• sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    2 days ago

    I wish they’d upgrade their long haul routes to go faster. There’s one from SLC to SF I’m interested in, but it takes 18 hours, vs 11 by car or 2 by plane. If it was faster than driving, I’d consider it to avoid the airport.

    I don’t blame them for focusing on the easier trips though.

    • Scrubbles@poptalk.scrubbles.tech
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Same, but with the limited funding I get why. Shorter trips like that make money, long hauls don’t - and since they don’t own the tracks they can’t even upgrade them or begin to do anything. I will say 18 is a lot (especially in a coach seat), but there is a positive of not having to drive. I usually take my steam deck and just zone out. Overnights though are tough in coach, for that you really have to want to be there.

      • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        2 days ago

        Yeah, if I want to go anywhere interesting, it would be an overnight trip, with kids. A sleeping room is way too expensive, so it’s a nonstarter. If it was 3x the speed, it would probably be fine, especially if they left in the morning instead of the evening.

        So yeah, the only train I take is the commuter, and only to go to the airport because there’s no connection from the train to my work (there’s a way to get there, but the trip would take 2 hours each way). The commuter can’t go very fast because it has to stop every 5-10 miles, but it’s fine since it goes about as fast as a car.

        So yeah, here’s hoping Amtrak can make enough on the east coast to be able to upgrade the west coast.