(no title)
aposm
|
10 months ago
There is no secret lost knowledge that enabled a steam-powered train to go from New York to Chicago in 16 hours in the 1930s. We simply do not care to run fast passenger trains anymore since they have largely been replaced by domestic air travel. The current NYC to Chicago train takes 20 hours and is routinely several hours delayed... all we have to do is invest in infrastructure and rebuild our rail system, but that won't happen unless it's "sexy" and can compete with air travel, and the best way to do that is with HSR. So while our passenger rail system _could_ be a lot faster (without true HSR) if it was run well, I don't think that's going to happen until we get the marketability/"sexiness" of HSR.
JoshTriplett|10 months ago
That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. First-class passenger trains are much more comfortable, roomier, and less expensive, but as long as they're so wildly slower, they have a hard time competing with air travel.
alwa|10 months ago
The cheapest first class train fare is $1,621 for the round trip, vs $385 for first class airfare.
jakelazaroff|10 months ago
alephnerd|10 months ago
Maybe, but around a third of all tourism spend in the US is business travel related [0]. You cannot justify spending an overnight train ride from NYC to Chicago when you can reach there within 2 hours by flight.
The US is MASSIVE - much larger than most countries, and population centers are extremely spread out once you leave the Northeast. Outside the NE, the math (time wise or financially) doesn't play out well for rail based public transit.
You see the same dynamics in China as well - the overwhelming majority of medium-long distance public transit is along the extremely dense coast.
Expecting a French style TGV is unrealistic as long as San Francisco to Los Angeles is the same distance as Paris to Berlin - except with almost no major population centers in between, and plenty of massive mountain ranges. Same for the rest of the US outside of the NE. Similar extent with NY to Chicago as well (roughly the same distance as Berlin to St Petersburg)
[0] - https://www.statista.com/topics/1832/business-travel/#topicO...
6510|10 months ago
They do Beijing to Shanghai in 5 hours so you have to make New York to Chicago in 4 or it doesn't count.
The numbers are funny. Flying from New York to Chicago takes less than 2 hours but all things considered you lose 8 hours https://www.trippy.com/fly/New-York-City-to-Chicago
You might as well drive it in 12.
roenxi|10 months ago
panny|10 months ago
Trains replace road trips, not air travel. You can travel from New York to Miami for $175 on Amtrak. That's a lot cheaper and much more comfortable than driving 1300 miles.
Saying you can do this faster or possibly cheaper on a budget airline is missing the point, because traveling on a budget airline is not enjoyable. There's no scenery. You're packed in like sardines. Best case scenario, every hour you spend in the plane is miserable. Every hour you spend waiting in airport security lines is miserable. Every hour spent waiting on the runway for delays is miserable. Waiting for your baggage only to find it is lost again is miserable. You can't get up to stretch your legs, sit down, the seat belt light is on.
On the Amtrak there are dining cars, cafe cars, observation cars. There's five toilets on each car, you never have to wait. There's free wifi. There are no middle seats to be miserable in. You can bring your own beer and drink it on the train. You can't do any of that in car or on an airline. Riding the train is more fun than flying, and a lot less hazardous than driving. If it takes a little longer than flying, that just means more time for fun.
pseudo0|10 months ago
It might be decent for a solo traveler, but for the stereotypical family road trip to Florida, the car still wins out.
rs186|10 months ago
Can't agree based on personal experience.
> There's free wifi.
That wifi is barely usable. I often ended up using my phone as the hotspot.
> Riding the train is more fun than flying
Depending on whether you are a big train nerd or plane nerd. I am a little bit of both, and I never consider train to be any more fun or boring than flights. On shorter trips where plane flies at a low altitude (e.g. Boston-NYC-Washington DC), if the weather is good, I would be staring at the ground and take (crappy) aerial photos the whole flight.
And your post doesn't mention the routine delays on Amtrak trains. Trains in China and Japan are much more punctuate.
Don't get me wrong, I take trains in the US for leisure purposes more than almost anyone I know, but it is not nearly as romantic as you try to paint, which is why most people choose driving or something else.