There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did it anyway

Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ... by tzs on Thursday March 21, 2019 @12:45PM (#19454404)

I'm not sure that is the right comparison. Let's take a New York to Los Angeles trip.

That would be 3 days on Amtrak, or about 6 hours by plane.

I'd guess that for most cases flying instead of taking the train doesn't mean we spend the 6 days that we would have spent on the train (round trip) in a Los Angeles hotel eating expensive restaurant meals. I think most people would simply leave home later and leave Los Angeles earlier if flying, so that the time difference is spent at home eating whatever they normally eat.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ... by cjensen on Thursday March 21, 2019 @02:05PM (#19455406)

My base assumption is that one goes on Amtrak for the scenery. So it's not at all like being at home; it's more like being at a scenic resort.

Note that some people use Amtrak because they are afraid of flying. This way of looking at the prices does not apply to them.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:There is no reason to cross the U.S. by train, but I did ... by ghaff on Thursday March 21, 2019 @03:42PM (#19456436)

The scenery, the experience, and (while I don't really like the term) the "bucket list" nature of it.

Personally, I sort of want to do at least a section of the Empire Builder or the California Zephyr at some point. And I'd also like to take a transatlantic liner (well, the Queen Mary 2) from NY to Southampton. But probably only once and I'm fully prepared for the idea to be more enticing than the reality.

[ Parent | on HN ]