4 ms·

This is my whole experience in Europe. People complaining about their "late" [impeccable] trains. I'm like eehhh, okay, wait till you see the United States! T

This is my whole experience in Europe. People complaining about their "late" [impeccable] trains. I'm like eehhh, okay, wait till you see the United States! The only culture shock to me is that union strikes can actually have an affect on convenience or quality of life, they're more like mosquitos buzzing in your ear if a protest has gone on for over a week in the US. I don't have an opinion, and that's part of the privilege!

hypertele-Xii 6y ago
Especially in Finland with a single government-run train company that routinely makes announcements like "the trains are late because we didn't anticipate it raining snow". In winter. In Finland. Try Japan. Trains run on time to the second, so precisely that time tables printed on paper to the second are accurate.
gspr 6y ago
Hehe, I remember my first train journey in the US. I believe it was Philly to NYC. I remember thinking "hey, what are they complaining about!? This is totally fine!" before I was told that together with like one other corridor like this in California(?), that's essentially full the extent of usable US rail service?
- prox 6y ago
  I wonder if Joe Biden “Amtrak Joe” will make a change, since he is such a big fan of trains.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Well, no. And one wonders to what degree Amtrak plans will be pushed out because of the plunge in travel. It's also easy to be a fan of trains if you live in the Northeast Corridor. More or less uniquely in the US other than a handful of other city pairs.
- vmception 6y ago
  That's the full extent of tolerable long distance commuter rail service. The issue is that it can't be modernized to be faster and quieter in an economical way. Actually the issue is that its too uneconomical to do so, the current trains are not economical. This is whether we are referring to that high traffic corridor or to anywhere else.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    The NE Corridor is actually profitable for Amtrak (in normal times). The problem is that Amtrak then proceeds to lose its NE Corridor profits on pretty much every other train route in the country.
    - volkl48 6y ago
      Amtrak basically is 3 different types of services, especially after PRRIA 2008 changed the funding structure. - Northeast Corridor - Makes a solid operating profit (normally), run by Amtrak. - State-supported corridor services - The states are basically paying the subsidy required to run the service and deciding what they want. If the state wants to upgrade the line for faster service, run more trains, etc, and they want to pay for it, Amtrak will run it. In some cases, the states (WA + CA come to mind) own or part-own the equipment being run as well. This is most other "practical" services (NY Empire Service, WA/OR Cascades, etc) and where you're seeing most improvements/investments. - Long-distance network - They run once a day or less, they're where most of the hours/days late horror stories come from, they almost all lose money, federal government pays and dictates that they run it. Mostly impractical as transportation for people who have any other option for how to get somewhere. That said, the loss isn't that big as a financial number (in part, because there's not that much service), and it's basically a matter of political calculus as well....lots of rural senators who sign off on Amtrak funding in substantial part because of their one or two trains a day.
  - bluGill 6y ago
    As rail advocates point out, it could be modernized in an economical way. However the leaders don't care to. They decide a station that isn't accessible needs to be completely rebuilt into a palace instead of adding a few ramps. And many other similar things where what could be done cheap if they wanted get ballooned into large payments to do something expensive but not really needed.
- xadhominemx 6y ago
  Not a coincidence, really. The NE corridor is the only area in the US that has Europe-like population density.
- bojan 6y ago
  For California, travelling on a Zephyr line from Los Angeles to San Diego was a very pleasant experience.
- steveklabnik 6y ago
  One weird wrinkle here that nobody has mentioned yet: In the US, freight trains have priority over passenger trains. As far as I know, generally in Europe it's the opposite.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Why understanding is that isn't quite true (though I may be wrong). I've been told that Amtrak does have scheduled slots but, if they miss the slot, they're now at the mercy of the freight trains. And the rail network in most of the country is optimized for freight trains which can be extremely long and slow.
ck425 6y ago
I mean in the UK ours are terrible. We dream of European efficiency as much as you do.
- neffy 6y ago
  Erm... when the trains are late in the US it can be by hours (NY -- Boston), or even a day or so (on the transcontinental route). Amtrak gets severely outcompeted on most routes by a somewhat informal "chinatown" bus network.
  - pmyteh 6y ago
    Yeah. I'm British, and a few years ago spent several weeks travelling around the US by Amtrak. Not one of my trains was actually on time, and the Sunset Limited (LA -> New Orleans) was over a day late. Our trains aren't great for punctuality, but they're nowhere near that bad. Of course, the reasons are somewhat different, too. In the UK the problem is mostly that the tracks are very heavily timetabled with passenger trains, such that there's very little slack: an issue with one service can screw up an entire chunk of the network with effects that last for hours. In the US, freight trains have priority outside the Northeast Corridor, so we would get looped for several hours to wait for a train of oil tankers going the other way.
  - cr1895 6y ago
    Doesn't this have something to do with priority given to freight rail in the US?
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Having moved from Germany to the UK I'm actually positively surprised by public transport which I rely on every day. (living in London). The only thing I've noticed is that it is quite expensive.
pmontra 6y ago
> union strikes can actually have an affect on convenience or quality of life I never understood why transport unions effectively run their strikes against the passengers instead of against the governments (most of them are state owned or heavily subsidized here in Europe.) They should go to protest in front of the government offices and not jeopardizing the lives of citizens, who could be their allies. Instead everybody ends up hating transport workers. My bet: a traditional strike helps the careers inside the unions. Going against the government doesn't.

hypertele-Xii 6y ago

Especially in Finland with a single government-run train company that routinely makes announcements like "the trains are late because we didn't anticipate it raining snow". In winter. In Finland. Try Japan. Trains run on time to the second, so precisely that time tables printed on paper to the second are accurate.

gspr 6y ago

Hehe, I remember my first train journey in the US. I believe it was Philly to NYC. I remember thinking "hey, what are they complaining about!? This is totally fine!" before I was told that together with like one other corridor like this in California(?), that's essentially full the extent of usable US rail service?

prox 6y ago
I wonder if Joe Biden “Amtrak Joe” will make a change, since he is such a big fan of trains.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Well, no. And one wonders to what degree Amtrak plans will be pushed out because of the plunge in travel. It's also easy to be a fan of trains if you live in the Northeast Corridor. More or less uniquely in the US other than a handful of other city pairs.
vmception 6y ago
That's the full extent of tolerable long distance commuter rail service. The issue is that it can't be modernized to be faster and quieter in an economical way. Actually the issue is that its too uneconomical to do so, the current trains are not economical. This is whether we are referring to that high traffic corridor or to anywhere else.
- ghaff 6y ago
  The NE Corridor is actually profitable for Amtrak (in normal times). The problem is that Amtrak then proceeds to lose its NE Corridor profits on pretty much every other train route in the country.
  - volkl48 6y ago
    Amtrak basically is 3 different types of services, especially after PRRIA 2008 changed the funding structure. - Northeast Corridor - Makes a solid operating profit (normally), run by Amtrak. - State-supported corridor services - The states are basically paying the subsidy required to run the service and deciding what they want. If the state wants to upgrade the line for faster service, run more trains, etc, and they want to pay for it, Amtrak will run it. In some cases, the states (WA + CA come to mind) own or part-own the equipment being run as well. This is most other "practical" services (NY Empire Service, WA/OR Cascades, etc) and where you're seeing most improvements/investments. - Long-distance network - They run once a day or less, they're where most of the hours/days late horror stories come from, they almost all lose money, federal government pays and dictates that they run it. Mostly impractical as transportation for people who have any other option for how to get somewhere. That said, the loss isn't that big as a financial number (in part, because there's not that much service), and it's basically a matter of political calculus as well....lots of rural senators who sign off on Amtrak funding in substantial part because of their one or two trains a day.
- bluGill 6y ago
  As rail advocates point out, it could be modernized in an economical way. However the leaders don't care to. They decide a station that isn't accessible needs to be completely rebuilt into a palace instead of adding a few ramps. And many other similar things where what could be done cheap if they wanted get ballooned into large payments to do something expensive but not really needed.
xadhominemx 6y ago
Not a coincidence, really. The NE corridor is the only area in the US that has Europe-like population density.
bojan 6y ago
For California, travelling on a Zephyr line from Los Angeles to San Diego was a very pleasant experience.
steveklabnik 6y ago
One weird wrinkle here that nobody has mentioned yet: In the US, freight trains have priority over passenger trains. As far as I know, generally in Europe it's the opposite.
- ghaff 6y ago
  Why understanding is that isn't quite true (though I may be wrong). I've been told that Amtrak does have scheduled slots but, if they miss the slot, they're now at the mercy of the freight trains. And the rail network in most of the country is optimized for freight trains which can be extremely long and slow.

ck425 6y ago

I mean in the UK ours are terrible. We dream of European efficiency as much as you do.

neffy 6y ago
Erm... when the trains are late in the US it can be by hours (NY -- Boston), or even a day or so (on the transcontinental route). Amtrak gets severely outcompeted on most routes by a somewhat informal "chinatown" bus network.
- pmyteh 6y ago
  Yeah. I'm British, and a few years ago spent several weeks travelling around the US by Amtrak. Not one of my trains was actually on time, and the Sunset Limited (LA -> New Orleans) was over a day late. Our trains aren't great for punctuality, but they're nowhere near that bad. Of course, the reasons are somewhat different, too. In the UK the problem is mostly that the tracks are very heavily timetabled with passenger trains, such that there's very little slack: an issue with one service can screw up an entire chunk of the network with effects that last for hours. In the US, freight trains have priority outside the Northeast Corridor, so we would get looped for several hours to wait for a train of oil tankers going the other way.
- cr1895 6y ago
  Doesn't this have something to do with priority given to freight rail in the US?
Barrin92 6y ago
Having moved from Germany to the UK I'm actually positively surprised by public transport which I rely on every day. (living in London). The only thing I've noticed is that it is quite expensive.

pmontra 6y ago

> union strikes can actually have an affect on convenience or quality of life I never understood why transport unions effectively run their strikes against the passengers instead of against the governments (most of them are state owned or heavily subsidized here in Europe.) They should go to protest in front of the government offices and not jeopardizing the lives of citizens, who could be their allies. Instead everybody ends up hating transport workers. My bet: a traditional strike helps the careers inside the unions. Going against the government doesn't.