[jackcosgrove]

I have investigated taking Amtrak for a family trip to do something different. "The journey is the destination" or something like that. I was branding it "slow travel" to the family so we could use it as a sort of modern life/digital detox. I also looked into a trans-Atlantic passage on the QM2.

I'm sad to report that renting a family bedroom or two joined bedrooms on Amtrak to take a journey on say the California Zephyr didn't pencil out. It is costlier than flying (about $2000 vs $1600 at the low end for both options, resp.) Even if you account for the cost of staying two extra nights at the destination it about breaks even.

With children I don't want to risk the days of travel becoming an ordeal as opposed to hours of flight time. The "digital detox" might quickly go sideways and require hours of screentime pacifiers. Maybe when they are older.

Happily the QM2 actually made financial sense and there would be more room to move about and explore the ship.

I think rail travel makes the most sense in the Acela context the article opened with - routes between cities that take less than a day. For cross-continent travel the time savings of air travel make rail travel a harder case to argue.

[manquer]

The point of cross continent rail travel is not being cheaper than air at all, it is about seeing and enjoying the country and the route, there is no easier or cheaper way to do that.

- A road trip would be both more expensive (fuel, hotels and maintenance/rental), strenuous and also less safe given the number of miles to be driven.

- There is quite little to see in a cruise if not near a shore or on a plane flying at cruising altitudes well above the clouds.

While times have changed and it is lot harder for parents now, I cannot help but remember growing up the number of cross country train trips just sitting at the window with nothing but a book/magazine or conversations with passengers and it was formative life experience even when quite young. It wasn't that long ago and my generation was just as addicted to tech but we were limited to doing that only on a desktop with a modem.

---

If you want to see and show the kids to help them understand the size and complex geography and beauty of the country they will inherit despite what limited time screen distractions allow, I don't think there is any better way to do it.

[bluGill]

> The point of cross continent rail travel is not being cheaper than air at all, it is about seeing and enjoying the country and the route, there is no easier or cheaper way to do that.

Amtrak isn't useful for that. For see the continent you need to get off the train for a few hours here and there to see something. That means flexible tickets; more trains so you don't have to spend a day in a small town with 3 hours entertainment, and enough space that you can make a last minute decision to see some little tourist trap for the fun of it knowing you can get the next train.

> A road trip would be both more expensive (fuel, hotels and maintenance/rental),

Very much it depends. If you are single Amtrak is cheaper (coach seats). a family is a lot cheaper to drive, since most of the costs are fixed for everyone. You likely own the car and so are making payments anyway. Gas is the same for 1 person or a full car. Hotels are rented per room. My last trip I needed a rental car to get to the family reunion 1 hour from the station, just the cost of a rental car would have paid for gas and hotel to drive my own car (the strenuous miles is why we took the train anyway, but it was more expensive than driving)

> There is quite little to see in a cruise if not near a shore

I've never been on that type of cruise (they exist, just not what I've been on). What I've been on the sea days were near shore taking in the beautiful scenery (you don't take an Alaska cruise for the ports, you take the cruise to watch the shore on sea days), or the ship hopes between islands at night and so you are at a port all day (though next time I think I'd get a resort and stay on one island). Beware.

Amtrak is often a great choice to get around. However there are problems and they are not to be overlooked.

[manquer]

> the continent you need to get off the train

I can only say your understanding of Amtrak offerings are very inaccurate.

Amtrak offers plenty of trips with kind of features you are asking for https://www.amtrakvacations.com/travel-styles/cross-country-...

For example the NYC to SF is an itinerary goes like this https://www.amtrakvacations.com/trips/great-american-majesti....

It is a 12 day one way trip that includes plenty of overnight non train stays(i.e. hotels), full day sight seeing stops etc .

You can mix local car rentals to take extended side trips add much longer breaks with hop-on/hop off if you plan to do so.

There are national park themed trips specifically, or number of great regional options or other cross country journeys like LA to NOLA etc.

It will be never be perfect exact fit to your specific tastes and needs, no public transit can ever be,. However that doesn't mean it is not a great option for a traveling family vacation with sight seeing and breaks, where you can actually spend quality time with the family rather than just looking straight at the road all day, while everyone else is on the phone.

[hamdingers]

Cross country rail journeys will always be the domain of weirdo railfans (I say, having ridden many of them many times). Flying is just too economical past the first few hundred miles.

However, we live along the Surfliner route, and for weekend trips it's fantastic. It's a 1-3 hour penalty versus driving depending on which city we're going to, but the kids vastly prefer it because they're not strapped in and we can all interact.

[ianburrell]

The US should focus on medium speed rail (100-155mph). It is easier to upgrade existing track than build new high speed track. There are lots of routes that aren't worth doing for HSR but would be at slower speed.

Good example is the Amtrak Cascades which reaches 80mph. The rolling stock can reach 125 mph. High speed rail would be nice, but Portland, Seattle, Vancouver may not be big enough to support it.

[bluGill]

I disagree. The US should focus on those routes that there is ample reason to believe there would be high demand for true high speed rail (280km/h average speed including stops). DC to Boston Via NYC for example: there is every reason to believe this could pay for itself running 8 trains per hour all day. Once we have that there are lots of other cities that can be connected and as the network grows the whole becomes more useful. East of the Mississippi the US is about as densely populated as Europe.

If you already have a route in place using that is cheaper, but often you are stuck with decisions that made sense in 1850 when trains didn't go very fast. Where you are building new track is should always be build to 350km/h standards (you run at 300km/h, but build to a higher standard just in case you need to run fast to make up time at the cost of efficiency). There are many towns with populations of 50,000 or so people that you wouldn't build new track too, but if there is existing track running slower trains make sense.

[Gud]

Only in a country with dysfunctional rail infrastructure.

[rsynnott]

The US is physically big enough that coast to coast would probably always be a fairly niche pursuit. New York to SF, say, is about 4700km. At 300km/h, assuming no stops, that is 15 hours. Most people won't want to do that.

Seattle to SF, however, is only about 1300km, so a bit over 4 hours under ideal conditions. At that point, it's probably quicker than a plane (no need for the whole getting to and from the airport thing, or the security, or the inevitable delays).

[DrewADesign]

These days, being in the flying sardine tin often beats out train travel. With more adoption, I’ll bet the price difference will be closer. The comfort factor alone means I’ll take the train over flying if it’s feasible, every time. Even coach on the northeast regional is so much nicer than flying, and you’re usually a lot closer to where you actually want to be when you get off.

[bluGill]

Depends on where you are going - for my family vacation a sleeper for 4 is cheaper than flying by a lot (i live in a high priced air travel city, I would money driving to chicago despite the higher parking costs). However I have 5 people going and so it does't work out. (It doesn't help that amtrak dosen't suggest options like 2 rooms)

We went coach amtrak which was cheaper and more comfortable than flying. I'd do that again.

[FooBarBizBazz]

Amtrak would benefit from a coach-class sleeper, like they have in India or in Eastern Europe. They just need coach benches that convert to beds. If, for a reasonable price, you could lie flat at night behind a little curtain, like you can in e.g. Indian Railways 2nd Class, it would change the game completely. Without that, you can only travel comfortably during the day, and trips are limited to about eight hours for the non-masochist. With it, cross country would be fine. It doesn't seem that hard. Lots of other railways do it.

[bluGill]

Amtrak coach seats don't lay flat, but they are not far off. Most people find them plenty comfortable.

[FooBarBizBazz]

Oh, don't get me wrong, during the day it's the most comfortable way to travel. But the ability to lie flat, even in fare classes that aren't too fancy, like they have in India, counts for a lot when you're traveling overnight.

[HankStallone]

I've thought trains are cool ever since I was a kid reading about the Silver Streak and the Orient Express, so every now and then I look into travelling by train. Unfortunately, Amtrak is like someone was tasked with making train travel as inconvenient and expensive as possible to make the idea of state-funded rail look bad. It's so bad someone wrote a book about it, called "Derailed."

[nenenejej]

Yes. Perhaps it makes more sense for people "travelling" i.e. exploring the world where the fact that it is a nights accommodation too makes it a savings and speed is not an issue.