19 ms·

Crossing the USA by Train

355 points by chmaynard 2y ago

zbshqoa 2y ago
Don't get me wrong, but there are third world countries that have better train infrastructures
- dagw 2y ago
  The US has actually pretty good train infrastructure, it's just almost entirely dedicated to freight. The US moves far more goods by rail, farther and cheaper than just about any other country in the world.
  - zbshqoa 2y ago
    The question is why they don't develop it for people as well. Instead of just "let's add another lane" for cars
    - trinix912 2y ago
      Probably because most cities are so spaced out you'd still need a car to get from home to the train station and from the train station to your office when taking the train to work, for example. So it's easier to just drive there.
      - zbshqoa 2y ago
        So it's easier to drive to San Francisco from Seattle instead of parking your car at the train station in Seattle, take a train and then do your business on downtown SF, come back to Seattle and take your car back home? (It's a figurative example I'm not sure there's a train from Seattle to SF)
        trinix912 2y ago
        Of course not, but even with state of art train technology (let's say 250mph), that would still be an over 3 hour commute each way (just the railway part!). If it's just for a business trip every now in a while, it's faster to just fly there. I'm just saying, this is such a rare use case that it's not as high of a priority as expanding the roads that 80% or more of the residents in a city use daily. Whereas for freight it makes a ton of sense. (fun fact, there actually is a train route there!)
        dagw 2y ago
        it's faster to just fly there. As some who used to travel for meetings quite a lot to a city 3 hours away by high speed rail, it really isn't. Once you take into account that you can show up for your train 5 mins before it leaves, plus the fact that the train station is almost always much closer to where you want to be, the difference in time between trains and planes pretty much disappears for shorter trips. Plus the train is just so much nicer and more comfortable. It's quieter. Your seats are much bigger and have more legroom than even the nicest business class seats. You can get up and walk around if you want. You often have a restaurant car where you can sit and grab a drink or something to eat. Train travel is just so much more relaxing compared to flying.
        mitthrowaway2 2y ago
        3 hours is about Osaka to Tokyo, a route that sees a massive volume of business travel on the bullet train in Japan, arguably far more than flying. SF to Seattle would be about 1300 km which is more like Hiroshima to Morioka, around 6.5 hours by train including a connection; I think at that point there'd be a split in favour of flying, but around a third of travellers would probably still opt for the train due to its comfort and convenience.
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        There's huge differences between the US and Japan. When I travel from my home in Tokyo to Osaka or any other city by shinkansen, I take public transit (Tokyo Metro specifically) to get from my home to Tokyo station or Shinagawa, and then transfer to the shinkansen. At the destination city, I just get off and either walk to wherever I'm going, or transfer to another local rail or subway line. You just can't do that in the US, outside some very select situations (like going from somewhere inside DC to Manhattan NYC). From SF to Seattle, how do you get to the station in SF? In Seattle, how do you get from the station to your destination? What do you do to get around in Seattle? Generally, you need a car, which means renting a car, which is really expensive. The US is set up to handle this at airports pretty well: you get off your plane and go to the Hertz counter and pick up a car (and then after your trip is over and you've returned the car, get arrested for auto theft when Hertz reports your car as stolen--don't use Hertz). I haven't tried trains on the west coast, but on the east coast, I've never seen train stations set up with rental car counters.
      - throw0101d 2y ago
        > Probably because most cities are so spaced out […] The US population is fairly concentrated around the 'edges'. About 40% of the population lives in a coastal county: * https://ecowatch.noaa.gov/thematic/coastal-population https://ecowatch.noaa.gov/thematic/coastal-population And two-thirds of the population with-in 100 miles (160 km) of the border: * https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        You're ignoring how non-dense everything actually is in those places. Americans no longer live in walkable cities and towns like in the early 20th century before cars became popular. After WWII, with the rise of the automobile, the inner cities emptied out and everyone who could afford to moved out to the suburbs. So now, even in a "city" in America (unless it's Manhattan), you absolutely need a car to get anywhere, because nothing is walkable. It's not like 1905 when you could just walk from your home in Smalltown USA to the local train station, buy a ticket, and get a ride to the nearest city, and get out and walk from that station to interesting places. Any train trip, even if you look only at the eastern states, is likely to require a car ride on one or both ends to get to/from your source/destination to/from the station. If you have to drive an hour just to get to a train station, and another hour to get from the destination station to your final station, it's probably faster and easier and much cheaper to just drive the whole way. Don't forget dealing with parking, car rental, etc.; you'd probably have to take taxis, and those are quite expensive. The fundamental problem here is density. America doesn't have it any more.
    - dagw 2y ago
      Unlike in Europe, where rail maintenance is heavily subsidised by the government, in the US it is paid for by the private rail operators to a much greater extent. Thus the rail operators have much more say over how the rail is used and obviously priorities the more profitable traffic, which in the US is cargo. So if the US government would wanted to build out cross country passenger rail they would either have to build new tracks, or use eminent domain to take back control of the existing tracks. Both options would be very expensive and wildly unpopular.
      - Symbiote 2y ago
        They could also adjust the regulations for cargo trains to make mixing freight and passenger trains better. For example, by limiting the maximum length of a freight train. Then relatively minor subsidies (e.g. additional passing loops) could be used to improve reliability.
        pfdietz 2y ago
        Or, they could let the market decide. The current system seems to work for most people.
      - zbshqoa 2y ago
        Which Europe are you talking about? Europe is a collection of independent counties and what you just mention is all wrong. Most of the European railway companies have been privatized and there are companies that run the rail network and companies that run the train. Subsidies are not a thing in many of the European countries
        bpye 2y ago
        If you look at the UK for example, the physical network is publicly owned and maintained by National Rail, whilst the ToCs are (currently) mostly private. That said the ToCs are also going to switch to publicly owned over the next few years.
    - refurb 2y ago
      Because Americans prefer to fly?
      - dagw 2y ago
        Relative to the current situation or in absolute terms? If there was a Shinkansen style trains between LA and SF with the same quality and timetable as the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka, do you not think Americans would flock to it?
        refurb 2y ago
        Some might, not many. Most Americans go for the shortest travel time. The CA high speed rail is targeting a 2h40min travel time between SF and LA. The flight saved you more than an hour. Maybe if it was far cheaper than flying there might be more demand.
        alamortsubite 2y ago
        Sadly, with commercial air travel the time a passenger spends on the plane between say SF and LA represents only a small portion of their total travel time. This is commonly overlooked or not understood by people unfamiliar with traveling by train.
        refurb 2y ago
        I’ve flown it plenty of times. Get to the airport 60min before flight, and you’re out of LAX in less than 30 min. How early do you need to get to the train station? Not to mention if you miss your train how quickly can you jump on another train? I’m not arguing it’s not a nice alternative, but there is a reason why flying is still highly in demand even with high quality rail systems like in Europe.
        alamortsubite 2y ago
        You arrive at the station when the train is about to depart, not an hour or more before like you're forced to when flying. But even better, the station is in the center of town, rather than the middle of nowhere, reaching which again significantly lengthens your travel time. You can jump on another flight faster than you can jump on another train? I rarely fly more than a couple times a month, but for me this is never true.
    - saalweachter 2y ago
      We did, and then when airplanes came around, it turned out that people/other interests found air travel better than train travel for most intercity travel. Even on the East Coast, there used to be way more rail lines that took passengers -- if this were a hundred years ago, I could have walked a mile or two to a spur which would take me to one of the mid-sized cities connected to The Big City by commuter rail; now they're mostly rail trails.
      - xenadu02 2y ago
        That is not correct. The railroads deliberately killed the passenger business because it has worse operating ratios and needs more capex. Investors and execs believed (and still believe) railroads are in long-term managed decline so capex and labor costs must be avoided wherever possible. To give an example: Caltrain used to run all the way to LA. It was a profitable line the day Southern Pacific killed it. They used shills to buy up all the tickets for phantom riders then used the low passenger boarding numbers to justify to the US Railroad Commission that they should be allowed to close the route. This strategy or variations of it were used all across the USA to deliberately kill profitable passenger service because it made the company financials look better: no need to buy or refurbish passenger cars nor pay stewards and conductors. Operating ratio looks better? Mission accomplished! Making less money doesn't make sense but profit is almost irrelevant if you think the whole business is in long-term decline. Better to kill anything that might require future capex or labor and instead optimize to get the most juice with the least squeeze of existing fruits. Much like the shutdown of public transit across the USA. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a semi-documentary for which the real-life villain General Motors was convicted of monopoly action in federal court! But the judge only fined them $1 because all the movers and shakers thought cars and airplanes were the future so who gives a crap about public transit, trains or the lot? Passenger train service and public transit were systematically dismantled on purpose by elites who thought they knew better.
    - Lammy 2y ago
      It was, but then all the Class-Ⅰ rail carriers merged until we were left with a west-coast duopoly (UP and BNSF) and an east-coast duopoly (CSX and NS) and they closed all the “redundant” lines they could. See Abandoned & Out-Of-Service Rail Lines map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=10akDabya8L6nWIJi-4Zor-QawkoJmmMK&femb=1 https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=10akDabya8L6nWIJi-4...
  - ta1243 2y ago
    > just about any other country in the world. Well the US is the 3rd largest country in the world, with the 3rd largest population, and in terms of rail tonne-km is also 3rd. I.e. it sits where you'd expect, per sq km and per capita. Passenger wise though it's 10th.
  - z3ncyberpunk 2y ago
    We have derailments monthly due to poor track conditions... We have terrible pay and conditions for operators who are exploited by both the companies and then the government. We do not have pretty good infrastructure.
- trinix912 2y ago
  There are also first world countries that have shittier trains than the ones here. I'm saying this from first hand experience.
  - zbshqoa 2y ago
    I don't think you can compare the most advanced and rich country to other first world countries. Someone can definitely do worst, that's out of discussion. We are looking at the upside potential. The picture of this post show interstate trains that are old, slow and dirty. I'm sure standards can improve.
- carapace 2y ago
  USA is an early adopter?
trash_cat 2y ago
I did the California Zephyr and it was the most amazing any type of ride I have ever done. It was surreal. Do recommend.
- mosaic360 2y ago
  tell us more :)
  - trash_cat 2y ago
    As a European everything felt like being in a movie. Especially going through desert it felt like I travelled back in time. Literally Wild West. I got see forests, mountains, canyons, and desert all in the same ride. That's definately not possible where I come from.
- itomato 2y ago
  Ditto. Roomette is highly recommended.
db48x 2y ago
It really is a nice way to travel. I did SF → Orlando and back a handful of times.
_ink_ 2y ago
I did the same trip. Highly recommended. On the trip I learned that there is an Amtrak Rail pass, which includes 10 rides. It seems that it often is on sale at the beginning of the year. So if you are interested in such a trip, you may want to look out for that.
herunan 2y ago
Am I the only one who finds it surreal to see long distance trains in the US? Don’t get me wrong - I know they exist. It’s just that I feel like they never get depicted anywhere in the media. I also don’t think I know a single American who has gone to another US city by train.
- keerthiko 2y ago
  Media depictions are a hugely underrated aspect of public transport perception. In japanese and korean media (my experience is with a ton of anime and k dramas, more in the former than the latter though) trains are very common casual and serious backdrops for a variety of scenes, either within the train, at the station, or just a train passing by on the bridge in the background. In Hollywood/American TV, it's always cars, with the occasional airport/plane. It riles me up quite unreasonably that shows/movies set in New York fuckin city with 24-7 subway service, and characters are shown trying to catch a cab in Manhattan in the middle of the night to go 20 blocks away. At least Marvelous Mrs. Maisel acknowledged this directly as a class thing for some characters and other characters took the train, but most movies just assume the American viewer cannot relate to someone using the subway.
  - pavlov 2y ago
    Yeah, people in “Friends” never took the subway which is just weird. Of course it’s because these shows are shot in LA, and they have Manhattan street sets built and ready in Hollywood studio lot, but no subway set.
    - n1b0m 2y ago
      Seinfeld was also filmed in LA, but I recall at least one episode where they took the subway.
      - zikduruqe 2y ago
        The TV Guide episode with the cigar Indian?
pavlov 2y ago
I did Seattle-Chicago about ten years ago. 48 hours expected duration, and it arrived several hours late. As a European used to efficient train travel, it was kind of surreal that not only was the passenger train very slow (maybe 1/3 of the speed I’m used to), but it also made long stops to make way for cargo traffic. It felt like a bit of Wild West time travel to spend days on a train in the amazing landscapes. The food in the dining car was surprisingly good, but got boring by the third day.
- billfruit 2y ago
  USA is a rather big country, coast to coast travel is going to take a good amount of time compared to travel times between major European cities
  - pavlov 2y ago
    The Seattle-Chicago train operates at an average speed of 50 mph, so 80 km/h. Passenger trains between major cities in Europe are in the 200-280 km/h range. The problem isn’t the big country, it’s the slow trains (that even get deprioritized after cargo, to add insult to the injury).
    - billfruit 2y ago
      Distance is also a factor. I see train timings listed for Madrid to Berlin to be more than 24 hours.
    - trinix912 2y ago
      > Passenger trains between major cities in Europe are in the 200-300 km/h range. I don't know which country exactly you mean, I live in central Europe (Slovenia) and no train goes over 200 km/h, most go 60-80 km/h. Also, every time I'm at the train station in Ljubljana (Slovenia's capital), there's an announcement about the train from Budapest being ~40min late. And it's a way shittier looking train than the local commute ones going 60.
      - 2y ago
hahahacorn 2y ago
The company I work for has done this trip a few times. Most recently this year. wefunder.com/train It’s a great experience, and something I wish more people tried. The cross country train that is, coworkers optional :)
wscott 2y ago
I was pleased to read such positive contagious excitement and someone who can still see the wonder of the American west. And excitement of trying new experiences.
avazhi 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- thrance 2y ago
  Originally, the "15 minutes city" is simply a city planning guideline, which tells you that cities should strive to have every amenities close to where people live, ideally everyone should have everything in a 15 minutes radius. Far-right lunatics interpreted it as being constrained by the government in a 15 minutes radius around their home, which is insane thinking indeed. I live in a "15 minutes city", Paris, I have 5 grocery stores in a 5 minutes walking radius, I go to work in 15 minutes using the metro, and if I want to I can get anywhere in France in a few hours by taking the train. That someone would not want this and instead fight for their rights to commute 2 hours everyday by car is insane to me.
  - avazhi 2y ago
    I live in Melbourne (and have for 15 years), so I'm not some rural hillbilly crying about cars per se - in fact I'm not even talking about cars: That placard literally says: 'Stay Home!' I think bicycle paths and pedestrian access to places is extremely important, and not just for the environment, but being told that I should 'stay home' as part of some bigger picture plan to combat climate change is absolutely redolent of bureaucratic authoritarianism and environmental tyranny, and it really isn't hard to imagine a scenario running from this placard and the idea behind it to one where traveling away from one's 'neighborhood' (as defined in the photo) is punishable.
    - em-bee 2y ago
      so the presentation leaves a bit to be desired but you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. for one i don't think this poster is is presenting a government mandate but i believe it's a demand from people to the government to build like this (it's from the climate action museum, which, as far as i could tell is not supported by government) likewise it is not about forcing people to stay home but demanding the right for people to do so and live their daily life without having to travel every day. the title "stay home!" is an unfortunate choice. but to be fair, you also have to read the whole title: "your most radical move! stay home!" which clearly suggests that staying home is a choice you make (just like many of us refuse to return to work in the office) and not something forced on you from the outside. if you read anything else then you either miss the point or you are intentionally twisting it. do you think fighting against neighborhoods like this is going to help you prevent that dystopia that you seem to be afraid of? negative thinking is not going to help us make the world better. a commenter above mentions paris. i can share the exact same experience from vienna. literally. that's what we are talking about.
itomato 2y ago
The Zephyr is amazing. Fun place to hack on something personal, like freshening up an old Window Manager or library
cdrini 2y ago
I've taken the California zephyr a few times over the last few years and it's a phenomenal experience. I'm hoping to do the Chicago-San Francisco trip in the coming years. My fear is that some influencer/personality is going to start posting about the train system, and then it's going to become a crowded mess :P It feels a bit like a well kept secret right now. I think one of the things that makes it so enjoyable is that it's so uncrowded most of the time. I almost always get two seats to myself every time I take it (in coach). And there's somehow always a table available in the observation car whenever I decide to go there. Or you sit with someone and make a new friend :P Would highly recommend!
- sylens 2y ago
  There are a lot of transit focused “creators” already documenting their trips - the one I tend to follow on YouTube is Miles in Transit but he often intersects with other creators as well
  - cdrini 2y ago
    It's less the transit creators I'm worried about, since that's pretty niche. It's if a general influencer starts sharing aesthetics of train travel on eg Instagram which I think would cause its usage to boom.
    - alamortsubite 2y ago
      I understand where you're coming from, but in the long run it'd be a great thing to see this kind of boom in the U.S. If only a tiny fraction of the gobs of cash that are being shoveled into political ads right now were going to some of these influencers to promote train travel instead...
      - ghaff 2y ago
        Though most people really aren't in a position to take the train instead of flying for anything other than a vacation. Good luck with your 4x expense account for taking an extra day to travel from NYC to Chicago--much less anything further.
timonoko 2y ago
I bicycled across in 1985 and scariest part was there was no public transport on regular roads. What if the bicycle breaks down? There was no bicycle shops and bicyclists either, except on top of cars. Where they drive to use the bicycle? No idea.
- batch12 2y ago
  > Where they drive to use the bicycle? No idea. Depends on the type of bike. Sometimes parks and trails.
  - shiroiushi 2y ago
    Back in 1985, when mountain bikes were brand-new and not really established? I have no idea. These days, if it's serious mountain bikes, they're driving to places with wilderness trails to ride on. If it's road bikes, they might be driving to "rail trails", sections of old railroads that have been converted into long multi-use trails that are popular with cyclists because they're generally flat and straight and go through some interesting scenery.
- lucb1e 2y ago
  Dutch person here. This seems odd to me, why would a bicycle irrepairably break down without notice? If you have a patch kit and know how to put the chain back on, the only "prevents me from riding" risk I can think of is it literally breaking apart under you, which isn't something I've heard happen. The gears breaking would be a serious nuisance but you can still get to the next town And wouldn't it be the same no matter what mode of transport you choose? What if the plane breaks down¹? What if you break an ankle while walking a long distance? What if your horse walks away? You'll always have to rely on aid from others pretty much no matter what happens to your mode of transportation If you're going to be in a place where you're alone, like when hiking, the advice I heard is to tell someone where you're going and when you're checking in. I guess the same goes if you don't expect to receive aid from passing cars? ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#/media/File:Number_of_fatalities_from_airliners_hull-loss_accidents_per_year.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#/media/File:Nu... Compare ~1000 fatalities per year from "hull-loss accidents" in the 80s compared to it being pretty much unheard of today
casenmgreen 2y ago
I began experimenting with long distance (cross-Europe, and long distances, not just one country to the neighbouring country) train travel, as I no longer wanted to fly due to the pollution from flying. I rapidly concluded long distance train travel is not viable. On one occasion I had two days of travel booked, and the very first train was an hour late, which led to a missed connection, and that was it - there was no way I could make my next train, and I lost some hundreds of euros of booked tickets and accommodation, and the compensation offered - if I had the will power to fight through the incredibly hostile claims mechanism on-line - was 30 euro. I was also stuck, as I had left my origin (a long-term AirBnB) and the next place I would live was at my destination. Fortunately, I was in Paris, so I travel to de Gaulle and booked a flight to my destination (where it was then necessary to book a hotel for an night, as I was a day early); I paid some hundreds more euros to complete my journey. Essentially the problem is that the longer a train journey, the more late it will be, and if you miss a connection, you can lose everything afterwards; but you have to book everything in advance, because the main train routes are fully booked if you try to buy a ticket on the day. So it just doesn't add up.
- precommunicator 2y ago
  If you get everything on one ticket (and sometimes not) you can usually simply take the next train, with or without proof of delay on your ticket.
  - casenmgreen 2y ago
    Crossing multiple countries over a couple of days, I've never seen this as possibility. Going from one country to another is normally one train company, from the origin country, and then moving on from that city - in another country - means a different company, from that second country, and so on.
    - alamortsubite 2y ago
      If you've never seen it as a possibility, have you looked at OBB NightJet? Every one I've taken has been this way.
dpb001 2y ago
Years ago I decided to take the Lake Shore Limited from Albany to Chicago for a business trip just to have a different experience. Two things I didn’t expect: 1. It was very difficult to get pre-approved for the expense because my employer’s process had to make sure I wasn’t costing them extra money. Somehow this was not an issue with plane tickets. 2. Overnight stops interrupted my sleep (in seat) as boarders banged luggage around and discussed seat selection when groups were involved. Interesting, but would book a room if traveling this way next time.
markphip 2y ago
My daughter recently moved to Vancouver. I was in Seattle for a work trip so decided to take Amtrak to visit her for the weekend. This was my first real train travel. Overall, it was pretty good and probably is what I will do in the future in the same situation. The train moved at a frustratingly slow speed (< 10 mph) for probably 30% of the trip, but aside from that I liked the more relaxed atmosphere of the travel and it was overall more comfortable. The train itself was a bit bumpier than I expected and the wifi was not very good. Those things and the slow speed would mean I could not imagine taking a much longer trip than this one. With the extra time and hassle of dealing with an airport, this one balanced out as probably only being slightly slower travel but it was less expensive and more relaxed. If it were Seattle to San Francisco, as an example, the slowness would be too much for me. The comfort and amenities like wifi and food would have to be a lot better than they are.
- Symbiote 2y ago
  It's amazing to me that someone can be around 50 years old and on a train for the first time. But others might be amazed that I'm around 40 years old and have never owned a car.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    If someone in the US hasn't been in a position to take commuter rail with any frequency in a relatively small number of places--or maybe take Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor sometimes--it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that someone would never have been on anything beyond light rail (if that).
  - markphip 2y ago
    Probably referring to me? I live 2 hours from the closest airport. There are no trains near me. Barely any buses. And I am not counting trains within a city just taking a train to travel between cities. I do not live that far from an Amtrak station but there is only one train a day, it takes forever, and does not go anywhere that I am typically traveling.
- bpye 2y ago
rubyfan 2y ago
When I was 7 my family moved from the West Coast to the East. We didn’t have much money and my mom was deathly afraid of flying so we took a train. Seeing the U.S. this way is a treat and I highly recommend. Like TFA you meet interesting people, see and experience new things that you just don’t get to see traveling other ways.
enews01 2y ago
I always try to travel by train if I can when im travelling Intercity. Its always so enjoyable and quite cheap.
kmoser 2y ago
In the early 1990s I did a round-trip, coast-to-coast trip on Amtrak (basically NYC to Seattle and back), stopping at major cities for a few days each. I had a USARail pass (equivalent to a Eurail pass), which at the time was only available to non-US citizens, so I was quite stoked to have 30 days of unlimited travel for a fixed cost. On the first route (westward) I took the southern route and on the return trip (eastward) I took the northern route, through Chicago. I stayed in youth hostels (except for a couple of cities where I had friends and relatives), and didn't have a fixed schedule so delays were usually tolerable. While in San Francisco, Amtrak went on strike for about a week, and my pass was extended correspondingly. An extra week in San Francisco was fun! But again, I didn't have any fixed deadlines so it was all good. All things considered, the unreliability of the system makes me loathe to travel long distances by train, unless my plans are flexible. However, one huge upside is the views, especially in the middle of the country. In fact, some train lines even exist largely to tout their views, e.g. the Rocky Mountaineer (a Canadian company). Train travel is much more leisurely, and a great way to meet people. These days many Amtrak routes are actually covered by bus, which may come as a surprise when you get to the train station and are told to board a bus. This is not immediately obvious when booking online, although you may be able to tell by reading carefully; the telltale sign might be as subtle as the icon (bus vs train) shown for that leg.
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  Did they provide lodgings during the period you were unable to use the service? I don’t know if there are provisions for that in law like there are for airline flights that are canceled or otherwise unable to fulfill their carriage obligations.
  - kmoser 2y ago
    It didn't occur to me to ask; I was staying in a youth hostel that was something like $20/night (maybe less). In any case, the way the USARail pass worked, you had to reserve individual tickets to each destination you wanted to travel to. (You could reserve them spontaneously, which is what I did.) Since I didn't have a ticket at the time to a particular destination (just a generic USARail pass), technically they weren't at fault for failing to fulfill a particular obligation.
thesurlydev 2y ago
Thanks for sharing. I've always wanted to drive from Seattle to Boston on I-90 but the train looks fun too.
404mm 2y ago
I tried to roughly replicate the trip booking estimate but the closest I could get was a 77h trip (a bit over 3 days), with one change in Chicago and one Emeryville, CA. Price was about $1430. In contrast to that, you can get a 7hr direct flight for about $430 (delta, round trip, luggage not included). Or a full size sedan for about $500 (one way, 3 days, does not include estimate of $400 on fuel). I wish trains were more affordable because (I think) the experience is worth it.
- ghaff 2y ago
  Interestingly, I discovered last year that returning from the UK to NYC by ship was in the same general price ballpark as a business class flight. This is admittedly a lot more than economy. But, if you had the time, included eight days or so of good food and entertainment.
  - bobthepanda 2y ago
    With long distance pricing or really any sleeper, one needs to consider that the ticket price basically includes hotel as well since you’re sleeping there and they need the facilities to handle that, meals etc.
  - gosub100 2y ago
    I've never looked into this. How often do they sail? I can't imagine more than weekly or even monthly. I would definitely consider it though.
    - ghaff 2y ago
      It varies by time of year--but monthly in a given direction is probably a rough estimate. Go to Cunard. Mostly Queen Mary 2 although I think they have a new ship that does some transatlantic as well. For crossings, my understanding is their ships with stabilizers etc. are better able to handle the North Atlantic than the average cruise ship. Dates lined up for me on a trip late last spring and I enjoyed it. Would consider doing again.
brandonmenc 2y ago
I finally took an overnight train from Chicago to Pennsylvania to try it out. Got an Amtrak Roomette. It cost a fortune (relative to flying.) Could not fall asleep at all due to the jerky motion. Do not recommend. I have no idea why anyone would prefer this to flying.
- lucb1e 2y ago
  Similar experience in Germany, felt like I did not sleep a wink. I did get a lot of audiobook done during that time though! (And I felt surprisingly okay during the next day, so perhaps my brain did get some amount/form of downtime) Had expected the train to do like 60 km/h or so because there is no rush, everyone's sleeping, saves costs (wear and energy), easier scheduling by having the same speed as freight, and if the trains normally handle more-than-double speeds then this would be butter smooth. Nah, not a chance. From start to finish it felt like it was springing from station to station, with pretty old equipment so it was loud, plus every station of every tiny village was bright because no curtains, and the shaking and squeaking around curves and especially points/switches were madness. Asked the passenger from my cabin who got off at the same stop in the morning: he slept great! Maybe when the novelty wears off and you get used to it, it gets better? I can report back when I do this next time, but for now I'm also left wondering if it's a personal thing. (I'm sufficiently concerned about the rate of climate warming that I'll definitely try this again, it's only a matter of when I'd travel to a sufficiently far destination)
  - ghaff 2y ago
    Those few times I've taken a sleeper, both private (Europe) and shared (China) rooms, I haven't slept as if I were in my own bed but I got a decent enough amount of sleep to call it a a "night's rest." But, then, it's also not unusual that, jet-lag or not, I'll have trouble getting to sleep in a hotel especially first night or so of a trip. So I guess I sleep well enough on trains (and on lie-flat seats in planes).
throwaway4220 2y ago
Very cool experience! BTW is this article generated from social media posts?
exabrial 2y ago
Why though? The USA is huge! Even on a 250mph train, theoretical transit times through the Midwest are still going to take a long time! I love rail travel when I’m in the EU, but it simply doesn’t make sense for the US and its geography. Here’s my wild opinion so feel free to disagree and point out the shortcomings… Air travel could be a lot nicer, like the days of TWA and on plane lounges; and before you got tased for getting out of your seat to walk around.
- cowmix 2y ago
  The best family trip my wife and I did with my kids (8 and 12) was Amtrak from AZ -> DC -> NYC. It was relaxing, fun and different. We even did it in coach (so no private room) and it was still amazing. We flew home -- and even though the flight time was about 5.5 hours - it was stressful and a let down. Your family's milage may vary.
- seadan83 2y ago
  Why? IMHO the best travel is not about how fast you can get there. Seeing the land from the ground is an immense experience. More so than a car since interstates are dug out, the land trains cross is amazing. Wild horses in the southwest, mountains in the west. And - you can walk around, observation car, dining car (nothing quite like making bar friends on a train), with close to zero risk of getting tased!
- wpm 2y ago
  Transcontinental train travel across the US? No, it probably doesn’t make sense to design a system for that alone. But just like European trains don’t only run from Lisbon to Moscow, US trains could very easily set up popular routes from small, medium, and large cities that are around 100-500miles from each other. The new Borealis route, which is nothing more than an additional short run of the Empire Builder, from Chicago to Minneapolis started turning a profit a few days after it started running. What do you get when you add up all the obvious city-pair routes in all regions? You get a transcontinental system that while likely not most people’s first choice for a NYC-LA trip, is possible without being painful. Not unlike the system that existed before the subsidized highways destroyed the private passenger rail system in the US. We know it’s possible here because it already existed.
fortran77 2y ago
I hope the "French guy" who he didn't like as a conversationalist doesn't read his blog.
boulos 2y ago
You can also do any segment. Having done Chicago to Emeryville, I'd suggest folks focus on the Denver to Salt Lake portion. Chicago to Denver is mostly flat, and at least when I did it, mostly in the dark. Salt Lake to Reno is also boring, but surprisingly the section of rail around Tahoe doesn't have good views either. If you've driven on 80, or 50 or 89, you've seen better terrain. As other comments have said though, the timeline is unpredictable, since freight takes priority. So you could easily end up in the dark around Grand Junction, CO and miss out on the views.
scaglio 2y ago
> You could also say: Five megameters! I love this expression!
yapyap 2y ago
I love articles that include nice pictures with the text, I got nothing else to add but keep on going!
VyseofArcadia 2y ago
When we both have enough time off (and can get a cat sitter for long enough), my wife and I like to make the 1200 mile (1900 km) trip to visit family by Amtrak. A couple of times that we've done it a single roomette has been price-competitive with flying, especially if you factor in the cost of the free meals and drinks. And at worst, the roomette was about $200 more total cost than flying. Sure, it takes four times longer, but it is about 20 times more comfortable.
imaginationra 2y ago
The last time I took the Amtrak in California was 4-5 years ago- the toilet was filled with and overflowing with feces and menstrual blood- the tables were covered in trash and of course just like in these photos the trains were cutting edge crumbling/dirty 1980's models. I started throwing the trash in the bins and an Amtrak staffer came through and told me "You don't have to do that- that's someone else's job" Someone else was nowhere to be found though. I took the Amtrak several times from southern to northern California and it was always just bearable. The train experience in the USA is pathetic and depressing. I have since moved to a "poor" country in Western Europe and the train experience here is MUCH MUCH better than Amtrak in the states as is most everything else.
throw4847285 2y ago
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SfPyg-mGhU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SfPyg-mGhU
chaps 2y ago
I've taken this trip a couple times! It's a genuinely wonderful experience. Every Amtrak trip I take has some memorable experience I hope to never forget. Tip: get the sleeping car and eat every meal they offer, especially if you travel by yourself. You'll be sat with random folk who almost always have interesting stories to share.
- burkaman 2y ago
  Agreed, and the food is surprisingly good in my experience. It's not like the stuff you get from the cafe car on a normal Amtrak ride.
- kccqzy 2y ago
  I've done that a couple of times and completely agreed. One time I sat in the dining car right next to a retired realtor who told me a whole lot about real estate in Los Angeles. (Unfortunately I forgot most of it because at that time I was a renter and haven't bought any properties yet.) Another time I was sitting next to a frail-looking grandma assisted by her granddaughter. The grandma was very talkative and told me a lot of memories from the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s.
Aaronstotle 2y ago
I recently moved to NYC and I've taken the train to both Boston and DC, I think I'll fly next time I go to either city.
kyleblarson 2y ago
I took the Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago in about 2008. Our departure out of Seattle was delayed 12 hours, I was not able to get into the sleeper cabin that I paid for until Spokane, where we were also delayed for 8 hours. Once we departed Spokane, the staff were universally rude, unhelpful and generally shitty. Our train was so delayed that they had combined the EB coming out of Portland with ours so they started rationing meals (which I had also paid for as a part of my fare) to half servings. Having spent a lot of time in Japan I compare this to the one delay I ever encountered in roughly 25 Shinkansen trips: I took the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Niigata, a roughly 3 hour trip. The train was delayed by less than 5 minutes. When we got off the train in Niigata the conductors and staff were waiting by the door to bow and apologize profusely. I'll never set foot on another AmTrak.
- fsckboy 2y ago
  more recently than your experience I took a similar trip. The staff was great, the food was great and we experienced no hitches. However, at the other end of the train they had a sewage flood of some sort, puddles in the passageway, I felt very lucky. one interesting thing I didn't expect, there were a large number of Mennonites/Brethren riding the train (they did not ride in sleepers), all sexes and ages, including very cute little toddlers wearing full "formalwear".
imzadi 2y ago
I took a train from DC to Sacramento in 1999. It was... an experience.
gumboshoes 2y ago
Writer Paul Theroux has several very good books about his train journeys: https://bookshop.org/search?keywords=paul+theroux+train https://bookshop.org/search?keywords=paul+theroux+train

355 points by chmaynard 2y ago

zbshqoa 2y ago

Don't get me wrong, but there are third world countries that have better train infrastructures

dagw 2y ago
The US has actually pretty good train infrastructure, it's just almost entirely dedicated to freight. The US moves far more goods by rail, farther and cheaper than just about any other country in the world.
- zbshqoa 2y ago
  The question is why they don't develop it for people as well. Instead of just "let's add another lane" for cars
  - trinix912 2y ago
    Probably because most cities are so spaced out you'd still need a car to get from home to the train station and from the train station to your office when taking the train to work, for example. So it's easier to just drive there.
    - zbshqoa 2y ago
      So it's easier to drive to San Francisco from Seattle instead of parking your car at the train station in Seattle, take a train and then do your business on downtown SF, come back to Seattle and take your car back home? (It's a figurative example I'm not sure there's a train from Seattle to SF)
      - trinix912 2y ago
        Of course not, but even with state of art train technology (let's say 250mph), that would still be an over 3 hour commute each way (just the railway part!). If it's just for a business trip every now in a while, it's faster to just fly there. I'm just saying, this is such a rare use case that it's not as high of a priority as expanding the roads that 80% or more of the residents in a city use daily. Whereas for freight it makes a ton of sense. (fun fact, there actually is a train route there!)
        dagw 2y ago
        it's faster to just fly there. As some who used to travel for meetings quite a lot to a city 3 hours away by high speed rail, it really isn't. Once you take into account that you can show up for your train 5 mins before it leaves, plus the fact that the train station is almost always much closer to where you want to be, the difference in time between trains and planes pretty much disappears for shorter trips. Plus the train is just so much nicer and more comfortable. It's quieter. Your seats are much bigger and have more legroom than even the nicest business class seats. You can get up and walk around if you want. You often have a restaurant car where you can sit and grab a drink or something to eat. Train travel is just so much more relaxing compared to flying.
        mitthrowaway2 2y ago
        3 hours is about Osaka to Tokyo, a route that sees a massive volume of business travel on the bullet train in Japan, arguably far more than flying. SF to Seattle would be about 1300 km which is more like Hiroshima to Morioka, around 6.5 hours by train including a connection; I think at that point there'd be a split in favour of flying, but around a third of travellers would probably still opt for the train due to its comfort and convenience.
        shiroiushi 2y ago
        There's huge differences between the US and Japan. When I travel from my home in Tokyo to Osaka or any other city by shinkansen, I take public transit (Tokyo Metro specifically) to get from my home to Tokyo station or Shinagawa, and then transfer to the shinkansen. At the destination city, I just get off and either walk to wherever I'm going, or transfer to another local rail or subway line. You just can't do that in the US, outside some very select situations (like going from somewhere inside DC to Manhattan NYC). From SF to Seattle, how do you get to the station in SF? In Seattle, how do you get from the station to your destination? What do you do to get around in Seattle? Generally, you need a car, which means renting a car, which is really expensive. The US is set up to handle this at airports pretty well: you get off your plane and go to the Hertz counter and pick up a car (and then after your trip is over and you've returned the car, get arrested for auto theft when Hertz reports your car as stolen--don't use Hertz). I haven't tried trains on the west coast, but on the east coast, I've never seen train stations set up with rental car counters.
    - throw0101d 2y ago
      > Probably because most cities are so spaced out […] The US population is fairly concentrated around the 'edges'. About 40% of the population lives in a coastal county: * https://ecowatch.noaa.gov/thematic/coastal-population https://ecowatch.noaa.gov/thematic/coastal-population And two-thirds of the population with-in 100 miles (160 km) of the border: * https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/border-zone
      - shiroiushi 2y ago
        You're ignoring how non-dense everything actually is in those places. Americans no longer live in walkable cities and towns like in the early 20th century before cars became popular. After WWII, with the rise of the automobile, the inner cities emptied out and everyone who could afford to moved out to the suburbs. So now, even in a "city" in America (unless it's Manhattan), you absolutely need a car to get anywhere, because nothing is walkable. It's not like 1905 when you could just walk from your home in Smalltown USA to the local train station, buy a ticket, and get a ride to the nearest city, and get out and walk from that station to interesting places. Any train trip, even if you look only at the eastern states, is likely to require a car ride on one or both ends to get to/from your source/destination to/from the station. If you have to drive an hour just to get to a train station, and another hour to get from the destination station to your final station, it's probably faster and easier and much cheaper to just drive the whole way. Don't forget dealing with parking, car rental, etc.; you'd probably have to take taxis, and those are quite expensive. The fundamental problem here is density. America doesn't have it any more.
  - dagw 2y ago
    Unlike in Europe, where rail maintenance is heavily subsidised by the government, in the US it is paid for by the private rail operators to a much greater extent. Thus the rail operators have much more say over how the rail is used and obviously priorities the more profitable traffic, which in the US is cargo. So if the US government would wanted to build out cross country passenger rail they would either have to build new tracks, or use eminent domain to take back control of the existing tracks. Both options would be very expensive and wildly unpopular.
    - Symbiote 2y ago
      They could also adjust the regulations for cargo trains to make mixing freight and passenger trains better. For example, by limiting the maximum length of a freight train. Then relatively minor subsidies (e.g. additional passing loops) could be used to improve reliability.
      - pfdietz 2y ago
        Or, they could let the market decide. The current system seems to work for most people.
    - zbshqoa 2y ago
      Which Europe are you talking about? Europe is a collection of independent counties and what you just mention is all wrong. Most of the European railway companies have been privatized and there are companies that run the rail network and companies that run the train. Subsidies are not a thing in many of the European countries
      - bpye 2y ago
        If you look at the UK for example, the physical network is publicly owned and maintained by National Rail, whilst the ToCs are (currently) mostly private. That said the ToCs are also going to switch to publicly owned over the next few years.
  - refurb 2y ago
    Because Americans prefer to fly?
    - dagw 2y ago
      Relative to the current situation or in absolute terms? If there was a Shinkansen style trains between LA and SF with the same quality and timetable as the Shinkansen between Tokyo and Osaka, do you not think Americans would flock to it?
      - refurb 2y ago
        Some might, not many. Most Americans go for the shortest travel time. The CA high speed rail is targeting a 2h40min travel time between SF and LA. The flight saved you more than an hour. Maybe if it was far cheaper than flying there might be more demand.
        alamortsubite 2y ago
        Sadly, with commercial air travel the time a passenger spends on the plane between say SF and LA represents only a small portion of their total travel time. This is commonly overlooked or not understood by people unfamiliar with traveling by train.
        refurb 2y ago
        I’ve flown it plenty of times. Get to the airport 60min before flight, and you’re out of LAX in less than 30 min. How early do you need to get to the train station? Not to mention if you miss your train how quickly can you jump on another train? I’m not arguing it’s not a nice alternative, but there is a reason why flying is still highly in demand even with high quality rail systems like in Europe.
        alamortsubite 2y ago
        You arrive at the station when the train is about to depart, not an hour or more before like you're forced to when flying. But even better, the station is in the center of town, rather than the middle of nowhere, reaching which again significantly lengthens your travel time. You can jump on another flight faster than you can jump on another train? I rarely fly more than a couple times a month, but for me this is never true.
  - saalweachter 2y ago
    We did, and then when airplanes came around, it turned out that people/other interests found air travel better than train travel for most intercity travel. Even on the East Coast, there used to be way more rail lines that took passengers -- if this were a hundred years ago, I could have walked a mile or two to a spur which would take me to one of the mid-sized cities connected to The Big City by commuter rail; now they're mostly rail trails.
    - xenadu02 2y ago
      That is not correct. The railroads deliberately killed the passenger business because it has worse operating ratios and needs more capex. Investors and execs believed (and still believe) railroads are in long-term managed decline so capex and labor costs must be avoided wherever possible. To give an example: Caltrain used to run all the way to LA. It was a profitable line the day Southern Pacific killed it. They used shills to buy up all the tickets for phantom riders then used the low passenger boarding numbers to justify to the US Railroad Commission that they should be allowed to close the route. This strategy or variations of it were used all across the USA to deliberately kill profitable passenger service because it made the company financials look better: no need to buy or refurbish passenger cars nor pay stewards and conductors. Operating ratio looks better? Mission accomplished! Making less money doesn't make sense but profit is almost irrelevant if you think the whole business is in long-term decline. Better to kill anything that might require future capex or labor and instead optimize to get the most juice with the least squeeze of existing fruits. Much like the shutdown of public transit across the USA. Who Framed Roger Rabbit is a semi-documentary for which the real-life villain General Motors was convicted of monopoly action in federal court! But the judge only fined them $1 because all the movers and shakers thought cars and airplanes were the future so who gives a crap about public transit, trains or the lot? Passenger train service and public transit were systematically dismantled on purpose by elites who thought they knew better.
  - Lammy 2y ago
    It was, but then all the Class-Ⅰ rail carriers merged until we were left with a west-coast duopoly (UP and BNSF) and an east-coast duopoly (CSX and NS) and they closed all the “redundant” lines they could. See Abandoned & Out-Of-Service Rail Lines map: https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=10akDabya8L6nWIJi-4Zor-QawkoJmmMK&femb=1 https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=10akDabya8L6nWIJi-4...
- ta1243 2y ago
  > just about any other country in the world. Well the US is the 3rd largest country in the world, with the 3rd largest population, and in terms of rail tonne-km is also 3rd. I.e. it sits where you'd expect, per sq km and per capita. Passenger wise though it's 10th.
- z3ncyberpunk 2y ago
  We have derailments monthly due to poor track conditions... We have terrible pay and conditions for operators who are exploited by both the companies and then the government. We do not have pretty good infrastructure.
trinix912 2y ago
There are also first world countries that have shittier trains than the ones here. I'm saying this from first hand experience.
- zbshqoa 2y ago
  I don't think you can compare the most advanced and rich country to other first world countries. Someone can definitely do worst, that's out of discussion. We are looking at the upside potential. The picture of this post show interstate trains that are old, slow and dirty. I'm sure standards can improve.
carapace 2y ago
USA is an early adopter?

trash_cat 2y ago

I did the California Zephyr and it was the most amazing any type of ride I have ever done. It was surreal. Do recommend.

mosaic360 2y ago
tell us more :)
- trash_cat 2y ago
  As a European everything felt like being in a movie. Especially going through desert it felt like I travelled back in time. Literally Wild West. I got see forests, mountains, canyons, and desert all in the same ride. That's definately not possible where I come from.
itomato 2y ago
Ditto. Roomette is highly recommended.

db48x 2y ago

It really is a nice way to travel. I did SF → Orlando and back a handful of times.

_ink_ 2y ago

I did the same trip. Highly recommended. On the trip I learned that there is an Amtrak Rail pass, which includes 10 rides. It seems that it often is on sale at the beginning of the year. So if you are interested in such a trip, you may want to look out for that.

herunan 2y ago

Am I the only one who finds it surreal to see long distance trains in the US? Don’t get me wrong - I know they exist. It’s just that I feel like they never get depicted anywhere in the media. I also don’t think I know a single American who has gone to another US city by train.

keerthiko 2y ago
Media depictions are a hugely underrated aspect of public transport perception. In japanese and korean media (my experience is with a ton of anime and k dramas, more in the former than the latter though) trains are very common casual and serious backdrops for a variety of scenes, either within the train, at the station, or just a train passing by on the bridge in the background. In Hollywood/American TV, it's always cars, with the occasional airport/plane. It riles me up quite unreasonably that shows/movies set in New York fuckin city with 24-7 subway service, and characters are shown trying to catch a cab in Manhattan in the middle of the night to go 20 blocks away. At least Marvelous Mrs. Maisel acknowledged this directly as a class thing for some characters and other characters took the train, but most movies just assume the American viewer cannot relate to someone using the subway.
- pavlov 2y ago
  Yeah, people in “Friends” never took the subway which is just weird. Of course it’s because these shows are shot in LA, and they have Manhattan street sets built and ready in Hollywood studio lot, but no subway set.
  - n1b0m 2y ago
    Seinfeld was also filmed in LA, but I recall at least one episode where they took the subway.
    - zikduruqe 2y ago
      The TV Guide episode with the cigar Indian?

pavlov 2y ago

I did Seattle-Chicago about ten years ago. 48 hours expected duration, and it arrived several hours late. As a European used to efficient train travel, it was kind of surreal that not only was the passenger train very slow (maybe 1/3 of the speed I’m used to), but it also made long stops to make way for cargo traffic. It felt like a bit of Wild West time travel to spend days on a train in the amazing landscapes. The food in the dining car was surprisingly good, but got boring by the third day.

billfruit 2y ago
USA is a rather big country, coast to coast travel is going to take a good amount of time compared to travel times between major European cities
- pavlov 2y ago
  The Seattle-Chicago train operates at an average speed of 50 mph, so 80 km/h. Passenger trains between major cities in Europe are in the 200-280 km/h range. The problem isn’t the big country, it’s the slow trains (that even get deprioritized after cargo, to add insult to the injury).
  - billfruit 2y ago
    Distance is also a factor. I see train timings listed for Madrid to Berlin to be more than 24 hours.
  - trinix912 2y ago
    > Passenger trains between major cities in Europe are in the 200-300 km/h range. I don't know which country exactly you mean, I live in central Europe (Slovenia) and no train goes over 200 km/h, most go 60-80 km/h. Also, every time I'm at the train station in Ljubljana (Slovenia's capital), there's an announcement about the train from Budapest being ~40min late. And it's a way shittier looking train than the local commute ones going 60.
    - 2y ago

hahahacorn 2y ago

The company I work for has done this trip a few times. Most recently this year. wefunder.com/train It’s a great experience, and something I wish more people tried. The cross country train that is, coworkers optional :)

wscott 2y ago

I was pleased to read such positive contagious excitement and someone who can still see the wonder of the American west. And excitement of trying new experiences.

avazhi 2y ago

[flagged]

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
thrance 2y ago
Originally, the "15 minutes city" is simply a city planning guideline, which tells you that cities should strive to have every amenities close to where people live, ideally everyone should have everything in a 15 minutes radius. Far-right lunatics interpreted it as being constrained by the government in a 15 minutes radius around their home, which is insane thinking indeed. I live in a "15 minutes city", Paris, I have 5 grocery stores in a 5 minutes walking radius, I go to work in 15 minutes using the metro, and if I want to I can get anywhere in France in a few hours by taking the train. That someone would not want this and instead fight for their rights to commute 2 hours everyday by car is insane to me.
- avazhi 2y ago
  I live in Melbourne (and have for 15 years), so I'm not some rural hillbilly crying about cars per se - in fact I'm not even talking about cars: That placard literally says: 'Stay Home!' I think bicycle paths and pedestrian access to places is extremely important, and not just for the environment, but being told that I should 'stay home' as part of some bigger picture plan to combat climate change is absolutely redolent of bureaucratic authoritarianism and environmental tyranny, and it really isn't hard to imagine a scenario running from this placard and the idea behind it to one where traveling away from one's 'neighborhood' (as defined in the photo) is punishable.
  - em-bee 2y ago
    so the presentation leaves a bit to be desired but you are throwing out the baby with the bathwater. for one i don't think this poster is is presenting a government mandate but i believe it's a demand from people to the government to build like this (it's from the climate action museum, which, as far as i could tell is not supported by government) likewise it is not about forcing people to stay home but demanding the right for people to do so and live their daily life without having to travel every day. the title "stay home!" is an unfortunate choice. but to be fair, you also have to read the whole title: "your most radical move! stay home!" which clearly suggests that staying home is a choice you make (just like many of us refuse to return to work in the office) and not something forced on you from the outside. if you read anything else then you either miss the point or you are intentionally twisting it. do you think fighting against neighborhoods like this is going to help you prevent that dystopia that you seem to be afraid of? negative thinking is not going to help us make the world better. a commenter above mentions paris. i can share the exact same experience from vienna. literally. that's what we are talking about.

itomato 2y ago

The Zephyr is amazing. Fun place to hack on something personal, like freshening up an old Window Manager or library

cdrini 2y ago

I've taken the California zephyr a few times over the last few years and it's a phenomenal experience. I'm hoping to do the Chicago-San Francisco trip in the coming years. My fear is that some influencer/personality is going to start posting about the train system, and then it's going to become a crowded mess :P It feels a bit like a well kept secret right now. I think one of the things that makes it so enjoyable is that it's so uncrowded most of the time. I almost always get two seats to myself every time I take it (in coach). And there's somehow always a table available in the observation car whenever I decide to go there. Or you sit with someone and make a new friend :P Would highly recommend!

sylens 2y ago
There are a lot of transit focused “creators” already documenting their trips - the one I tend to follow on YouTube is Miles in Transit but he often intersects with other creators as well
- cdrini 2y ago
  It's less the transit creators I'm worried about, since that's pretty niche. It's if a general influencer starts sharing aesthetics of train travel on eg Instagram which I think would cause its usage to boom.
  - alamortsubite 2y ago
    I understand where you're coming from, but in the long run it'd be a great thing to see this kind of boom in the U.S. If only a tiny fraction of the gobs of cash that are being shoveled into political ads right now were going to some of these influencers to promote train travel instead...
    - ghaff 2y ago
      Though most people really aren't in a position to take the train instead of flying for anything other than a vacation. Good luck with your 4x expense account for taking an extra day to travel from NYC to Chicago--much less anything further.

timonoko 2y ago

I bicycled across in 1985 and scariest part was there was no public transport on regular roads. What if the bicycle breaks down? There was no bicycle shops and bicyclists either, except on top of cars. Where they drive to use the bicycle? No idea.

batch12 2y ago
> Where they drive to use the bicycle? No idea. Depends on the type of bike. Sometimes parks and trails.
- shiroiushi 2y ago
  Back in 1985, when mountain bikes were brand-new and not really established? I have no idea. These days, if it's serious mountain bikes, they're driving to places with wilderness trails to ride on. If it's road bikes, they might be driving to "rail trails", sections of old railroads that have been converted into long multi-use trails that are popular with cyclists because they're generally flat and straight and go through some interesting scenery.
lucb1e 2y ago
Dutch person here. This seems odd to me, why would a bicycle irrepairably break down without notice? If you have a patch kit and know how to put the chain back on, the only "prevents me from riding" risk I can think of is it literally breaking apart under you, which isn't something I've heard happen. The gears breaking would be a serious nuisance but you can still get to the next town And wouldn't it be the same no matter what mode of transport you choose? What if the plane breaks down¹? What if you break an ankle while walking a long distance? What if your horse walks away? You'll always have to rely on aid from others pretty much no matter what happens to your mode of transportation If you're going to be in a place where you're alone, like when hiking, the advice I heard is to tell someone where you're going and when you're checking in. I guess the same goes if you don't expect to receive aid from passing cars? ¹ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#/media/File:Number_of_fatalities_from_airliners_hull-loss_accidents_per_year.svg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_safety#/media/File:Nu... Compare ~1000 fatalities per year from "hull-loss accidents" in the 80s compared to it being pretty much unheard of today

casenmgreen 2y ago

I began experimenting with long distance (cross-Europe, and long distances, not just one country to the neighbouring country) train travel, as I no longer wanted to fly due to the pollution from flying. I rapidly concluded long distance train travel is not viable. On one occasion I had two days of travel booked, and the very first train was an hour late, which led to a missed connection, and that was it - there was no way I could make my next train, and I lost some hundreds of euros of booked tickets and accommodation, and the compensation offered - if I had the will power to fight through the incredibly hostile claims mechanism on-line - was 30 euro. I was also stuck, as I had left my origin (a long-term AirBnB) and the next place I would live was at my destination. Fortunately, I was in Paris, so I travel to de Gaulle and booked a flight to my destination (where it was then necessary to book a hotel for an night, as I was a day early); I paid some hundreds more euros to complete my journey. Essentially the problem is that the longer a train journey, the more late it will be, and if you miss a connection, you can lose everything afterwards; but you have to book everything in advance, because the main train routes are fully booked if you try to buy a ticket on the day. So it just doesn't add up.

precommunicator 2y ago
If you get everything on one ticket (and sometimes not) you can usually simply take the next train, with or without proof of delay on your ticket.
- casenmgreen 2y ago
  Crossing multiple countries over a couple of days, I've never seen this as possibility. Going from one country to another is normally one train company, from the origin country, and then moving on from that city - in another country - means a different company, from that second country, and so on.
  - alamortsubite 2y ago
    If you've never seen it as a possibility, have you looked at OBB NightJet? Every one I've taken has been this way.

dpb001 2y ago

Years ago I decided to take the Lake Shore Limited from Albany to Chicago for a business trip just to have a different experience. Two things I didn’t expect: 1. It was very difficult to get pre-approved for the expense because my employer’s process had to make sure I wasn’t costing them extra money. Somehow this was not an issue with plane tickets. 2. Overnight stops interrupted my sleep (in seat) as boarders banged luggage around and discussed seat selection when groups were involved. Interesting, but would book a room if traveling this way next time.

markphip 2y ago

My daughter recently moved to Vancouver. I was in Seattle for a work trip so decided to take Amtrak to visit her for the weekend. This was my first real train travel. Overall, it was pretty good and probably is what I will do in the future in the same situation. The train moved at a frustratingly slow speed (< 10 mph) for probably 30% of the trip, but aside from that I liked the more relaxed atmosphere of the travel and it was overall more comfortable. The train itself was a bit bumpier than I expected and the wifi was not very good. Those things and the slow speed would mean I could not imagine taking a much longer trip than this one. With the extra time and hassle of dealing with an airport, this one balanced out as probably only being slightly slower travel but it was less expensive and more relaxed. If it were Seattle to San Francisco, as an example, the slowness would be too much for me. The comfort and amenities like wifi and food would have to be a lot better than they are.

Symbiote 2y ago
It's amazing to me that someone can be around 50 years old and on a train for the first time. But others might be amazed that I'm around 40 years old and have never owned a car.
- ghaff 2y ago
  If someone in the US hasn't been in a position to take commuter rail with any frequency in a relatively small number of places--or maybe take Amtrak on the Northeast Corridor sometimes--it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest that someone would never have been on anything beyond light rail (if that).
- markphip 2y ago
  Probably referring to me? I live 2 hours from the closest airport. There are no trains near me. Barely any buses. And I am not counting trains within a city just taking a train to travel between cities. I do not live that far from an Amtrak station but there is only one train a day, it takes forever, and does not go anywhere that I am typically traveling.
bpye 2y ago

rubyfan 2y ago

When I was 7 my family moved from the West Coast to the East. We didn’t have much money and my mom was deathly afraid of flying so we took a train. Seeing the U.S. this way is a treat and I highly recommend. Like TFA you meet interesting people, see and experience new things that you just don’t get to see traveling other ways.

enews01 2y ago

I always try to travel by train if I can when im travelling Intercity. Its always so enjoyable and quite cheap.

kmoser 2y ago

In the early 1990s I did a round-trip, coast-to-coast trip on Amtrak (basically NYC to Seattle and back), stopping at major cities for a few days each. I had a USARail pass (equivalent to a Eurail pass), which at the time was only available to non-US citizens, so I was quite stoked to have 30 days of unlimited travel for a fixed cost. On the first route (westward) I took the southern route and on the return trip (eastward) I took the northern route, through Chicago. I stayed in youth hostels (except for a couple of cities where I had friends and relatives), and didn't have a fixed schedule so delays were usually tolerable. While in San Francisco, Amtrak went on strike for about a week, and my pass was extended correspondingly. An extra week in San Francisco was fun! But again, I didn't have any fixed deadlines so it was all good. All things considered, the unreliability of the system makes me loathe to travel long distances by train, unless my plans are flexible. However, one huge upside is the views, especially in the middle of the country. In fact, some train lines even exist largely to tout their views, e.g. the Rocky Mountaineer (a Canadian company). Train travel is much more leisurely, and a great way to meet people. These days many Amtrak routes are actually covered by bus, which may come as a surprise when you get to the train station and are told to board a bus. This is not immediately obvious when booking online, although you may be able to tell by reading carefully; the telltale sign might be as subtle as the icon (bus vs train) shown for that leg.

aspenmayer 2y ago
Did they provide lodgings during the period you were unable to use the service? I don’t know if there are provisions for that in law like there are for airline flights that are canceled or otherwise unable to fulfill their carriage obligations.
- kmoser 2y ago
  It didn't occur to me to ask; I was staying in a youth hostel that was something like $20/night (maybe less). In any case, the way the USARail pass worked, you had to reserve individual tickets to each destination you wanted to travel to. (You could reserve them spontaneously, which is what I did.) Since I didn't have a ticket at the time to a particular destination (just a generic USARail pass), technically they weren't at fault for failing to fulfill a particular obligation.

thesurlydev 2y ago

Thanks for sharing. I've always wanted to drive from Seattle to Boston on I-90 but the train looks fun too.

404mm 2y ago

I tried to roughly replicate the trip booking estimate but the closest I could get was a 77h trip (a bit over 3 days), with one change in Chicago and one Emeryville, CA. Price was about $1430. In contrast to that, you can get a 7hr direct flight for about $430 (delta, round trip, luggage not included). Or a full size sedan for about $500 (one way, 3 days, does not include estimate of $400 on fuel). I wish trains were more affordable because (I think) the experience is worth it.

ghaff 2y ago
Interestingly, I discovered last year that returning from the UK to NYC by ship was in the same general price ballpark as a business class flight. This is admittedly a lot more than economy. But, if you had the time, included eight days or so of good food and entertainment.
- bobthepanda 2y ago
  With long distance pricing or really any sleeper, one needs to consider that the ticket price basically includes hotel as well since you’re sleeping there and they need the facilities to handle that, meals etc.
- gosub100 2y ago
  I've never looked into this. How often do they sail? I can't imagine more than weekly or even monthly. I would definitely consider it though.
  - ghaff 2y ago
    It varies by time of year--but monthly in a given direction is probably a rough estimate. Go to Cunard. Mostly Queen Mary 2 although I think they have a new ship that does some transatlantic as well. For crossings, my understanding is their ships with stabilizers etc. are better able to handle the North Atlantic than the average cruise ship. Dates lined up for me on a trip late last spring and I enjoyed it. Would consider doing again.

brandonmenc 2y ago

I finally took an overnight train from Chicago to Pennsylvania to try it out. Got an Amtrak Roomette. It cost a fortune (relative to flying.) Could not fall asleep at all due to the jerky motion. Do not recommend. I have no idea why anyone would prefer this to flying.

lucb1e 2y ago
Similar experience in Germany, felt like I did not sleep a wink. I did get a lot of audiobook done during that time though! (And I felt surprisingly okay during the next day, so perhaps my brain did get some amount/form of downtime) Had expected the train to do like 60 km/h or so because there is no rush, everyone's sleeping, saves costs (wear and energy), easier scheduling by having the same speed as freight, and if the trains normally handle more-than-double speeds then this would be butter smooth. Nah, not a chance. From start to finish it felt like it was springing from station to station, with pretty old equipment so it was loud, plus every station of every tiny village was bright because no curtains, and the shaking and squeaking around curves and especially points/switches were madness. Asked the passenger from my cabin who got off at the same stop in the morning: he slept great! Maybe when the novelty wears off and you get used to it, it gets better? I can report back when I do this next time, but for now I'm also left wondering if it's a personal thing. (I'm sufficiently concerned about the rate of climate warming that I'll definitely try this again, it's only a matter of when I'd travel to a sufficiently far destination)
- ghaff 2y ago
  Those few times I've taken a sleeper, both private (Europe) and shared (China) rooms, I haven't slept as if I were in my own bed but I got a decent enough amount of sleep to call it a a "night's rest." But, then, it's also not unusual that, jet-lag or not, I'll have trouble getting to sleep in a hotel especially first night or so of a trip. So I guess I sleep well enough on trains (and on lie-flat seats in planes).

throwaway4220 2y ago

Very cool experience! BTW is this article generated from social media posts?

exabrial 2y ago

Why though? The USA is huge! Even on a 250mph train, theoretical transit times through the Midwest are still going to take a long time! I love rail travel when I’m in the EU, but it simply doesn’t make sense for the US and its geography. Here’s my wild opinion so feel free to disagree and point out the shortcomings… Air travel could be a lot nicer, like the days of TWA and on plane lounges; and before you got tased for getting out of your seat to walk around.

cowmix 2y ago
The best family trip my wife and I did with my kids (8 and 12) was Amtrak from AZ -> DC -> NYC. It was relaxing, fun and different. We even did it in coach (so no private room) and it was still amazing. We flew home -- and even though the flight time was about 5.5 hours - it was stressful and a let down. Your family's milage may vary.
seadan83 2y ago
Why? IMHO the best travel is not about how fast you can get there. Seeing the land from the ground is an immense experience. More so than a car since interstates are dug out, the land trains cross is amazing. Wild horses in the southwest, mountains in the west. And - you can walk around, observation car, dining car (nothing quite like making bar friends on a train), with close to zero risk of getting tased!
wpm 2y ago
Transcontinental train travel across the US? No, it probably doesn’t make sense to design a system for that alone. But just like European trains don’t only run from Lisbon to Moscow, US trains could very easily set up popular routes from small, medium, and large cities that are around 100-500miles from each other. The new Borealis route, which is nothing more than an additional short run of the Empire Builder, from Chicago to Minneapolis started turning a profit a few days after it started running. What do you get when you add up all the obvious city-pair routes in all regions? You get a transcontinental system that while likely not most people’s first choice for a NYC-LA trip, is possible without being painful. Not unlike the system that existed before the subsidized highways destroyed the private passenger rail system in the US. We know it’s possible here because it already existed.

fortran77 2y ago

I hope the "French guy" who he didn't like as a conversationalist doesn't read his blog.

boulos 2y ago

You can also do any segment. Having done Chicago to Emeryville, I'd suggest folks focus on the Denver to Salt Lake portion. Chicago to Denver is mostly flat, and at least when I did it, mostly in the dark. Salt Lake to Reno is also boring, but surprisingly the section of rail around Tahoe doesn't have good views either. If you've driven on 80, or 50 or 89, you've seen better terrain. As other comments have said though, the timeline is unpredictable, since freight takes priority. So you could easily end up in the dark around Grand Junction, CO and miss out on the views.

scaglio 2y ago

> You could also say: Five megameters! I love this expression!

yapyap 2y ago

I love articles that include nice pictures with the text, I got nothing else to add but keep on going!

VyseofArcadia 2y ago

When we both have enough time off (and can get a cat sitter for long enough), my wife and I like to make the 1200 mile (1900 km) trip to visit family by Amtrak. A couple of times that we've done it a single roomette has been price-competitive with flying, especially if you factor in the cost of the free meals and drinks. And at worst, the roomette was about $200 more total cost than flying. Sure, it takes four times longer, but it is about 20 times more comfortable.

imaginationra 2y ago

The last time I took the Amtrak in California was 4-5 years ago- the toilet was filled with and overflowing with feces and menstrual blood- the tables were covered in trash and of course just like in these photos the trains were cutting edge crumbling/dirty 1980's models. I started throwing the trash in the bins and an Amtrak staffer came through and told me "You don't have to do that- that's someone else's job" Someone else was nowhere to be found though. I took the Amtrak several times from southern to northern California and it was always just bearable. The train experience in the USA is pathetic and depressing. I have since moved to a "poor" country in Western Europe and the train experience here is MUCH MUCH better than Amtrak in the states as is most everything else.

throw4847285 2y ago

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SfPyg-mGhU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2SfPyg-mGhU

chaps 2y ago

I've taken this trip a couple times! It's a genuinely wonderful experience. Every Amtrak trip I take has some memorable experience I hope to never forget. Tip: get the sleeping car and eat every meal they offer, especially if you travel by yourself. You'll be sat with random folk who almost always have interesting stories to share.

burkaman 2y ago
Agreed, and the food is surprisingly good in my experience. It's not like the stuff you get from the cafe car on a normal Amtrak ride.
kccqzy 2y ago
I've done that a couple of times and completely agreed. One time I sat in the dining car right next to a retired realtor who told me a whole lot about real estate in Los Angeles. (Unfortunately I forgot most of it because at that time I was a renter and haven't bought any properties yet.) Another time I was sitting next to a frail-looking grandma assisted by her granddaughter. The grandma was very talkative and told me a lot of memories from the AIDS epidemic in the 1980s.

Aaronstotle 2y ago

I recently moved to NYC and I've taken the train to both Boston and DC, I think I'll fly next time I go to either city.

kyleblarson 2y ago

I took the Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago in about 2008. Our departure out of Seattle was delayed 12 hours, I was not able to get into the sleeper cabin that I paid for until Spokane, where we were also delayed for 8 hours. Once we departed Spokane, the staff were universally rude, unhelpful and generally shitty. Our train was so delayed that they had combined the EB coming out of Portland with ours so they started rationing meals (which I had also paid for as a part of my fare) to half servings. Having spent a lot of time in Japan I compare this to the one delay I ever encountered in roughly 25 Shinkansen trips: I took the Shinkansen from Tokyo to Niigata, a roughly 3 hour trip. The train was delayed by less than 5 minutes. When we got off the train in Niigata the conductors and staff were waiting by the door to bow and apologize profusely. I'll never set foot on another AmTrak.

fsckboy 2y ago
more recently than your experience I took a similar trip. The staff was great, the food was great and we experienced no hitches. However, at the other end of the train they had a sewage flood of some sort, puddles in the passageway, I felt very lucky. one interesting thing I didn't expect, there were a large number of Mennonites/Brethren riding the train (they did not ride in sleepers), all sexes and ages, including very cute little toddlers wearing full "formalwear".

imzadi 2y ago

I took a train from DC to Sacramento in 1999. It was... an experience.

gumboshoes 2y ago

Writer Paul Theroux has several very good books about his train journeys: https://bookshop.org/search?keywords=paul+theroux+train https://bookshop.org/search?keywords=paul+theroux+train