4 ms·

2003? How about pre-1920 when passports weren't even required to enter a country?

by TechBro8615 3y ago

rconti 3y ago
I'll trade a slightly slower border crossing for faster trains and airplanes.
- TechBro8615 3y ago
  Fair enough. There is a certain romance to crossing the atlantic by ship, though. That's been on my bucket list for a while - IIRC a ticket is on the order of $1-2k for a weeklong journey from UK to US.
  - atlasunshrugged 3y ago
    Really? That seems like a very reasonable cost! Any idea where you book something like that?
    - hervature 3y ago
      Any major cruise line has both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cruises. You'll have to book two voyages for a round trip or fly for one of the legs.
      - CydeWeys 3y ago
        The round trip idea is unlikely to work well unless you're willing to wait awhile as the cruise ships are repositioning to handle specific seasons (e.g. Northern Europe in the summer, the Caribbean in the winter). The exception is the Queen Mary II, which is an ocean liner that still does regular trans-Atlantics.
        bluGill 3y ago
        If you can afford 2 weeks off for a round trip, you should really take at least a week in the country to arrive at to see it. Cruises are nice, but you don't see the culture of the places you go. Either fly back, or take more than a two weeks. I recommend fly back, the one way trip is a once in a lifetime thing, but the return trip seems like it would be repetitive (having taken several cruises, though none trans ocean) Of course both Europe and North America are large continents with a lot more to see than you can do in a week, but few of us have the budget to be a world traveler for a few decades to see everything.
        dmoy 3y ago
        > Either fly back, or take more than a two weeks. Right, the point is it might be six months, since a lot of cruise lines will do only one crossing for northern/southern hemisphere summer toggling. e.g. here in Seattle the cruise ships that go between here and Alaska make a single trip down to Australia or somewhere in the fall, and then don't come back for half a year. So yes, like you said - probably fly back.
        atlasunshrugged 3y ago
        Ah okay, I guess I was thinking that OP was talking about a more traditional sailing ship or something rather than a cruise ship! I've lived in Europe a few times and really enjoyed it but going across the Atlantic by boat is on the bucket list
        CydeWeys 3y ago
        Yeah we were talking cruise ships, which are by far the cheapest way to cross the ocean on a ship. A sailing ship is gonna be unbelievably more expensive, as that's a more bespoke experience on a much smaller vessel with worse economies of scale. Repositioning cruises on cruise ships are actually the cheapest ones per day to make up for the inconvenience of not ending where you started. The ship needs to move from one region to another for the season anyway, so from their perspective any revenue during the repositioning is an added bonus.
    - joker_minmax 3y ago
      You can be one of the passengers on a cargo ship like Greta Thunberg if cruises aren't for you. There are different places to book.
  - soderfoo 3y ago
    The Queen Mary 2 sails from Southampton to NYC [0]. I think you can get a ticket for less than $1k,though you'd probably be cramped with no window. [0] https://www.cunard.com/en-gb/find-a-cruise/M509/M509 https://www.cunard.com/en-gb/find-a-cruise/M509/M509
- bluGill 3y ago
  Most trains today actually run slower than their 1920 version on the same track. We invented high speed rail in the 1960s which of course goes much faster, but most trains are not high speed and most operators of regular lines (including subways) have slowed the trains down.
  - Scoundreller 3y ago
    They run a lot more smoother nowadays though due to continuous welded rail.
    - bluGill 3y ago
      Despite smoother rail, computer dispatching, and computer safety controls: the trains are still running slower.
  - tim333 3y ago
    My brief googling suggests this is not so in the UK at any rate. >Some trains, such as the famous "Flying Scotsman" in the United Kingdom, were able to reach speeds of up to around 90 miles per hour (145 kilometers per hour). However, this was not the norm and most trains had a top speed of around 50-60 miles per hour They are quicker now - 130mph, 80 mph is normal

2003? How about pre-1920 when passports weren't even required to enter a country?

rconti 3y ago

I'll trade a slightly slower border crossing for faster trains and airplanes.

TechBro8615 3y ago
Fair enough. There is a certain romance to crossing the atlantic by ship, though. That's been on my bucket list for a while - IIRC a ticket is on the order of $1-2k for a weeklong journey from UK to US.
- atlasunshrugged 3y ago
  Really? That seems like a very reasonable cost! Any idea where you book something like that?
  - hervature 3y ago
    Any major cruise line has both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cruises. You'll have to book two voyages for a round trip or fly for one of the legs.
    - CydeWeys 3y ago
      The round trip idea is unlikely to work well unless you're willing to wait awhile as the cruise ships are repositioning to handle specific seasons (e.g. Northern Europe in the summer, the Caribbean in the winter). The exception is the Queen Mary II, which is an ocean liner that still does regular trans-Atlantics.
      - bluGill 3y ago
        If you can afford 2 weeks off for a round trip, you should really take at least a week in the country to arrive at to see it. Cruises are nice, but you don't see the culture of the places you go. Either fly back, or take more than a two weeks. I recommend fly back, the one way trip is a once in a lifetime thing, but the return trip seems like it would be repetitive (having taken several cruises, though none trans ocean) Of course both Europe and North America are large continents with a lot more to see than you can do in a week, but few of us have the budget to be a world traveler for a few decades to see everything.
        dmoy 3y ago
        > Either fly back, or take more than a two weeks. Right, the point is it might be six months, since a lot of cruise lines will do only one crossing for northern/southern hemisphere summer toggling. e.g. here in Seattle the cruise ships that go between here and Alaska make a single trip down to Australia or somewhere in the fall, and then don't come back for half a year. So yes, like you said - probably fly back.
        atlasunshrugged 3y ago
        Ah okay, I guess I was thinking that OP was talking about a more traditional sailing ship or something rather than a cruise ship! I've lived in Europe a few times and really enjoyed it but going across the Atlantic by boat is on the bucket list
        CydeWeys 3y ago
        Yeah we were talking cruise ships, which are by far the cheapest way to cross the ocean on a ship. A sailing ship is gonna be unbelievably more expensive, as that's a more bespoke experience on a much smaller vessel with worse economies of scale. Repositioning cruises on cruise ships are actually the cheapest ones per day to make up for the inconvenience of not ending where you started. The ship needs to move from one region to another for the season anyway, so from their perspective any revenue during the repositioning is an added bonus.
  - joker_minmax 3y ago
    You can be one of the passengers on a cargo ship like Greta Thunberg if cruises aren't for you. There are different places to book.
- soderfoo 3y ago
  The Queen Mary 2 sails from Southampton to NYC [0]. I think you can get a ticket for less than $1k,though you'd probably be cramped with no window. [0] https://www.cunard.com/en-gb/find-a-cruise/M509/M509 https://www.cunard.com/en-gb/find-a-cruise/M509/M509
bluGill 3y ago
Most trains today actually run slower than their 1920 version on the same track. We invented high speed rail in the 1960s which of course goes much faster, but most trains are not high speed and most operators of regular lines (including subways) have slowed the trains down.
- Scoundreller 3y ago
  They run a lot more smoother nowadays though due to continuous welded rail.
  - bluGill 3y ago
    Despite smoother rail, computer dispatching, and computer safety controls: the trains are still running slower.
- tim333 3y ago
  My brief googling suggests this is not so in the UK at any rate. >Some trains, such as the famous "Flying Scotsman" in the United Kingdom, were able to reach speeds of up to around 90 miles per hour (145 kilometers per hour). However, this was not the norm and most trains had a top speed of around 50-60 miles per hour They are quicker now - 130mph, 80 mph is normal