748
A leisurely trip
(media.piefed.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
748 points (97.0% liked)
People Twitter
8289 readers
1301 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.