I imagine many people here will know this site, but for those who want to travel across Europe by train, The Man in Seat 61 is an invaluable resource: https://www.seat61.com/
If you want to become envious, he's also on Twitter - https://x.com/seatsixtyone - where he posts beautiful journeys. Just a shame it's all so expensive compared to flights!
Seat61 definitely helped me set expectations for my trip, Last month I took a Paris-Berlin-Vienna-Venice-Paris loop utilizing the nightjet for 3 overnight trains in a row thinking the cost was at least offset by not needing a hotel each night, but alas, a hotel would have been money well spent as I spent that leg of the trip in a sleep deprived daze !
On the bright side I got the experience of groggily asking a German border guard "what's up?" before I had a handle on why my makeshift curtain was being pulled aside at 3am
German police do check passports on trains within Germany. I was questioned on a train going from Munich to Prague, and as I had overstayed in Schengen, things got a bit tense. Ultimately they decided it wasn't worth it; they got off one stop before the Czech border and let me continue.
I can attest this too; at Aachen Hbf. in April of this year, I witnessed a group of policemen verbally (in English) warning a passenger for travelling across the Belgo-German border without ID.
On a tangential topic, the behaviour of railway staff when checking passports was interesting. With a paper Interrail ticket, they would always ask to see my passport or ID card, yet I don't think I have been asked once when using the electronic Interrail ticket - this is despite the rules being identical for both types.
French Guards board train at Italian border & check everybody immigration (either a EU card or visa and passport), at least in 2016. They take passports with them, saying something in French, and bring it back after about an hour. Longest hour of my life.
So you travelled 11 hours to Berlin in order to spend 9 hours there, then 12 hours to Vienna in order spend 14 hours there, then 11 hours to Venice? You would have been exhausted whatever mode of transport used.
For some reason Americans have a strong tendency to come up with these kinds of itineraries in the name of having a relaxing vacation, even though to any European it appears completely bonkers.
I just took the LA-Seattle overnight train a few weeks ago to add a mini trip in before heading to Alaska. A lot of you HNers are west coasters. Do it! Get the little bedroom, it makes the trip a lot more fun.
Do you mind sharing how much the ticket cost? That’s always my main deterrent for USA rail travel. The prices I get quoted are ludicrous compared to plane tickets. I’d love to ride a train instead but I don’t feel like it should come at the premiums it does.
You need to factor in meals and hotel stays when comparing prices. You will get to your destination a couple nights earlier, but you’ll need to eat and sleep during that time as well.
Just picking two large cities, Dallas to New Orleans takes 33 hours by Amtrak vs. 7 hours just driving a car. It’s hard to understand how anyone would make that choice. I’d really like rail to be a choice in the USA for being able to get somewhere instead of the train ride being the destination.
It looks like $104 by coach, which seems really reasonable but I can’t imagine sitting in a coach seat in a car that has both upper and lower levels for 33h. A private room is $619. A round trip plane ticket is about $139 and the flight is 1h37m. Amtrak needs to enter our universe.
That sounds like a super boring route. I’d much rather do Chicago to LA, SF, or Seattle, as all those routes pass through interesting to me scenery.
I will say the coast starlight was pretty full when I took it from LA to Seattle. A lot of people take it and really really like it. The staff seemed more personable and to be enjoying themselves over the ones I’ve experienced in northeast corridor
Any location in Texas, aside from El Paso?, seems like a hassle by train. I priced DC to Austin a few years ago and it was way too expensive even for a consumer that wanted to take the trip by train.
Amtrak seems to be good at North to South on the coasts, and East to West in the middle, but bad at any diagonal routes.
On the other hand if taking off work means forgoing income, taking the slower rail journey is even more expensive. Instead of taking 6 days off work to fly and take a cruise, maybe now I need to take 8. For retirees or folks who can work on a train, the calculation might be very different.
I get that, that’s one way of looking at it. But other folks look at train vs plane for more utilitarian “getting there”. Depending on your situation and what you consider the train ride to be, the value offered by the train can be considered a reasonable deal or outlandishly expensive.
Economy class airplanes are all utility and zero experience. The business is viable because utility and torment can cancel out because the trip itself has need to have a perceived value - all the value is in moving from A to B.
A drive, a cruise, or a train trip have intrinsic value beyond moving from A to B. You experience the movement in a different way.
We need to start thinking a bit differently about the economics of transportation when travelling for leisure.
> The railroad, lauded as one of the greatest achievements in U.S. history, also set the stage for an era of aggressive westward expansion, empire-building and the subjugation of Indigenous people.
They just had to include that last bit, didn't they? Setting aside the fact that "the subjugation of indigenous people" in the American west began long before the transcontinental railroad, and so the whole comment is debatable at best (the Trail of Tears was 1831, and the first Apache wars were in 1849; the Oregon trail was 1830-1840, and the transcontinental railroad was begun in 1863), it's the sort of drop-in to an otherwise unrelated story that makes you cringe.
Literally anything in the world can be tied back to oppression of a people, if you want it hard enough. You're writing a nice little human-interest story about a train ride...can't you give it a rest for a minute?
Can't fathom why this bothers you so much but it is relevant as this sentence immediately leads into a story the conductor on the train was giving about the history of the rail. Would you rather the author leave that experience out of the story because it makes you uncomfortable?
It doesn't make me uncomfortable. I just think it's stupid. I guess it made me roll my eyes, so that was sort of uncomfortable.
(To be as charitable as possible to your point, I did say "cringe", but I didn't mean it in the way that you're interpreting it. I just meant "cringe", in the same way that I cringe when I see someone who boldly expresses an opinion about anything that is factually incorrect, or perhaps, when a stranger starts selling you on their multi-level-marketing scheme in the bathroom. More like "oh god, we're going to do this now, are we?", than a "I reject basic facts of history that the average US high school student should know, including the approximate order of major historical events" sort of thing.)
I guess it just depends on your point of view. I would have found a sentence lauding the railroads and the mechanized opening of the West to be pretty 'cringe' if they had not mentioned this.
I submit that you could cut the entire sentence out of the piece and not lose anything other than a vague sense of judgment from the author.
But hey, I also don't think observing the basic fact that the railroads led to the "opening of the west" would qualify as "lauding" that fact, any more than observing that "George Washington was the first US president" would be "lauding" George Washington. For that matter, I can also enjoy a train ride without feeling the urge to "acknowledge" that Cornelius Vanderbilt did some bad things.
(...though I sadly acknowledge that we're well 'round that bend as a society)
Because most of the time it takes a nice, feel good story and immediately sets the tone.
It's like having a casual chat with a colleague and then they trauma dump about what happened to them when they were 15 or whatever. Like okay, cool, take it to therapy, this isn't the place, you're just making things awkward for everyone.
Seems like lip service slacktivism that does nothing but inject a bit of weird misplaced guilt. Railroads were a huge technological innovation. Handwringing about the skeletons in the national closet without really understanding how or why the railroad played a role seems distracting. The quote from the article says, in essence: ‘railroads and the Indian Wars happened at the same time, kinda, so… railroads bad, maybe?’
And op’s point stands. Tech is power; and almost any tech can be used and abused. But tossing this in seems lazy at best.
Did you read the article? The sentence OP objects to is the lead-in to a conductor on a trip telling him about how rail passengers were encouraged to help reduce the native population. It's a bit of context for an anecdote, in an article that is entirely compared of lightly contextualized anecdotes.
You could remove the sentence I quoted, keep the thing from the conductor about bison, and it wouldn't make a difference to the story [1]. It's a "lead in" only in the extremely literal sense that the one sentence comes before the other one.
[1] It might even work better, since it lets you draw your own conclusions about the anecdote. Not everything needs to be a lesson.
The transcontinental railroad was highly significant. Past atrocities don’t negate the unique role the railroad played in a centuries-long process, especiallY when a major stage of it was enabled by the railroad: https://americanhistory.si.edu/explore/stories/TRR
Similarly, the unique role the railroad played does not negate the atrocities that were part and parcel of its development. When talking about civilization-progressing technologies, it is not possible to focus entirely on the technology.
Unless we're also willing to talk about Facebook as a generation-redefining technology that altered how people interact, without mentioning the negatives. I'm sure people will attempt to do that a century from now; it will be wrong then as well.
It might have begun far before the railroads but it only became worse with time. The sand creek massacre was in 1864. Square in the railroad era. Not to mention every broken treaty of that era that was directly incentivized by the new massive industrial access to western land.
One could and probably should understand that the beauty of the Railroad is inseperable from the subjugation of the indiginous tribes and the labor abuses that built it. Should those things be ignored because they make you uncomfortable? It's perfectly contextual to have that in this piece....
... though I do concede the way that's mentioned and the article in general seems low effort and mediocre. But that's a different argument than "stop making me uncomfortable".
Sure. But you can pick pretty much any piece of technology from the era and say the same thing: "How the hammer led to the oppression of Indigenous People in the American west".
> One could and probably should understand that the beauty of the Railroad is inseperable from the subjugation of the indiginous tribes and the labor abuses that built it. Should those things be ignored because they make you uncomfortable? It's perfectly contextual to have that in this piece....
Someone else on this thread tried the same rhetorical feint. Who told you that I am "uncomfortable"? Did the fact that I cited events and dates somehow convince you that I didn't know about these events before now? That I just became aware of the story of the US westward expansion because this author dropped it into her Amtrak feature?
Look, if you want to write (or read) a thesis on the influence of the locomotive on the oppression of indigenous people, that's great. I bet there's one to be written. But this is just lazy, dumb, superficial propaganda, dropped into a puff piece.
The wording is slightly imprecise (if they had said "accelerated subjugation of" it would have been perfectly accurate), and a bit jargon-y; but can't you just go with it?
The degree of indignation you're expressing here at this ancillary snippet (as opposed to the historical genocide itself, and the continuing injustices suffered by the survivors' descendants to this very day) seems to be in itself rather cringe.
> The degree of indignation you're expressing here at this ancillary snippet...seems to be in itself rather cringe.
I am not expressing "indignation" -- I don't think the author was unfair to me. I'm not even remotely upset. I just think it was a silly and unnecessary inclusion (in your words: "ancillary") that detracts from the piece.
"Indignation" was a poor choice of wording, then -- I take it back.
Still - it does seem to be such a trifling fault with the article that it seems strange that it would be seen as worth devoting the time and energy to call out. When I come across minor hiccups like this (either in something I'm reading, or when someone is giving a talk) I usually just say to myself:
"Mmm -- but was it in good faith at least? Not too preachy / overbearing? Yes? Then let's move on ..."
Yes, it is when I closed the tab. Enough with the self-flagellating virtue signalling nonsense, it does not do any good for anyone other than for the grifters who make their living off selling indulgences for past sins. Not to mention the fact that those indigenous tribes were quite the quarrelsome bunch themselves which makes all those land acknowledgements another level of silliness: "we acknowledge that we are standing on the land of the Comanche" upon which a Cheyenne stands calls out that it was their land until those bastard Comanche came along and took it, followed by an Apache who hollers at the Cheyenne who took their land whereupon an ageing Kiowa stares down the Apache who took their ancestral lands. Rinse and repeat for the Cherokee, Creek, Chickasaw and Choctaw, the Sioux and the Crow, the Iroquois and the Huron, the Iroquois and the Powhatan confederacy, the Navajo versus the Hopi, etc. They made war against each other, they sometimes won, they sometimes lost. Eventually a stronger tribe came and conquered them all just like they used to conquer others. Since we're not at the end of history - Fukuyama [1] was wrong - the story will move on from here and who knows what - and who - will come next?
In Soviet times, if you didn't include a quote from Lenin or Marx or at least the latest Party Conference in your article, you could be seen as dangerous dissident, pretty much regardless of the topic. The quote could be completely unrelated to the rest of the content, but as long as it's there, you've paid your respects and you're ok, and everybody knew this is just one of the things that is done.
Looks like it's more universally human than one would like to admit.
Well golly. I guess they should name it something more maudlin. That will fix everything. "Engine of oppression", perhaps?
There's definitely a delicious irony that Amtrak is about the furthest thing from an "empire" that you can find in America, though. They don't even own the tracks they run on.
> "the subjugation of indigenous people" in the American west began long before the transcontinental railroad
So did "empire building" and "westward expansion," but those assertions don't seem to have bothered you despite suffering from the same deficiency in the same sentence.
Indeed. I didn't specifically call out every incorrect thing in the sentence, and chose only one. Westward expansion and empire building both existed for even longer before railroads existed. Touché.
When I just came to the US, I had a very romantic about the notion of traveling America by train. I mean, planes are fine, they are fast, they are convenient, but there's some sterile efficiency to them that makes the notion of going by train and enjoying spectacular views much more attractive when your goal is to enjoy the ride and not just get from point A to point B.
Unfortunately, the first trip on Amtrack quickly put down all my illusions. Not only was it hugely expensive for quite a crammed and uncomfortable cabin (and I traveled Soviet trains - somehow Amtrack managed to get theirs even less comfortable!), the rest of the experience was not that great too. The decor was old and shabby, the food was a huge disappointment too (I know it's hard to get good food into a plane, but the train is not supposed to have this problem?) and while there were some spectacular views, I've seen a lot more industrial warehouses and heavy equipment storage than I'd enjoy. So, the trip was quite a disappointment to me. From then on, it's either driving - when I can choose my own adventures - or flying, where I am getting to the point quickly and can have fun at the destination point instead.
Early in 2002, Disneyland cut its entertainment budget and laid me off, and my first wife got herself confined to a psych ward, in the process destroying our apartment and getting my lease terminated, so I noped out and decided to move clear across the country.
I took the train. Los Angeles to Newark. Three days. I can't really imagine doing it today, because I'm like everyone else here, a whiny little prissy bitch. But back then, I shared a two-bedroom place with three other guys, slept in my car all the time, was used to an hourly job with no consistent schedule. Without any expectation of luxury or customer service, it was a pretty nice experience. My back was healthier then, too, so sleeping in coach wasn't a big deal. The great thing about taking Amtrak is the rail line didn't create towns the way highways do. You're truly remote for much of the ride. You're not seeing the "Americana" America you see on road trips. You're seeing the natural country. Following the Susquehanna River through Pennsylvania was my favorite part of the trip.
It was also amusing when the FBI questioned me in Albuquerque, as they apparently flagged anyone taking a long one-way trip after 9/11. 21 year-old aimless drifter with no plans dressed like Hunter Thompson. I don't even remember what I told them. Don't ever wanna go home, I guess, but you can check my bags and see I don't have a bomb.
These routes can be 70, 80 hours of runtime with only brief stops for a crew change
If something breaks it stays broken until the train can be serviced. I actually lack experience in clogging or unclogging Amtrak toilets so I don't know what must be done to keep them in service
Each superliner has multiple toilets in the lower level, most seats are upstairs but there are lower level seats particularly for folks who are not able to navigate stairs for whatever reason or just people who prefer the peace of not having people walk back and forth through the car (only the upper levels are connected by vestibule)
So anyway if you have a seat in the lower level you're down the hall from the toilets, and 2 or 3 days in the clogged toilets just stay clogged and it reaks
IDK how Amtrak does it, but on some European trains, crews will board a defective train for emergency repairs if necessary, and simply get off when done.
In 2015, we took the California Zephyr from Berkeley to Chicago and then (I forget which train) from Chicago to Washington D.C. The connection was pretty smooth. Met a friend in Chicago for drinks for a few hours while we waited for the DC train to depart.
I remember loading up ebooks, podcasts, etc, just in case I was “bored.”
No joke, I sat in the parlor car staring out at the landscape for 3 straight days!
It was absolutely glorious.
One fun thing (“fun”, depending on your perspective) is that you’re paired with random strangers at dinner.
The first night, I am telling the couple across from me how “awesome and civilized” this felt and it was nice not to have to deal with the bullshittery of TSA agents at airports.
They politely coughed and I knew instantly I screwed up.
Sleeping in coach is awful. There's an untapped revenue source in auctioning off empty sleepers to people already on the train.
Before they changed their booking systems about 10 years ago, you could always get on the train with a coach ticket and ask the conductor if any roomettes would be free all night, and they'd negotiate a token price with you. I'd even haggle for one during the day for a long nap after a sleepless night in observation watching movies on my laptop.
St. Louis to D.C. in the winter is nice by train, especially during a snow storm. My route went to Chicago then through Pennsylvania and down to D.C. if I recall correctly.
The positive aspects described in the story are all fine and nice.
You just have to know that the author almost certainly left out the heavy downsides of the journey, which would have been the totally unpredictable, frustrating, hours-long (maybe even good-part-of-a-day) delays along the route where Amtrak is stuck waiting for freight trains on rails that it does not own.
Unfortunately a few hours of scenery isn't worth the overall frustration at the state of US rail in my opinion.
As it happens, I have another tab open at this very moment, watching the Steve Wallis Step 2 channel's latest video, "Amtrak Across America with Steve".
It's..... it's quite an interesting perspective. All the little incidental stuff, the copious announcements from the staff, certainly add color to the story.
I just watched that video last night! The weird thing is, I'm pretty sure (based on the weather and the delay he experienced) that the Chicago-Seattle leg of his trip happened just a couple days before I made the same trip. It seemed like he didn't enjoy his trip as much as the author of this article did.
If you like this genre I would highly recommend checking out Downey Live yt channel. He has documented a lot of cross country train trips in north america.
My family went across the country on Amtrak, from Sacramento one York, in 1991. Was an incredible experience, and I have a lot of formative memories from the time.
Half of college I'd take the Crescent from Philadelphia to Atlanta, then back at the end.
It was great -- you could bring on as much as you could carry (I brought a beanbag chair my junior year) and the food was always good. You meet some incredible people on Amtrak.
Being in SF now I've wanted to check out the Amtrak scene to do some West Coast exploring!
I found the experience of getting the ticket a little bit confusing. I was in San Francisco and heard mixed things about the train to San Diego. I wasn't exactly sure about where and when would the train leave as well, so I just took a plane. I do want to take a trip in a train though, I quite like trains.
We have lots of commuter trains near large cities in the US. Many people who work in NYC, Chicago, Washington DC, and the like take commuter trains into and out of these cities from surrounding towns and cities. The issue is outside these big metro centers, most of the US isn't as densely populated to make this feasible.
I think by international standards the idea that American cities usually have trains is not right. Basically there are five urban agglomerations with useful train service in America and the other cities have one train a day (that may depart at 2am) or, usually, no trains. Can you get from Dallas to Tulsa by train? Absolutely not. But a city the population of Tulsa would have several trains per hour if it was in Switzerland or France or Japan.
The real situation is closer to "none" than "lots".
You can fly into Denver and take the Zephyr west, and you'll get all the best scenery right off the bat, at the right time of day, and end in California, where you can then catch a train along the coast, to a city with a big airport and cheap flights home.
Get yourself a roomette. It provides most of the comfort, glamor, and privacy of the experience, along with the dining car access. It's expensive, but consider it an investment in a once in a lifetime experience (I probably wouldn't do it again until I retire).
The rest - the observation car - is nice, but you will have slightly annoying interactions there, and if you're going through a popular area, may have to jockey for a timed spot in the car. Coach is just depressing and uninteresting, with extremely grimy windows that are blocked half the time. They have now added rules to prevent people from sitting in the cafe car unless they're eating something they bought in the cafe car, so say goodbye to working on your laptop with a nice view.
Don't expect any connectivity on the train. Expect to be offline. Expect to spend about every other hour in the good parts of the trip just staring out the window; don't expect to work. And do talk to your neighbors.
If you want to become envious, he's also on Twitter - https://x.com/seatsixtyone - where he posts beautiful journeys. Just a shame it's all so expensive compared to flights!