York was where Chicago is, Chicago was where Springfield is, and LA was where St. Louis is, high speed rail would be enormously popular in the US. But New York and LA are 2500 miles apart, 10% around the world from each other. I even question California High Speed Rail. San Francisco / Silicon Valley and LA are both big metro areas with a lot of money, but SF/LA are 41% farther apart than Tokyo and Osaka. Japan got very lucky that its two largest cities are actually very close to each other. Building the Shinkansen was an enormous engineering challenge, but one that was very clearly profitable. It's so profitable they're building another Shinkansen between the two cities, taking a shorter route and using faster trains. In the US... such a city pair does not exist. OK this is going very off-topic from your exact comment... but it's something I wanted to talk about. Sorry.
  - avar 7y ago
    Your entire geography argument goes out the window if you look at China's high-speed rail system instead of Japan's. E.g. Shanghai - Kunming is more than 2200 km and takes between 10-12 hours[1]. At that speed LA-SF would take around 3 hours. For context the flight time is an hour and a half, so when you account for airport overhead, taxiing etc. the train would take around around the same time, and be a more pleasant mode of transport. The density argument also goes both ways. A country like Japan is going to find it much harder to find empty space to place rail than somewhere like the US. There's a lot of reasons for why the US isn't doing what China's doing with high-speed rail, but those reasons are mainly political, not geographical. 1. https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/shanghai-kunming.htm https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/shanghai-kunmi...
    - progval 7y ago
      > E.g. Shanghai - Kunming is more than 2200 km and takes between 10-12 hours[1]. Note that it could be even faster without the ~50 stops in the middle.
    - rayiner 7y ago
      China isn’t a good example to point to because we have no idea whether China is making intelligent trade offs about how to use its resources. It’s an authoritarian economy. It could end up that in 50 years the whole thing collapses from its own weight. Europe is a better example because it least the government must be somewhat accountable for its guns versus butter trade offs. And if you look at things like Macron trying to privatize SNCF (with its massive unsustainable debt levels), that should give us pause about the long term viability of rail even in dense places like France.
      - moccachino 7y ago
        From a cursory glance it seems to me that SNCF's debts are due to them financing all of their infrastructure instead of the French state paying for it (directly, it of course is indirectly), and then the argument goes back to the current top comment here: The real value of a good transport network is the add-on economic effects. Also from a security perspective, you can't hijack a train and crash it into some building (it has to stay on the tracks), so that's a plus for trains. Finally a domestic train causes about 41 g/km of CO2 emissions, while a domestic flight causes about 254 g/km (accounting for altitude) [0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
- reustle 7y ago
  I just did Miami -> Philadelphia and Chicago -> Seattle over the past month on Amtrak. First leg was 15 minutes early to Philadelphia Second leg was maybe 5 min late. Not bad for a 3 day, 2 night trip.
make3 7y ago
so you basically spent around one full week of your time just to not pay 50$ of extra checked-in luggage?
- llukas 7y ago
  You cant have big batteries in checked in luggage. https://e-skateboarder.com/can-you-take-electric-skateboards-on-planes-a-guide-on-air-travel/ https://e-skateboarder.com/can-you-take-electric-skateboards...
  - make3 7y ago
    still you could have it mailed lol
    - post_break 7y ago
      You're getting downvoted but you're not wrong. That's what I would have done.
djf1 7y ago
Not sure if something has changed, but I spent the better part of 3 years taking my electric skateboard on planes regularly. Biggest issue I had was occasionally, they would look at it funny going through security and give it extra screening. Fits pretty well in the overhead too, especially laying upside down, so bags can be stowed above it.
- themagician 7y ago
  Battery size is the issue. There is, essentially, a 100-watt hour limit. Anything over that and you need explicit airline approval, and you probably won’t get it. And if you do, TSA might not care.

rayiner 7y ago

Did you get there on time?

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jrockway 7y ago
I don't think you pick Amtrak to arrive somewhere on time. You bring some books, read them, relax, stare out the window, chat with people in the dining car, and eventually reach your destination. Chilling out on the train is part of your vacation. (I rode the California Zephyr from Chicago to Oakland when I was like 10, and still remember most of the trip. It was amazing, even for an easily-bored 10 year old.) The reality is, intercity trains are not an efficient way to travel in the United States. Most of the important cities are far apart, because it's a very large country with a lot of empty space. If you need to be somewhere, book a flight. It's less expensive and if you give yourself a day of leeway you will probably never be late to your thing, barring some sort of natural disaster. I am a huge railfan but I have accepted that the geography of the US doesn't make train travel as viable as say, Japan. Tokyo, Nagoya, and Osaka are the three largest cities and are comparable in distance between each other like Chicago, Springfield, and St. Louis. If New York was where Chicago is, Chicago was where Springfield is, and LA was where St. Louis is, high speed rail would be enormously popular in the US. But New York and LA are 2500 miles apart, 10% around the world from each other. I even question California High Speed Rail. San Francisco / Silicon Valley and LA are both big metro areas with a lot of money, but SF/LA are 41% farther apart than Tokyo and Osaka. Japan got very lucky that its two largest cities are actually very close to each other. Building the Shinkansen was an enormous engineering challenge, but one that was very clearly profitable. It's so profitable they're building another Shinkansen between the two cities, taking a shorter route and using faster trains. In the US... such a city pair does not exist. OK this is going very off-topic from your exact comment... but it's something I wanted to talk about. Sorry.
- avar 7y ago
  Your entire geography argument goes out the window if you look at China's high-speed rail system instead of Japan's. E.g. Shanghai - Kunming is more than 2200 km and takes between 10-12 hours[1]. At that speed LA-SF would take around 3 hours. For context the flight time is an hour and a half, so when you account for airport overhead, taxiing etc. the train would take around around the same time, and be a more pleasant mode of transport. The density argument also goes both ways. A country like Japan is going to find it much harder to find empty space to place rail than somewhere like the US. There's a lot of reasons for why the US isn't doing what China's doing with high-speed rail, but those reasons are mainly political, not geographical. 1. https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/shanghai-kunming.htm https://www.travelchinaguide.com/china-trains/shanghai-kunmi...
  - progval 7y ago
    > E.g. Shanghai - Kunming is more than 2200 km and takes between 10-12 hours[1]. Note that it could be even faster without the ~50 stops in the middle.
  - rayiner 7y ago
    China isn’t a good example to point to because we have no idea whether China is making intelligent trade offs about how to use its resources. It’s an authoritarian economy. It could end up that in 50 years the whole thing collapses from its own weight. Europe is a better example because it least the government must be somewhat accountable for its guns versus butter trade offs. And if you look at things like Macron trying to privatize SNCF (with its massive unsustainable debt levels), that should give us pause about the long term viability of rail even in dense places like France.
    - moccachino 7y ago
      From a cursory glance it seems to me that SNCF's debts are due to them financing all of their infrastructure instead of the French state paying for it (directly, it of course is indirectly), and then the argument goes back to the current top comment here: The real value of a good transport network is the add-on economic effects. Also from a security perspective, you can't hijack a train and crash it into some building (it has to stay on the tracks), so that's a plus for trains. Finally a domestic train causes about 41 g/km of CO2 emissions, while a domestic flight causes about 254 g/km (accounting for altitude) [0] [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566 https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-49349566
reustle 7y ago
I just did Miami -> Philadelphia and Chicago -> Seattle over the past month on Amtrak. First leg was 15 minutes early to Philadelphia Second leg was maybe 5 min late. Not bad for a 3 day, 2 night trip.

make3 7y ago

so you basically spent around one full week of your time just to not pay 50$ of extra checked-in luggage?

llukas 7y ago
You cant have big batteries in checked in luggage. https://e-skateboarder.com/can-you-take-electric-skateboards-on-planes-a-guide-on-air-travel/ https://e-skateboarder.com/can-you-take-electric-skateboards...
- make3 7y ago
  still you could have it mailed lol
  - post_break 7y ago
    You're getting downvoted but you're not wrong. That's what I would have done.

djf1 7y ago

Not sure if something has changed, but I spent the better part of 3 years taking my electric skateboard on planes regularly. Biggest issue I had was occasionally, they would look at it funny going through security and give it extra screening. Fits pretty well in the overhead too, especially laying upside down, so bags can be stowed above it.

themagician 7y ago
Battery size is the issue. There is, essentially, a 100-watt hour limit. Anything over that and you need explicit airline approval, and you probably won’t get it. And if you do, TSA might not care.