you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 158 points 1 year ago (27 children)

Why not just take the High Speed Rail and get there in 45 minutes instead?

  • source
  • hideshow 27 child comments
  • [–] 138 points 1 year ago (6 children)
  • [–] 79 points 1 year ago (3 children)

    Hey now, don't knock the Big Boy. He could reach 80mph, that's much faster than most of our rail in the US.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 38 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Oh, I'm just kidding. I've only gotten to see 4014 up close once but man is it impressive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 1 year ago* (6 children)

    I looked at taking a train from Albuquerque to Denver for a concert, the trip takes 2-3 days and goes from Albuquerque toto Chicago to Denver and one way cost more than a round trip flight. For reference, it is a 7ish hour drive.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 1 year ago (4 children)

    Their long hauls are definitely more vacation based, where the ride is part of the journey - and if you're not into that then I get how you feel. Amtrak has been doing a great job at refocusing on corridors. The east coast obviously, then they're working hard on a few key ones like:

    • Minneapolis to Chicago
    • Portland-Seattle-Vancouver
    • California corridor
    • Eventually, here's hoping, the Frontrange: Pueblo-Colorado Springs-Denver-Fort Collins-Cheyenne.

    Those are all shorter trips that don't make much sense to fly with how short it is, and with a few daily trips makes traveling between those cities much easier. Personally those are much better usages of Amtrak's time. I've taken the Portland-Seattle-Vancouver one multiple times and it's so much nicer than driving - but it's max 4 hours.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 1 year ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago*

    Their long hauls are definitely more vacation based, where the ride is part of the journey

    I get that, but I was looking for an alternative to driving 14 hours round trip. Even if the trip took 7 hours each way, I am not driving it. But to go from 7 hours to 45 hours is insane. For a show on the 5th of November in Denver I have to leave Albuquerque on the 3rd, then leave Denver on the 6th to get back home on the 8th. $171 for the cheap seats each way.

  • source
  • parent
  • I live near SLC and go get to San Francisco is about 18 hours, and that's a straight shot. Coach costs about $120, each way, which is about the same price as a non-budget airline. There's only one train each day and it runs from midnight to about 6PM the next day.

    By car it's about 11 hours and about 2 hours by airplane.

    So it's:

    • slower
    • not cheaper, perhaps more expensive if you don't mind budget flights
    • less flexible - one train/day in most cases

    There are tons of places I just can't get to, like Las Vegas.

    If I was retired or something when spending more time was totally fine, I'd consider taking the train. But as it stands, it's just not a practical option unless the train is the destination.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 16 points 1 year ago (10 children)

    idk if I want to ride a train that goes at Mach 2.3 personally.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (8 children)

    I'll wait until it's proven, then I'll go find a g suit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 1 year ago (6 children)

    That's gonna be a while. Current speed record from what I see for passenger trains is around 350 miles per hour. The quick math I did for getting from NYC to Miami in 45 minutes needed like 1,700mph. From what I'm seeing even the experimental stuff right now doesn't get above 400mph.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 1 year ago (3 children)
  • [–] 2 points 1 year ago (2 children)

    Laughs in supercruise

    Concorde is a tailless aircraft design with a narrow fuselage permitting four-abreast seating for 92 to 128 passengers, an ogival delta wing, and a droop nose for landing visibility. It is powered by four Rolls-Royce/Snecma Olympus 593 turbojets with variable engine intake ramps, and reheat for take-off and acceleration to supersonic speed. Constructed from aluminium, it was the first airliner to have analogue fly-by-wire flight controls. The airliner had transatlantic range while supercruising at twice the speed of sound for 75% of the distance.[5]

    The fastest transatlantic airliner flight was from New York JFK to London Heathrow on 7 February 1996, aided by a 175 mph (282 km/h) tailwind, by the British Airways G-BOAD, in 2 hours, 52 minutes, 59 seconds from take-off to touchdown.[227] On 13 February 1985, a Concorde charter flight flew from London Heathrow to Sydney in a time of 17 hours, 3 minutes and 45 seconds, including refuelling stops.[228][229]

    Supercruise is sustained supersonic flight of a supersonic aircraft without using afterburner. Many supersonic military aircraft are not capable of supercruise and can maintain Mach 1+ flight only in short bursts with afterburners. Aircraft such as the SR-71 Blackbird are designed to cruise at supersonic speed with afterburners enabled.

    Some fighter jets are capable of supercruise but only at high altitudes and in a clean configuration, so the term may imply "a significant increase in effective combat speed with a full weapons load over existing types".[1] One of the pre-eminent military examples of supercruise is the F-22 Raptor, for which supercruise was defined as "the ability to cruise at speeds of one and a half times the speed of sound or greater without the use of afterburner for extended periods in combat configuration."[2]

    One of the best-known examples of an aircraft capable of supercruise, and the only notable non-military example, was the Concorde. Due to its long service as a commercial airliner, the Concorde holds the record for the most time spent supersonic; more than all other western aircraft combined.[3]

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments