I took a cross-country train trip!

I took a train! Here are my thoughts!
And don't you come for Amtrak. Let's be proud of the things we've built and nurture them - not destroy them.

[@TechnologyConnextras]

(edited a second time) The day I uploaded this there was a derailment on the Empire Builder. I had a comment up here about how awkward that was, but now it seems weird without the context so... replies under this are probably all kinds of weird!

[@Qsie]

It'll still be fun hearing yours!

[@atari2600b]

Hey come on, if we don't make fun of it all the time every time there won't be incentivisation for Joe Biden to hedge funding into an infrastructure bill

[@John_Notmylastname]

Sir, I am living vicariously through you in this video as I also have had the yearning to take a cross country train trip. It would scratch that itch. I’m here for the scenery !

[@way2tired2]

What if I think highly of Amtrak?

[@atari2600b]

@@way2tired2 it means you've never left the country or if you did you took a cab & had an itinerary.

[@vadimmartynyuk]

Wish train travel in U.S. was more affordable and popular

[@quintessenceSL]

Did a two dayish trip on train and with waaayyy in advance booking it was at least not obnoxious (cheaper than business class but not as cheap as coach on a plane). Standard fare, no sleeper (which was more than adequate). The sense of relief compared to the franticness of airports was certainly worth the extra cash.

[@gajbooks]

Apparently a large part of it has to do with how popular freight trains are on the given infrastructure. Lots easier to haul tons of steel and other raw materials. Reducing coal powerplants might weirdly have the effect of increasing profitability of rail transport by reducing demand, or it'll just get replaced with nuclear/renewable transport on trains, who knows.

[@silkyz68]

It really does. I hate flying, and wish trains were more prevalent

[@flametitan100]

Don't we all? The reliance of cars and air travel can be rather annoying sometimes.

[@christo930]

The US had a train system which was the envy of the world. It was cheap, fast, ran on time. It was the best and largest train system in the world. There was not a place in America you couldn't get to from any other place in America with only a minimal of transfers and at a low fare. But then we built the interstate highway system and it just could not compete with over the road truckers. It was freight that made the widespread passenger train system possible. Freight is what made it good business to keep all the tracks and keep them maintained and secured. Trains have a lot of downsides. Mostly because it doesn't go door to door unless you are on the route with train service. This severely limits where businesses could be. Trucks allow you to move away from expensive RE with train service and put in a cheap area and get your deliveries via truck. The train system collapsed in the 60s and 70s.

[@vaughanmccarthy6685]

Travelling long distances at ground level is like moving through a giant art gallery. Especially in the western United States and Canada. I've done a couple of trips of several thousand miles around these places, as well as in various directions across my own country, Australia, but I've always driven rather than taken the train. Your experience makes me want to go back to the USA and take a cross continent rail journey! Unfortunately, if you think rail is expensive in the USA, these days in Australia it's marketed more as a luxury experience and costs way more. It's simply unaffordable for most people on a bang-for-buck basis.

[@antibrevity]

"I've yet to see the interstate highway system turn a profit, but people seem insistent that Amtrak has to." Thanks for the video and tour! I support pretty much anything that promotes train travel and improvement in the U.S. I'm not sold on spending a trillion on bullet trains, but I definitely support building up the trains and track necessary for trains that are merely fast ;).

[@Netro1992]

All those trillions should be used in making intracity transit actually functional, because the intercity transit doesn't matter if I have to use a car regardless. Then you can make whatever other silly plan you want to make. As in, the transit people, not you specifically.

[@kidthorazine]

They never talk that way about the military either funnily enough.

[@user-hk5fo1nm9h]

A trillion isn't much for things you will use for decades. I don't know if I would take trips unless flights just stopped, as they probably should. There's a sweet spot for sustainability with trains and that's probably what we should aim for.

[@dorvinion]

Here's the difference. Per passenger mile traveled, the subsidy for interstate highways is almost a rounding error. Were it not for government's inherent tendency to eff things up and pay double the cost for half the quality, excise taxes on fuel at their current rates would in fact result in a profit for the government. As it is, the interstates require less than 1 cent per passenger mile subsidy, to say nothing of all the freight being moved along them. Amtrak typically requires a 50-100% subsidy per passenger, depending on the line. Basically if your Amtrak ticket costs you say $400, taxpayers are picking up an additional $200-400 to run that train. A couple lines the subsidy is even more than that. They are so awful at operating trains that Amtrak's dining cars, despite a captive customer base, lose buttloads of money. Amtrak easily needs 25 cents or more of subsidy for every mile they transport a passenger. This is the very definition of government boondoggle.

[@user-hk5fo1nm9h]

@@dorvinion Factor emissions into it, then check those numbers again. And we all agree amtrack is badly run but that's less because government is broken and more because it's both not a social priority and because corporate and special interests, which are no more efficient, endlessly sabotage these things. If governments in europe can pull of a train system then clearly we can as well. Also a train system is all one package while you're comparing it to just the highways themselves and not the cars or any of the other infrastructure.

[@djackmanson]

Something I like about long-distance train travel is how you get a real sense of the distance in a country. A few years ago I travelled from Melbourne to Sydney and back by train. That's about an 11 hour trip each way by train, and an hour flight. But the flight is so disconnected from the terrain that you can easily forget just what a long journey it is, and how many different geographical regions you pass through.

[@tk_2378]

That's true but more for the slow trains. 600 km/h trains don't really take longer than plains and no airport trouble.

[@brixan...]

Sounds more like something you like about long-distance "land" travel...? This applies to cars as well, maybe even more so

[@Jablicek]

The night train takes an hour longer because the tracks have been allowed to degrade over time. Trains were faster in the 1930s than now. It gets worse once you leave the mainline. Edit for clarity: at night visibility is far less, and so drivers maintain a slower speed.

[@stiannobelisto573]

If you have flown all over the world, then you have not really traveled, flying ruins the entire experience of exploring

[@TalesOfWar]

@@Jablicek Sounds more like crappy, outdated signalling more than the actual tracks being the issue there, though of course both are likely true lol.

[@DmitriiMaslov]

What I love about long-distance trains is that you can take as much luggage as you want. You also can sleep in a bed an eat in a dining car - the luxury not available in air travel. About ten years ago I travelled by train all across Russia from north to south. Watching how different nature of your country is from tundra to palms is magnificient!

[@DGaryGrady]

Dmitri, I've never visited Russia but I've read that the track gauge is a good deal wider than Europe or the U.S. and the trains consequently more comfortable even when they're older. Is that your experience?

[@DmitriiMaslov]

@@DGaryGrady gauge here is not *that* wider, it's just 42 mm difference. I had no chance to compare our and us/european trains, but I definetely like when the train is more modern. Like when there are USB chargers, bio toilets and so on.

[@DGaryGrady]

@@DmitriiMaslov Thanks! I wasn't thinking about the chargers; that's getting to be vital.

[@cr10001]

@@DGaryGrady I don't think the track gauge has much to do with it - Russian gauge is 5 foot, European/US gauge is 4' 8.5", Spanish gauge is 5'6". The steadiness of the ride has more to do with the quality of the track alignment. But I think comfort has more to do with space than ride quality. The Russian loading gauge (that is, the size that train cars are allowed to be) is enormous compared with European standards (and so is much of the US I believe). This means that Russian passenger carriages are huge and have vast headroom - very spacious. (My experience was sharing a 4-berth second-class sleeping compartment on the 'Rossiya' from Vladivostok to Moscow i.e. the Trans-Siberian. Extremely comfortable and smooth ride. Note that this was a single-deck carriage (not double-deck like the Amtrak shown) so our compartment had full headroom and was the full width of the carriage (minus the corridor). So much headroom that we didn't even bother to fold up the top bunks during the day, you could sit on the bottom bunk and stand up with no risk of banging your head on the top bunk). But then German/French/British main lines tend to be very smooth also, though not as spacious as the 'Rossiya'. I'd guess that in all countries you can find uncomfortable crammed carriages (suburban rush hour) and comfortable main line trains.

[@DGaryGrady]

@@cr10001 Many thanks for correcting my misapprehension and providing interesting additional information!

[@vwestlife]

I wonder if people remember how toll roads were only supposed to charge tolls until they paid for their construction, and then they were supposed to become free? How'd that work out for us?

[@Pdor_figlio_di_Kmer]

You mean over there it's different from here, where you pay *forever?*

[@Petzel_KZ9ZAP]

It worked out for Kentucky. They freed the last of their extensive toll road system about 10 years ago. But your point is taken that this is not the norm.

[@oliversnow]

Works great in Washington State.

[@brixan...]

Shouldn't we be paying for the road? It's going to need maintenance with us driving these giant machines on it

[@Pdor_figlio_di_Kmer]

@@brixan... Pay for the maintenance WHEN A MAINTENANCE EXISTS. Hereabout, Italy, there are roads, even high-speed ones, for which you pay... to play "avoid the hole" for all your travel, and if you win, you won't have a need to control the state of your car's suspensions afterwards. If you lose... well...

[@joshlikescola]

If Amtrak can get some dedicated passenger lines (even just by widening freight corridors) between key regional cities, they can run a fast, frequent daytime service between them, while also providing a faster line for the sleepers to go on. The counter-intuitive thing with trains is that the slower they are, the more expensive they are to run (this is because rolling stock can't do as many trips, staff need to be paid for time, etc). I think for the US, full HSR is probably too big a leap in many areas, but 125mph upgraded lines seems like a much more achieveable goal. If you can achieve that speed consistently, you'd be surprised just how fast you can get to places! In the UK we upgraded a lot of our network in a more piecemeal fashion and we have something that is pretty damn competitive and attracts very good ridership, despite a pretty consistent high level of neglect by government. We're now starting to hit the limits of this, hence the construction of a proper high speed rail backbone, which is proving very politically contensious (especially as the UK environmental movement seems to hate it, contrary to basically all other environmentalists in the world), but having that actual high level of ridership at least helps to build a better political case for it happening. Absolutely agree on economies of scale, Amtrak is really stuck in a bind until it gets a decent base of infrastructure where it can run a lot of service from day one.

[@mattsnyder4754]

This is exactly what Amtrak is starting/trying to do. They have a “kind of” high speed line servicing the northeast. I’d imagine they’ll expand it if it’s successful.

[@Croz89]

There's been a controversial plan to drop most of the long distance sleeper services in favour of improving regional connectivity between large cities. And I can see where it's coming from. Realistically, Chicago to LA doesn't attract that many riders, and arguably never will. There would probably be a lot more benefit to increasing frequency and decreasing journey time between LA and San Diego, or Dallas and Houston, which could pull thousands or even tens of thousands off congested highways every day, rather than take a few dozen off a plane.

[@joshlikescola]

@@Croz89 I agree it would be a better use of resources, but the sleepers enable Amtrak to cover quite a lot of states, so therefore are useful as a political tool! I totally agree any extra investment should go to shorter routes, similar to the Surfliner, NEC, Cascades. I think the Midwest could absolutely benefit from a more frequent Amtrak service connecting those cities.

[@taiwanluthiers]

The US is far too in love with automobiles for this to happen. One reason why rail travel is such a mess in the US is because let's face it, if you wanted to get somewhere over land you'd drive your car there. Then big auto lobbies make sure it stays this way so interstates gets clogged due to all the driving. Even China has a huge network of proper high speed rails between major cities... If anything the US needs more rail travel because railroads can carry far more than a 6 lane highway ever will. It's a shame as the US used to be the world leader in rail travel.

[@vitkosbence3705]

@@taiwanluthiers I mean really the problem isn't just "the rail network is bad" but rather the problem is that public transportation as a whole is bad, and GM and friends want to make sure it stays that way. Traveling by car has the obvious advantage, that when you arrive, you have a car. From what I see as an outsider even when you don't have car in the US (cause you might have traveled by plane) you still "hire" a car in one way or another (taxi, uber, rental). Where I live you travel by train, then at the station you instantly hop on a bus that takes you to within 500m of your destination. Until public transport in the US gets to that level, traveling by car will always be the superior option, no matter how good the railway is. Planes are just so much faster than cars, that people easily make the sacrifice of "no car", but trains can't really hope to achieve that, within reasonable expectations from the US.

[@NotJustBikes]

This was really interesting; thanks for sharing. I've taken a lot of sleeper trains, but I've never seen one that's a double-decker. But I guess those couldn't exist in Europe because of the height clearance. I think what a lot of people don't understand is that the sleeper train isn't exactly like an airplane: it's not _just_ the transportation, taking the sleeper train _is_ the vacation (or at least, part of the vacation). It's a great way to relax and watch the scenery go by, while saving on the cost of a hotel. I remember when my wife and I took the train from Moscow to Beijing, even after 5½ days on the train we were disappointed to get to our destination, because it was so enjoyable! Unfortunately with Amtrak costs, delays, and a lack of frequency, it's really hard to get Americans (who are already culturally negative about "public transit") to appreciate taking the train.

[@blueworldadam]

I fucking love you channel

[@electrictroy2010]

Amtrak is great if you live within walking distance of a station. Otherwise it’s damned inconvenient versus taking a car for short/medium trips (or airplane for long trips)

[@nickkomlev687]

Double-deckers do exist in europe, even in Russia, they are just too rare at the moment, cause not every popular route is popular enough to justify their use.

[@mmmk9966]

Yes! So much of it is just the cultural resistance to, like, the IMPLICATION of what public transit means. So many americans would rather be miserable than the possibility that someone might think they're poor.

[@donkmeister]

@@nickkomlev687 As you say, double-deckers do exist in Europe, but the loading gauge means they aren't two full-decks. Something like the TGV Duplex carriages has two decks, but at the expense of reduced headroom (especially at the sides on the top deck, as it curves over). It's fine when you're sitting down but you wouldn't be able to put bunk beds in a top-deck cabin, for example. The Shuttle that runs between England and France has a massive loading gauge, even bigger than these double-deck Amtrak trains. Sometimes when I take my car on the (le) Shuttle I end up in the single-deck cars that can take double-decker coaches, it's cavernous. But that's at the expense of being able to run on a very limited piece of track between two stations in Kent and Calais.

[@michaelimbesi2314]

The ocean being gray is pretty normal. It’s haze. That’s why Navy ships are painted that gray color. It’s called Haze Gray and it camouflages the ship with the haze making it harder to see. Back in the days before radar, when spotting a ship was entirely visual, it meant that gray ships were harder to see at long range and thus much harder to hit in a battle.

[@HappyBeezerStudios]

And then comes dazzle camouflage

[@zeruty]

@@HappyBeezerStudios that sounds fabulous

[@bcubed72]

@@HappyBeezerStudios I know what that was, and why it existed, but it _sounds like_ Liberace got appointed Chief of Naval Operations!

[@artful1967]

This old seadog will refer you to a colour camo for ships called "Mountbatten pink"

[@Gunny1971]

@@bcubed72 HAHA, thanks for the chuckle, great mental Image.

[@urself25]

"I'm not a train person", said the guy who made videos on People Movers 😂

[@Banditxam4]

The reason he's not a train person real train persons don't own a car they travel absolutely everywhere with trains and live in a train friendly country \ region

[@jek__]

@@Banditxam4 Saying you can't be a train person because you live in the US is like saying you can't be a person who appreciates wide open spaces because you live in Europe. Thats just silly.

[@letmecringe]

Technically People Movers aren't trains in standard meaning

[@cocok.291]

Honestly this multi night train ride sounds like a lovely experience for me. I generally dont like traveling, but being "in transit" is a very relaxing experience for me bc there is no pressure to do anything. I love riding streetcars and this seems like a bigger version of that.

[@xSwordLilyx]

I agree so much, I enjoy riding a quiet bus with my bf, early, leaning on his shoulder, bar the mass of people possibly too close. This seems positively romantic and relaxing. It's like a road trip as a kid; nothing to worry about save packing your bag. I would probably pack a sewing project, laptop, and absolutely my kindle and have a blast. As a migrsineur, travel can cause migraines or discomfort from anything from cramped quarters (I also have a bladder condition so that gets carsick as well), inconsistent mealtimes, lack of rest, so a traditional roadtrip is very hard on me (though taking the RV and a nap was always welcome). Hot meals and a place to sleep, access to exercise and sitting positions ither than L? Count me in! I am assuming there is a conducter making sure the experience is enjoyable so the bus anxiety aspect could hardly apply.

[@WyvernYT]

I've said before that the Amtrak Superliner isn't like a giant bus, it's more like a small narrow cruise ship. You'd probably enjoy it a lot.

[@STho205]

@@WyvernYT cruise ship is the proper analogy but a very tight wobbly one. In this example trip if you took this train, got off and immediately boarded the return train....you have spend 8 days on the rails. If you have a real job, that's 89% your entire year's accrued vacation. You, the chair, the window, the lady advertising the concession car....occasionally broken up by a tight bumpy walk to said car to sit on McDonald's seats and eat hotdog stand food or drink from a plastic cup. If it was luxurious like 1920s trains....but those days are long passed and the plebes didn't get that luxury even then.

[@wellyup7879]

I love Amtrak, but one criticism I've always had is that they're decorated/styled like a Post Office lobby. I get it, it's a government operation that is constrained by budget, but simple design choices would make the space onboard feel much more luxurious.

[@fluffycritter]

I love the antiquated government chic look, myself.

[@allisonstilley9536]

Amshacks are pretty good considering their design criteria: a standardized station building that's cheaper to operate and can be upgraded as traffic increases.

[@fredtaylor9792]

I think it's a great way to remind us of what the government has to offer.

[@danieleflorean7064]

yeah in western europe trains look waaaay more modern, this could have been one of ours in the '70s

[@wellyup7879]

@@fredtaylor9792 The government has a lot to offer. That same government built the world’s largest highway system, landed people on the moon, etc. I’ve visited federal buildings, parks, and monuments that are absolutely gorgeous and styled well, so they can manage Amtrak in a way that makes it a more attractive option for travelers. Like a lot of things with Amtrak, I just think it’s reflective of a lack of prioritization by politicians.

[@libermentis]

I love that you posted a video about your train trip! One of the things that I enjoy about train travel is that you get to see not only the open vistas, but also the more industrial and "backyard" perspectives of rural and urban environments that I think most people never see. I always end up spending more time looking out the window than I think I will ... it's mesmerizing and allows me to slow down and indulge all the thought tangents and musings that arise. I've also met some really interesting and wonderful people on my train journeys. I agree with you that we should invest more into the US rail system, and make it a more viable means of transit.

[@jeremyclegg3588]

I should point out a little bit about the pricing. While getting a room IS expensive, all meals are included with the room. So that's 5 meals included each way for the Chief. Possibly more if you get delayed.

[@RockMongler]

Sadly, it costs 3x as much and takes 4x as long compared to flying coach when I need to travel long distance to visit family. I even have a fairly direct route (Longview, TX to Pittsburgh, PA via Chicago). I might try it over a summer trip someday because I'll have time available for it and the experience itself sounds neat. But for a shorter Christmas trip or something, its so expensive in both time and monetary cost. It is nice that the food is included, though. A good thing to keep in mind.

[@laurencefraser]

@@RockMongler amusingly, airlines are as cheap as they are due to a combination of government subsidy and the slightly weird economics of making a plane flight pay for itself meaning that first class (or was it first + business class?) basically has to pay for the entire flight for it to be viable, so those tickets are priced so that it Does, Which in practice means that Economy class is almost pure profit for the airlines. Basically, the plain needs all the same, well, basically Everything but fuel and cheap food with and without economy class passengers, and economy class passengers cause a negligible increase in either of those things. The economics of Trains, on the other hand, don't work quite like that. Trains are an almost pure throughput calculation. The more people in a carriage, the more carriages to a train, the faster the train goes, the better in all cases. Fuel costs (ideally Electricity to minimize them) go up with mass, capacity goes up with volume, etc. But trains are Stupidly Efficient, so the more passengers can be jammed into a single train, the more the ticket price drops. On the other hand, every added luxury in a given carriage is not just something you have to pay for, it's also less people in that carriage, and thus that train... Also, a train's speed is capped by track conditions. High speed rail requires suitable track. the goods lines Amtrack mostly runs on? they're Really, Really not.

[@taiwanluthiers]

@@laurencefraser Problem is Amtrak can't possibly put that many people on a train... lots of people rather fly if they have to go long distance or drive their own cars. So they have to somehow charge more due to the much smaller market, and the result is high prices with poor service. That and the lack of government subsidies.

[@madcrowmaxwell]

@@RockMongler On the other hand, it takes only slightly longer and (after you factor in gas, hotels, and meals) is somewhat cheaper than driving. Which is honestly what the real competition is.

[@SebisRandomTech]

@@RockMongler Hello from Pittsburgh!

[@nicholasgad]

Thank you for this video Alec. I wanted to take a sleeper train from Florida to Chicago when I visited the US in 2010. But at $950 per person for 2.5 days, vs $99 for a 5h flight... hence thanks for taking the financial hit instead!

[@TheNerd484]

18:25 Superliners are run on the east coast, just not north of DC. the autotrain, which goes between Lorton, VA and Sanford, FL uses superliners. Also, the same cars are used on return trips. they just take a couple hours to do housekeeping.

[@GreenBlueWalkthrough]

Yeah, I've seen them in northeast Florida.

[@janmelantu7490]

The Capitol Limited also runs Superliners, as it doesn’t go thru either of the Penn Stations (NYC and Baltimore).

[@mattsnyder4754]

That auto train is sneakily one of the best ways to get to Florida.

[@Croz89]

I used to think the US long distance rail system was universally rubbish, but I've realised it works pretty well for what it's designed for, and that is not for passengers, but freight. The US moves more goods by rail than anywhere else on earth, but that's come at the cost of terrible passenger service. In places like Europe and the Far East, the rail system is built around passengers, while there is some freight it's always a lesser priority, and as such more cargo does end up going by road, or in cases where there are navigable rivers, by boat. The ideal solution is to have space for both fast passenger services and slow freight, but that of course means essentially building two rail networks that need to be kept as separate as possible. That's expensive and difficult though.

[@PsyKeks]

Interesting. Then I wonder, if cargo or passengers on rails has the bigger ecological benefit. 🤔

[@Hugobros3]

probably still less expensive than maintaining interstates by a large factor

[@Croz89]

@@Hugobros3 For the connectivity that interstates provide, probably not. Plus rail has far more stringent design requirements in terms of curvature and slope.

[@Mi5terMarc]

Yes, and my understanding is that the vast majority of rail networks in the US are owned by PDX, which is a freight hauler, and Amtrak essentially pays them for the use of the tracks. They lease the tracks, if you will. This is supposedly one of the major reasons for Amtrak's service and route inefficiencies; basically they don't have full control over when and where they can move their traffic. And often, if a freight liner needs the track, Amtrak will be delayed in favor of the freight traffic. Passenger's are essentially second class citizens when it comes to US railways.

[@fissure256]

@@Mi5terMarc PDX? That's the Portland, Oregon airport. Are you thinking of CSX? That owns a lot of track along the east coast along with Norfolk Southern. Union Pacific and BNSF own most west of the Mississippi, with Kansas City Southern, Canadian National, and Canadian Pacific filling out the middle of the country.

[@Lord_zeel]

Another great feature of trains: Very little limitation on luggage. Your fare includes a ton of luggage, and you can transport really big stuff like bicycles and such. Also, no security screening, or weird rules. Want a full sized bottle of shampoo? Go for it. Like to carry a pocket knife? Nobody cares.

[@Banditxam4]

Oo buddy as it's US I think people would carry guns I don't know if that would make me get on a train 😐😐

[@sonickiller360]

@@Banditxam4 and so? People who conceal carry don’t wave guns around everywhere they go. If they’re concealed carrying you’d never know.

[@benholroyd5221]

@@sonickiller360 and so.... They're presumably carrying for a reason? And once that reason becomes apparent the parents comment is vindicated.

[@ElDJReturn]

@@benholroyd5221 I've yet to hear of an Amtrak shooting yet. Guess they stick to Greyhound

[@benholroyd5221]

@@ElDJReturn so there's no point conceal carrying then.

[@Azraleee]

I really enjoy going by train over here in Europe. The longest trip I ever took was from north-west Germany to Croatia. I was using a sleeping train from Munich to Rijeka and it was great. Probably the most comfortable I ever got there.

[@CreatureOTNight]

I take it the germany to Poland train really sucks..

[@JasperJanssen]

@@CreatureOTNight the Amsterdam to Warsaw sleeper, when it was still running, was amazing.

[@Croz89]

Was it a charter train or a scheduled service?

[@ArchmageNydia]

I have a question about this, actually: Do you think train travel is preferable over flying for a lot of trips in Europe? I'm planning on someday taking a trip to Germany, and while I would love to take the ICE across the country, I don't really know how practical it is for someone with not much money or time. I just wondered the opinion of a typical person who's taken a train.

[@Croz89]

@@ArchmageNydia If you're staying in Central and Western Europe, France, Germany, Low Countries, and Italy, Spain and the UK to some extent, you can get to most big cities by rail fairly easily. Further than that, it's a bit more tricky.

[@esaa7256]

In Sweden going from the south to the north is almost 'faster' by rail, instead of two 1h flights with a change in the middle plus buss rides and airport hassles, you could just take a sleeper cart at 8 pm from the city centre and arrive at 8 am at another city centre. You basically waste no effort or valuable time and it costs about the same as a flight.

[@Sembazuru]

I used to travel from the US to Kiruna, Sweden for work. The first time I thought that I would take the sleeper from Stockholm to Kiruna just for the adventure of it. Turns out that was the smart thing. By the time I flew to Stockholm from Philadelphia I was basically the walking dead. Instead of taking yet another flight to Kiruna to jump into a rental car to drive out to Esrange (which would have probably been suicidal), I got a good night's sleep on the train and was fresh and awake for the car drive.

[@Zoomer.88]

The arctic circle train from Stockholm to Kiruna was amazing. As the adventure in Kiruna. Best trip in my life.

[@roffia]

trackside defect detectors - you should definitely do a video on this topic

[@SebisRandomTech]

Agreed!

[@OntarioTrafficMan]

Yeah I'm sure there's a bunch of clever technology in those things

[@richardcarlson127]

A scanner allows you to hear them announce the location and results of the defect detectors as well as the train communications.

[@werD7054]

Hi! Actual railfan here. I live in michgan and regularly visit chicago by train. Its quite convenient, comfortable and fast- a lot of the tracks here allow for 110mph travel, and it takes about the same amount of time as driving. There are a few routes based out of chicago like this. If you ever look to visit Detroit, Lqnsing, Minneapolis, or St. Louis, I'd reccomend taking the train

[@ajsparx4133]

The amtrak passed just behind my house just as the video ended, thought that was neat!

[@Michael-zf1ko]

16:42 "The biggest thing that we don't have in the US because we all are...we don't get vacation time, ya know?" Damn, that hit me in the soul. I agree completely. There are a TON of things I want to experience, but my damn job keeps me tied down and gives me a measly three weeks of vacation a year (of which I have to compete with coworkers if I want certain weeks off). Not to mention, that's after 5 years of loyal service to the company. I only got 2 weeks when I started.

[@jwb52z9]

You're lucky and you must have a fairly decent, relatively, job if you get paid time off work like that. A lot of Americans get zero time off, especially not paid.

[@fwir711u2]

Cry me a river, build a bridge, and get over it

[@Michael-zf1ko]

@@fwir711u2 Thanks for your contribution that nobody asked for. Feel better about yourself by kicking others? You sound like one of those guys that sit at home all day and collect welfare checks.

[@fwir711u2]

@@Michael-zf1ko gonna cry some more.....

[@johnp139]

Save up and take a couple of weeks off without pay.

[@stephenkeever6029]

This was great getting your perspective as a generally non train enthusiast person. You have interesting perceptions and valid points. I enjoyed your words on the state of public transportation and Amtrak. Glad you made this video!

[@dvtye3378]

"The government is not a profit seeking organization". Jesus it's painful that people don't understand the separation between the public and private sectors.

[@JosephDavies]

It doesn't help that we literally have politicians who perpetuate the misunderstanding.

[@GLJosh]

I think that idea is truly a double edged sword, we complain that the government is quite wasteful because there is no incentive to become efficient. Why work towards doing things that "save" money in the long run (very similar to the stoplight video) when the incoming money supply is "near infinite" (28 trillion in debt sure lets add another 5 trillion in spending this year). American infrastructure spending bills have across the aisle support and they produce physical projects and longer term employment (everything needs a level of maintenance). I first rode a train in my 20s, yes it was a short ride into Chicago's McCormick Place, much cheaper and easier then driving into Chicago and paying/finding parking. Could I see a longer train ride, maybe, but I would view the train ride as the vacation.

[@caulkins69]

Profit is not the issue. The issue is whether you are forcing people who don't personally use a service to help pay for it. That is immoral. Trains are okay as long as they are funded exclusively by ticket sales. Highways are okay as long as they are funded exclusively by fuel taxes or tolls paid by drivers. The post office is okay as long as it is funded exclusively by sales of postage. None of those things should receive subsidies from general taxation.

[@JosephDavies]

@@caulkins69 Be very careful treating your personal morality as an objective truth.

[@quayzar1]

@@caulkins69 It's not immoral to pay for things that help others but not yourself. A majority of people will live their entire lives without the direct need of the fire department. Many people don't live long enough to collect social security. Many of us has never gone to college. The fact is there are plenty of reasons beyond direct benifit to pay for things that make a society function and I hope at some point you can realise that. You obfuscate your greed as a moral failing of others and that in itself is immoral.

[@objectathand]

I've been on so many Amtrak trains over the years that I can smell this video. To be clear, I mean that persistent, rubber/plastic smell of the air circulating through the HVAC system. It's not bad, just familiar.

[@thatspiderbyte]

There's something about these sleeper trains that seems really relaxing to me

[@Wilma5532]

Thankfully rail infrastructure in Europe is very well developed, and travelling by train is by far my favorite.

[@bobbyandrade6172]

I never realized that Amtrak was ran by the government, it makes so much sense now. Damn I feel so uninformed. Thanks Alec!

[@SebisRandomTech]

It’s kind of strange, it’s more of a quasi-public company. Basically it gets government funding from the national, state, and local governments but is operated like a for-profit organization instead of a government service.

[@StrokeMahEgo]

Smithsonian also.

[@bobbyandrade6172]

That is very interesting, learn something new everyday!

[@ChrisCaramia]

The USPS is also a not-quite gov't operation. It's supposed to post an annual profit but is beholden to Congress for rates.

[@caulkins69]

Amtrak was created because passenger rail companies were going out of business left and right, and Nixon didn't want to be the President who let the choo-choo die.

[@emaglott]

On the Cali coast, I was told that when they built the rail line the cheapest land was right along the beach and that is why it is there. Times change. Great video!

[@DestDroid]

Oh man I died laughing at the healthcare cough (because I couldn't afford any).

[@martinba9629]

Middle European perspective: You took a train from Chicago to LA, which Google Maps tells me in the 3300km range. That is the freakin' distance from Warsaw to Lisbon. I'm an avid train user, but let me tell you it would be really far fetched for me to take a train over that distance, not least because I'd be crossing 5 countries with best case 3 different rail companies on the way. It's waaay outside of the range anyone I know here would consider normal by train. I guess I would be enjoining it too. But I'm not sure it would be actually cheaper here in Europe and you certainly will not be able to get a continuous service without changing trains over that distance. They operate a well known night service from Munich to Rome around here, which is a meager 900km and a normal chair is 120EUR, a sleeper cabin starts at 200EUR ... if you book way in advance you may get lucky and get a discounted fare, but it seems the prices you name sound somewhat reasonable compared to European train prices over long distance.

[@Croz89]

That's always something to bear in mind when comparing European rail to the US. The distances in Europe, even for sleeper services, are generally so much smaller. I don't think Americans should beat themselves up because they can't cross half the country by rail in a timely fashion, neither could the Europeans given the same distance! In the end, there's plenty of room for improvement on populous corridors, but the reality is connecting the whole country with fast, efficient, affordable rail is a very long way off, if it's ever viable. Having to fly from Chicago to LA isn't down to an inadequate rail network, having to drive between Dallas and Houston perhaps is.

[@Croz89]

@Parallax Trans-Siberian sleeper services tend to be more like "rail cruises", extremely expensive luxury tours for rich tourists. One I saw had more staff than passengers!

[@PsyKeks]

For Warsow to Lisbon Google says more than 10 trains and buses, despite selecting for least amount of seperate ones and no busses. Yeah, I would not do that. International travel can mean you go to the end of one countries train net, get into the next net, go to a central hub station and then to the other end of that net and repeat for every country. That's why some demand more better international lines. Even within 150km I can get really annoyed by public transit here in Germany. Not only is it more expensive than driving a car, it also takes two times as long. Sometimes I can even be faster on a bike for 50-100km or more. And Hamburg to Munich, which is nearly all across the length of Germany flying it not only faster, but much cheaper, which is ludicrous! (At least on those long travels, car is not faster. At least not much, when you have good connection to big train stations in both sides. 🙄) So yeah, we need faster, cheaper, easier and more reliable(!) train service on both continents and probably others as well.

[@Croz89]

@@PsyKeks Lisbon is a problem since the rail connections between Portugal and Spain are dreadful.

[@PsyKeks]

@@Croz89 I have closed it already, but I think I saw more than one train in Germany, too. My closest theme park is 118km /1:15h away by car. 3:38h or 4:29 public transit. Yeah, with a very fast type of bicycle (velomobile) a moderatly fit person can do it in just under 3h on an 88km route, according to a special route planning service. So I can be there faster by bike than by train. No wonder, everybody uses cars.

[@BodomFox]

As Ukrainian I was always interested about how trains work in US, thanks for the detailed video! In Ukraine trains are the only possible transport option to get around the country reasonably quickly. It takes around 30 hours on regular diesel train to get from almost the very east where I live (part of eastern railroad is blocked by war zone) to the very west. Our train cars are mostly soviet-made and not so comfortable, but currently is under renovation. We do have several "Intercity" trains that cost 3 times more and travel much quicker (on the max speed allowed on our tracks), but their routes only go through few bigger cities.

[@JJVernig]

Thx for the insight.. Your railway staff seems to be the unsung hero's during the war, which is most important..

[@Minecraftzt176]

Thanks for the info! How are you doing in the recent events?

[@BodomFox]

@@Minecraftzt176 I had to leave my hometown, which is occupied right now, and I do not know if I will ever see my home and my dog again.

[@JJVernig]

@@BodomFox I am sorry, and wish you the best... Stay safe.

[@robertmunroe3976]

@@BodomFox , good luck man; we’re all hoping that things get better soon. Cheers from Washington State, USA.

[@rankinsean]

When I was backpacking in the US I picked up the Amtrak rail pass. So many long train trips at a pretty reasonable cost due to the pass. A great way to do it if you have time on your hands

[@winterwatson6437]

I did California to Oregon in a roomette a few years ago and had a blast. During meals I with someone on a rail pass, and it’s now a bucket list vacation.

[@MrJest2]

My wife and I took Amtrack a few years ago, sleeping in one of those little roomettes. I had the top bunk, and I'll tell you - returning to LA as we headed across the desert at night, I really appreciated that webbing keeping you in. On the other hand, I did not appreciate the hard walls on the opposite side. Apparently we were an hour or so behind schedule, so to make the time up the train accelerated to what had to be something close to 100MPH... which, you think 50 - 70MPH is bumpy, you ain't lived until the drivers open up full bore. And yeah; it's miles and miles of straight line with no crossing roads, but it was a bit... disconcerting... wondering what else might be out there that we might hit at night. But I was bouncing in that bunk like a piece of popcorn in an air fryer...

[@chbuki]

It’s unfortunate, because really 100mph is SLOW when you’re comparing to some of the more developed rail systems in other countries. 😕

[@MrJest2]

@@chbuki True enough. It's important to note that those are on much more modern, purpose-built track lines, running purpose-built trains for much shorter distances in most cases. Running on century-old freight rails for 400 miles balls-out on an engine/carriage system designed for 30 - 40 MPH slower maximum travel is terrifying - particularly at night. 😛

[@chbuki]

@@MrJest2 Yeah of course. I called them more developed for a reason. If we wanted high speed rail we’d have to lay down newer, straighter tracks with way more clearing around them, and build barriers around them to keep the tracks clear of debris and other obstacles. Yikes. 😅

[@TalesOfWar]

@@chbuki I'm sure the richest nation on the planet can afford that. Not that money has ever really been the issue. It's entirely political. Nobody in power ever seems to want to actually do something about it. This is why so much of the infrastructure in the US is literally crumbling. It just isn't interesting to the political elite or their donors.

[@chbuki]

@@TalesOfWar I never said we couldn’t afford it. 😒

[@cushmanproductions]

I took the California Zephyr from Denver to Salt Lake City a few weeks ago, and going through the mountains and valleys and along the Colorado River was simply amazing. It was basically a really long day trip for us (8am-11pm) so we did coach, but we spent much of the time in the lounge car with those giant windows. Like you mentioned, I wish I had more free time to take beautiful trips like this, but when I can, I love relaxing on the rails.

[@musickid43]

Checking "take a shower on a train" off the list reminded me: the first time I took a cruise, I insisted on riding the tram at the airport just to say I was on a boat, a plane, a train, and a car in one day.

[@MrMegaManFan]

I loved trains as a kid and dreamed of traveling cross country by rail, so thank you for sharing this experience with us!

[@MidnightSt]

"we in USA need a discussion of what the public sector is/does" i recommend starting by calling it "public SERVICE sector", since that term actually carries an implication that its primary point is to be... service to the public... as opposed to making money. at least i (and people i know) percieve that the term "public service" (unlike just "service") carries that implication.

[@QuiteWellAdjusted]

Public sector -> all the stuff you have already paid for

[@doktormcnasty]

Geographically speaking America would be the perfect country for high-speed rail. It's such a shame the power that certain lobbyists have to limit people's options.

[@WarNoob755]

We don't have the population density for high speed rail.

[@doktormcnasty]

@@WarNoob755 The whole entire east coast is population dense. You're trying to tell me there's not enough chicago to new york travel to support it in that corridor either? I doubt that. There's always excuses but at the end of the day they always seem to be in favor of moneyed interests and against the public good. How convenient that it always works out that way.

[@WarNoob755]

@@doktormcnasty The whole east coast is not population dense. The fact that a city is population dense doesn't mean everywhere is population dense. Chicago is in the mid west.

[@midnite1112]

@@WarNoob755 both Europe and China are building or have built extensive high speed rail networks.

[@seanthiar]

@@WarNoob755 You don't need a dense population - you just need to connect the main cities with high speed trains. It's more economical than an airplane. The actual problem with american trains is they are slow. The Southwest Chief takes 43.5h for the 2230mi from LA to Chicago - That is an average speed of about 50mph. An electrified train like the german ICE has an average speed of 100mph and the french TGV drives at 200mph, both are faster but the possible speed depend on the landscape. If you change from conventional train tracks to something like the maglev you have an average speed of over 350mph. Just think of a track as the bird flies from Chicago to Kansas - about 400mi. Southwest Chief needs 7h, Greyhound about 13h, a TGV would need 2h - without any waiting and check in like you need for a plane. One-Stop flights are 1.5h and multistops up to 3.5h flight time and TSA wants you to arrive 2h before boarding at the airport. And add to that the capacity. A normal TGV (double) got about 250 (500) seats, same for an ICE. The planes for inland flights are most of the max. 200 passengers variant (737, A320 etc.) And if there are less or more passengers you can change the length of a train. Second is the energy consumption - there are studies about the ICE and planes in comparison for the same trip from a to b with plane and ICE. It was converted to the amount of liters of normal gas needed per passenger and average amount of passengers. In the end an ICE needed 2.9l/100km or about 81mpg an the plane needed 3.5l/100km or about 67mpg. And don't forget the advantage that in a train there is no real restriction how heavy your luggage can be. According to statista the US has 225 cities with a population bigger than 100k, 52 of them are bigger than 250k, 27 with more then 500k and 10 with more than 1Mio. Connecting these cities starting with the biggest with high speed trains would make a big improvement. The first settlers used the train to conquer America and there are some beautiful train stations. Don't understand why you the people of the USA doesn't honor that history and modernize/expand the system.

[@bobflannagan7262]

LOVE your positioning of the points around profitability! This is a fabulous video!

[@TrainsFilmedByRussellBynum]

As a train aficionado, myself, I approve of this video.

[@andystevens3475]

Man, that last bit where you just let it run out in the flats around Grand Junction was a gift. Once you live in the desert for a while you see the open space differently and the fact that it’s wide open becomes the draw.

[@RangerMcFriendly]

The California Zephyr is the one that goes through GJ I thought. Just started the video so maybe the route changed.

[@xgford94]

Slow travel is amazing for stress relief, I loved crossing Australia on the Indian Pacific

[@lsrx101]

That sounds like a really cool trip.

[@xgford94]

@@lsrx101 it was, I would recommend it to anyone, but if you’re on the edge of a stress heat attack as I was, it’s like a miracle, better than any medicine

[@poe322]

Traveling by train is my favorite way to travel. Years ago during summer break my mother and I did the Amtrak Seattle to Chicago and returned the same way. Than the next year did the trip again with my sister as well. One of the things I remember most was in the sleeper on the bottom you get a lot more track noise, it not bad in any way it’s a very calming rhythmic sound, and on the top there is more swaying side to side just a slight rocking.

[@akinmytua4680]

Today I learned that my cat enjoys watching the outside view of your train trip

[@regiondeltas]

What a great video - I'm from the UK and, for obvious reasons, our rail infra is just totally different. And this was a fascinating video to watch - I'm so very very jealous of the varied scenery and just the scale of so much of it. I'd love to explore your country so much more

[@electrictroy2010]

NYC TO CALI: 6 hours $200 by plane. Three days $800 by train. TRAINS ARE OBSOLETE 1800s TECH. Just like horse-drawn carriages & gaslamps are gone, so too should passenger trains disappear except for high density areas (cities). We have new inventions called cars & airplanes for medium/long distance travel.

[@St0rmcrash]

Amtrak could use more and newer rolling stock for sure (some of that is in progress) but there are more sleepers out there than you think. As you mentioned the east coast doesn't use the Superliner cars due to clearance issues. The east coast sleeper routes use single level Viewliner sleepers, of which there are 75. Amtrak just finished receiving the Viewliner 2 sleepers/diners/baggage cars (years behind schedule due to the builder CAF bungling the contract), and the Viewliner roomettes have a nice perk of the upper bunk having a window

[@РайанКупер-э4о]

Those silent clips at the end are hypnotising. That's what people love trains for.

[@peema10]

I'd love you to do a video about the likes of the Shinkansen, but I suspect the magic of buying one, let alone two, would blow the production budget.

[@ACDBunnie]

Underrated comment

[@turtledruid464]

I really like the idea of a high speed heavy rail network connecting the major urban centers of the US. I personally absolutely hate flying and driving is tiring and bad for the environment. Even if it's not as fast as flying, the idea that I could take an overnight train from where I live in Baltimore and wake up in Chicago, Boston, Orlando, or Memphis and be relatively comfortable the whole time is just really appealing.

[@Banditxam4]

I mean high speed trains are not as fast as flying but 350kmph average speed isn't that far behind when planes do 800 or 700 kmph Max and guess what traveling in a train won't give you jet lag

[@dorvinion]

A lot of people say they like the idea of trains. Their enthusiasm wains when it comes to actually paying the fares necessary to build and operate said trains, particularly when considering air travel is already both faster and cheaper.

[@birdrocket]

@@dorvinion I like the idea of trains and I also put my money where my mouth is. I travel more by Amtrak than I do flying.

[@Jaymac720]

Trains are actually worse for the environment than cars. They use more fuel per passenger and it gets even worse when you get into high speed rail applications as they’ll use more fuel than planes. The idea that cars are killing the environment is really such a myth. There are so many other and bigger sources of emissions that are just overlooked and all the focus goes on ICE cars

[@futsuu]

Connecting downtowns seamlessly is about more than transporting people. It means creating a physical corridor for ideas and commerce. Everywhere along those high speed lines will benefit.

[@Ditocoaf]

When I took a couple cross-country Amtrak trips back in... 2011, I got coach tickets and spent the _entire_ time in the lounge car. Kept a small bag with me and slept with it. Works great if you have the gall (and low comfort requirements) that I had at 21 years old. I think the lounge car is always empty enough in the middle of the night that the staff wasn't going to care as long as I was relatively inconspicuous. Spending 24 hours a day in the lounge car was great. Met a lot of people, learned some card games, watched the view through the huge windows. Going through the Dakotas, there was flooding, and the train stopped for a while before deciding it was safe to keep going. I had made a friend in the sleeper cars, and they brought me to the back of the train where we could see the train's WAKE we were leaving through the water. It was really cool.

[@cthellis]

To be fair, an F35 would probably make that trip a whole lot faster. Tad more expensive, tho.

[@ohpurpled]

Depends if you factor in all the misstarts and maintenance before/after the flight… Of course the SR-71 could cross the contiguous US in about an hour

[@kylemunley]

When i was traveling more regularly between NY state and my home in the Southeast, I preferred the train and took it at every opportunity. Even coach on Amtrak is preferable to coach on airline travel, in my book - warts and all. Great video.

[@rkan2]

You must be the taller type or the airports really busy... :P

[@dirt_lot_photography]

Ahhh! I wish I would’ve known you were passing through, I totally would’ve snapped a picture with you in Albuquerque! It’s always good to see people from my old hometown region (the burbs). And always take trains!

[@maikerugo]

39:46 Small bit of trivia about Trackside Defect Detectors. Union Pacific used Majel Barrett Rodenberry's voice (the voice of the computer on Star Trek as well as the actress who portrayed Lwaxana Troi) for their's. Also the Coast Starlight is definitely one that people utilize as a semi-commute train. It's also a far nicer alternative to taking a long-distance bus. If you take it between SD and LA on a long weekend you'll often get college students going from one place to another that way-which speaks greatly of its rather low cost (to get that kind of low cost paying for fuel for someone heading each way you'd likely have to be smashed into a car full of other students and their belongings-definitely not as comfortable).

[@gregf9160]

As a rail nerd, I loved this, and I _totally_ agree with your political take on all of it. Thanks for doing this 👍 In Europe, all of this is quite different.

[@nickwallette6201]

Europe's rail system is a joy. Maybe some day, America, which I'm told is the greatest country on Earth, can be on-par with some of the apparently _many_ even _greatest-er_ countries on Earth. ;-)

[@winterwhite110507]

This video makes a very soothing background soundtrack as I sort through various odds and ends around the house. Thanks for the company!

[@bkucenski]

I've thought of taking an overnight train from Maricopa, AZ to LA to go to Disneyland. If you can travel during your sleep time, then the increase in travel time matters less. And if you can get WIFI the whole way and get work done, then that also makes the increase in travel time less relevant because you don't have to take days off of work for your travel period.

[@klownicle]

The WiFi on Amtrak is nothing to hold expectations to. It uses standard cellular networks and often hops from one to another. It is very unreliable. I spent more time trying to connect vs actually using it. Definitely do not expect to stream video or audio. The connection doesn't stay live long enough.

[@mackpines]

I’ve taken plenty of Amtrak trains in my lifetime. It was hit and miss but, while the majority of problems were with the train itself, every crew was outstanding and loved doing what they do. They were friendly, helpful and, went above and beyond to make passengers comfortable. Amtrak may be notorious for lots of issues but, it’ll never change my enormous fascination with trains. Awesome video!

[@youdontknowme5969]

I'm so jealous! The Roomette looks perfect for the lone travelling introvert who's not in a rush! This, and first-class on an international flight, are on my bucket list before I croak. If the U.S. could get high-speed rail, and all at-grade crossings eliminated, that would be amazing. edit: you're welcome for that Kansas sunrise 🌻🌞 Kansas gets made fun of, but the sky is its canvas. The sunrises and sensets (and yes, weather) here never cease to amaze me 😍

[@jwb52z9]

One of the main problems is that all the large area land owners will never be willing to give up their farming and ranching land for the construction of high speed rail. They already hate it just for having wind farms.

[@tristan7216]

I took Amtrak from Buffalo to LA as a kid with my grandparents. There were beautiful views, storms over the desert in the distance, lightning, looking into people's yards... but 3 days of rolling, and I tend to carsickness, moreso as a kid... I don't know if I'd want to do it again.

[@MaCroCosmHD]

Hey Alec I really enjoyed this - please feel encouraged to do more outside of your studio! I have to poke fun at a quote from you - "Mountains and clouds, can't see that from an airplane!"

[@0xTJ]

I've really wanted to do a Canada cross-country train trip, but it's sooooo expensive, even for just a seat.

[@polishedpebble4111]

Set up a travel blog, and write it off.

[@groundzero_-lm4md]

The Canadian is 4 days so you probably want a sleeper.

[@soniashapiro4827]

I bought a canrail pass. It's not as much money. I broke up the trip so I didn't need a sleeper. Really worth it.

[@forivall]

I have a friend who has a parent in the federal gov't, and he can get a heavily subsidized train trip to ottawa... im jealous.

[@szobonyad]

I'm traveling with train twice a week and I absolutely love it, best way of travel I've tried yet. It's just an one hour route (I love in a small country, so it counts as a big distance here), but I absolutely would love something much much longer, like this

[@electrictroy2010]

NYC TO CALI: 6 hours $200 by plane. Three days $800 by train. TRAINS ARE OBSOLETE 1800s TECH. Just like horse-drawn carriages & gaslamps are gone, so too should passenger trains disappear except for high density areas (cities). We have new inventions called cars & airplanes for medium/long distance travel.

[@szobonyad]

@@electrictroy2010 Well for me plane is not an option, because I don't travel long distances, the maximum is 4 hours with car (not counting the time spent waiting at the border), and trains are cheaper, and at least as fast as a car. Also with a train I don't have to worry about borders, where with a car, at least 1 hour wait is normal, but sometimes it can be 12 hours or even more. Also with train I don't have to worry about parking spots or traffic jams, everything is approachable with cheap, fast, high quality public transport. And also I wouldn't have to pay several thousand euros for a driving license, and also don't have to pay for a car, or its maintenance and registration.

[@marccarrier9589]

I have always wanted to take a cross country train trip, even if there was no destination. This video makes me want it even more. Thank you.

[@JeffreyJakucyk]

It's a mistake to apply the price/time criticism to such a long cross-country route like Chicago-LA, New Orleans-San Francisco, or Boston-Miami. That's a "but sometimes" mentality. Sure those are still routes some people want to take, but they're the sort of trips that are most likely to stay in the exclusive domain of air travel. It's all the regional destinations that need the service frequency, pricing, and reliability to make them rational options. That's the sub-8-hour-drive kind of destinations. For instance, even though Chicago-Cincinnati has an Amtrak route, how usable is it when it only runs three times a WEEK and leaves at 3:00 in the morning? The northeast corridor has lots of service and many destinations, while other cities have little to no usable service at all, even though they're in close proximity. Think Memphis to Little Rock, which would require going to Chicago. Or Tucson to Flagstaff, which would need to go through LA. I've tried to find a route from Cincinnati to my parents' place near Raleigh-Durham, and while I understand why there's no one-seat option, Amtrak won't even let you pick that as an itinerary because there's no reasonable connection time. These are the issues that need addressing. Super long distance trains like NYC-LA are at best endgames, and still niche.

[@St0rmcrash]

Indeed, that's why the proposals Amtrak has for expanded rail service almost entirely focus on expanding intercity corridor services. The long distance train network is somewhat frozen in time route wise, but connecting cities within regions that haven't had rail service in decades, or perhaps only see one train a day with more daily trips to other nearby cities is something we can and frankly should be doing/funding. And if those connections make it easier to get to a city served by a long distance train who knows, perhaps it will boost the long routes too if you don't have to change carriers and modes of transport to use it

[@danbert8]

This. I'm in Atlanta which actually has an Amtrak rail line. But it only goes two directions, toward New Orleans or DC. If I want to go to Florida? Nope. If I want to go to Chicago? Nope. I'm not going to take the train to LA, it really doesn't make sense to. Frankly, electric buses make more sense for intercity travel on the short scale and flying for long hauls. It just costs too much to expand the rail lines at this point. Most of Europe and Japan had the "advantage" of being able to build out the infrastructure in a war ravaged space where it was easier to get the right of way for the rails.

[@JeffreyJakucyk]

@@danbert8 It's not as if the tracks/routes don't exist, they're just freight-only or mothballed. It's much easier to upgrade an existing rail route at this point than expanding highways more and more, which doesn't fix traffic problems anyway. The rail rights-of-way already exist, many of which are much wider than the track(s) on them.

[@michaelhall6178]

@@danbert8 Don't forget that much of the current shape of the railways in the UK (and probably in most of Europe) emerged in the nineteenth century. That's when excitable investors perceived new-fangled railways as a licence to print money. There was duplication, inefficiency, competition (sometimes physical) all over the place; some lines were built purely speculatively in the hope that urban development would follow, while some schemes were so niche that they hadn't a hope of becoming viable in the long run. Plus attitudes to land usage and infrastructure development were, as you imply, rather different then.

[@spartan117zm]

@@danbert8 except you forget the US basically did the same thing with our interstates between the 50s and the 90s, readily bulldozing and moving entire city blocks to build new interstates, and we did that without having a war ravaged landscape. We could’ve just as easily done it with trains, but we have the automotive and oil lobbies to thank for that. In fact, trains take up even less space than these 8 lane interstates, and, as someone else pointed out, there’s actually a lot of preexisting right of ways still owned by railroads/the government, there’s just very little political will to bring them back, sadly.

[@eric_has_no_idea]

Taking the train is so much better then flying. Every part is less stressful. Nobody taking Amtrak is in a hurry. It's not the cheapest.. but really it's a great experience. The Amtrak food is better then first class airplane food. The coach seat is the size & legroom of a airplane first class as well.

[@BixbyConsequence]

It's life-affirming vs. the dehumanizing experience modern air travel has become.

[@macman2500]

I also took a cross country train trip this summer, from Seattle to Providence on the Empire Builder, Capitol Limited, and Acela. Always wanted to do it. Turned out to be one of the best vacations I’ve ever taken.

[@internetoldie]

Brings back many good memories, I hitchhiked across the US a few years ago - my only 'luxury' was the Amtrak from Chicago to Seattle - a great trip, the lounge area allowed me to meet lots of fun and weird people - so this video really did bring back some lovely nostalgia ahaha

[@jmglor]

In December of 1990, my family took a train trip from San Diego to Chicago and back. We rode coach the whole way. It was rough, but one of my most memorable trips, even 30 years later. I would glady do it in a roomette.

[@stickinthemud23]

Took the train from Ohio to Philadelphia a few years ago, and I was amazed that both the conductor and an off-duty engineer who were on board for a good part of the trip were quite young. Under 30. Extremely nice people, both men and, shall we say, easy on the eyes.

[@Greatanotherchannel]

,,🙄

[@FuckThatYo]

This comment is fraught with TMI.

[@stickinthemud23]

@Chill Will Nobody said it was. Literally nobody.

[@kirkc9643]

@@stickinthemud23 Literally.

[@bloodyhell8201]

@Chill Will cry about it.

[@moose8goose]

I used to take the Amtrak Capital Corridor -> California Zephyr route from California to parkour events in Colorado. That route is really nice. You go through two mountain ranges (Sierra and Rockies), through really nice areas of Utah, and there are a few tunnels....one of which is pretty long which is interesting to go through. The countryside this route goes through is very pretty. A lot of the stations are in beautiful areas, and when ever the stops were long enough to go out and stretch outside, I would go for quick 10 minute runs in these scenic towns before hoping back on the train before it leaves.

[@Mergatroid]

I forgot to mention this in my earlier comment, but just a fun fact regarding the Pacific Surfliner: Metra now has a bunch of ex-Surfliner locomotives. You can recognize them by the basic blue and gray paint scheme and the 3 windows on the front.

[@sirBrouwer]

You seemed quiet relaxed while recording this. Did we just see a bit more of the "real" Alec instead of the persona you show on your main channel and even here often? I must say it was enjoying to notice that difference.

[@jonat_gabl]

Amtrak is my favorite. I was living on one side of upstate NY for grad school, and my family and significant other at the time was living on the other, so I took the Empire Limited a lot. Not my favorite was the fact that all the track in upstate NY is owned by CSX, so it's taken a beating from freight trains, and we frequently had to pull into sidings and let freight pass.

[@Brandyalla]

I took a trip from Sacramento to western Colorado (and then back a couple days later). It was a two-day trip, and I shared a roomette with my brother. The food was good, the staff was friendly, and the views were spectacular. I loved it, and would gladly take the same trip again. At one point we hit a cow and stood motionless on the track for several hours. We also spent the night in Salt Lake City without moving, but I never found out why.

[@squidcaps4308]

Blue lights for the night? That is stupid, they should be red. Blue keeps you awake, the days i forgot to turn my indoor lights from blue to warm/red keeps me awake for hours after usual time i start to feel tired... It has been one crucial key to keep insomnia away.

[@hkr667]

As far as I know there is some logic to that. If I remember correctly it's something to do with blue light giving great contrast while not needing to be bright. So you can safely move around at night without having to adjust your eyes to the light and then back to dark again.

[@Smokeey409]

32:25 why are you done with OnePlus? Great video by the way I feel like taking a trip on Amtrak now.

[@mistertitus6814]

Gotta say, as a truck driver, the amount of space you have to work with in that roomette is basically the same as any standard over the road semi truck with a sleeper.

[@skyhawksailor8736]

Two facts you should know about train travel. 1) Train travel is the most efficient travel form in the world as far as the energy it takes per passenger mile. 2) In the US, there is more passenger miles by rail, than any other form of travel in the US. Most people will disagree with this statement, till you point out in all the largest cities like NYC, Chicago, San Francisco area, the commuter traffic is included, and you have to include the NYC to DC corridor.

[@johnp139]

That assumes that the train is full, which it rarely is.

[@skyhawksailor8736]

@@johnp139 No, they know what the minimum number of people ride each commuter train in every city, they do not know how many jump the turnstiles or sneak on the train and are not counted. Cross country travel most likely make up less than 0.0001% of all the train riders in the US each day. In just NYC, on the actual subway, there are 5.5 million riders each day, it does not say if this includes or excludes both inbound and outbound travel, since it says "riders". So do they count a person once on the inbound and again on the outbound trip, or are they counting the round trip of one person as a rider, I don't know. Their website does not say what the average ride is, but it does say the longest is 38 miles. Now you also need to add all the long express trains into Grand Central Station which come from 60 plus miles, which are also normally full. Just think of how many passenger miles this all adds up to. I would not be surprised to find just in the New York City area, there are more passenger rail miles in a day, then there is all passenger air miles in the world for the same day. I know some jets can carry over 400 people many miles, but some commuter trains have several thousand passengers taking them, as far as the mileage from Washington DC to NYC. Here is the real kicker, I watched a TV show with two people, they leave DC to NYC, one by air, the other by train. They left from the same point in DC and were to meet in Times Square. The train traveler got there first. One last thing is the ton-mile-per-gallon rate and the Green House Emissions (GHG) emissions for different modes of transport. If you look at charts for how much each mode of transport cost per ton-mile, you will see rail is the lowest in both cost and GHG and air travel is the highest, with air travel putting out over 60 times more GHG than rail travel per ton-mile.

[@MikeRatcliffe24]

"im not a travel vlogger" Just sold more Amtrak tickets than any influential travel vlogger on youtube could dream of.

[@pixelpi3s]

Honestly I agree with the sentiment that Amtrak is important because there's no denying train travel is outdated form of travel for time efficiency but it needs to be viewed a different way. I think it should be "part" of vacation not just the boring travel. Though I've only had one experience with Amtrak(and it was not a good one, the train stopped for more than an hour because of issues with the train on the way there and on the way back it got stopped for MORE THAN eight hours but anyways) I still think trains are intriguing as a method of travel.

[@Tuxedo_Cake]

Just so you Americans know: in France, “entree” is French for starter. Main dish in French is “plat principal”. Not sure why Americans use the word “entree” for main course. Also: I love trains!

[@pleasedontwatchthese9593]

My guessing its that its from Britain and they used it because it sounded cool.

[@johnd6487]

Is it? Full on English here, and I’ve never heard it called that in anything other than American TV shows.. Around here, we’d call it the Main course, or often these days just the Main. Funnily enough, I’d always assumed when I heard Americans talking about an entree they were referring to the starter.. as in the entry course of the meal.

[@steveheist6426]

@@johnd6487 Nope, entry course is the "appetizer"

[@mralistair737]

yeah i had a very confused conversation with some americans about that.. took some unpicking to find the source of confusion... the other one was "tabled" eg in a meeting if an idea was Tabled, to the americans that meant "shelved" as in "put away" but to the brits it was "offered up for discussion"

[@johnd6487]

@@steveheist6426 appetiser.. god it’s a few years since I heard that word. Takes me back to Royal Hotel steak bar circa 1985 lol.. we switched there after the Berni Inns all closed

[@Przemo-c]

I really like train travel less cramped than bus, much less hassle and less cramped than a plane. And doesn't require attention like driving. Not sure if I would take such a long route by train unless it would be an event in of itself like it's exceptionally breathtaking route. Because just train travel isn't much of an event as I travel by rail regularly. Because distances in Poland are not that long and... paid time off. Also rail gets me from city center to city center. I'm expecting part 2 on TransSiberian routes 😀

[@volvo09]

Amtrak has an auto train so you can take your car with you, so i think that's pretty neat. I am pretty sure i'm done with flying, so if i can't drive somewhere (anything over 24hrs of driving) and don't want to drive, i'll take the auto train.

[@Przemo-c]

@@volvo09 that's a neat solution but I'd probably rely on local rentals rather than dragging my car with me. Unless I'd stay at the destination for longer.

[@CacophonyScamp]

One thing I don't understand with rail travel is why isn't there a cruise style rail trip offered by anyone especially in the USA. It wouldn't be that hard to add an extra entertainment car, and to stop off in key cities for a while. Rail cruise vacations should be a thing.

[@Overonator]

How well insulated are the rooms from other passengers sound wise?

[@speelydan]

I've never had the opportunity. But I've been some small measure of railfan since I was a kid, when I grew up in a house in middle-eastern MO with a BNSF freight train route passing literally less than 50 yards from my backdoor - a route that occasionally served an Amtrak service (and no longer does) - and once or twice in the early 90s during Desert Storm was used to transport heavy armament for the US military (I remember seeing desert-camo-painted tanks on flatbed cars passing through my backyard) - and on a few rare occasions even actually routed the Ringling Bros train. There was even a freight train derailment that occurred right behind my house - I wasn't there to see it happen but I arrived home in time to watch the cleanup process. Number one on my bucket list right now is to have an excuse to visit California for a week or two, so that I can travel there and back by train. So far in my life the only trains I've ever gotten to ride have been Chicago's EL trains. I really, REALLY want to travel the country by rail. Thank you for providing me some small measure of vicarious rail travel.

[@melodylewis2807]

I just found your channel. I love it and I'm so glad you did this train trip. I took my first train ride in Alaska this spring. It was just a 12 hour trip but it was incredible! I discovered there's more to a train than transportation. It's more expensive than a plane trip. In my case it was twice as much and took 10 hours longer, but the ability to see views that I would not normally see particularly on a plane was well worth it!!! It was much less stressful and more enjoyable than air travel or driving, unlike driving you have no responsibilities and everything is taken care of for you. The perspective you have on the ground compar ed to an airplane allows you to actually experience the countryside.

[@electrictroy2010]

NYC TO CALI: 6 hours $200 by plane. Three days $800 by train. TRAINS ARE OBSOLETE 1800s TECH. Just like horse-drawn carriages & gaslamps are gone, so too should passenger trains disappear except for high density areas (cities). We have new inventions called cars & airplanes for medium/long distance travel.

[@nezzee]

So, I think the argument for rail as a public service kinda falls apart when considering options on why we would need it. Specifically, for long haul trips like the one you took, there is never a way that it will work out with economy of scale, as there is no way that even high speed rail will ever become more desirable than flight, as it will never be faster than the few hours of plane travel). The only way it will ever be more desirable for THAT long of a route is if the plane industry was decimated in rising fuel prices (which to be honest, air industry is already working towards a greener future). Rail is better for short distance routes to cities from suburbs/neighboring cities or multiple stops within a city, as it can be cheaper than a plane to run that route, no need for sleeper cabins, time invested is relatively minimum comparatively to flying, etc, so volume would quite possibly be there to subsidize the cost of the route. Only problem that comes in is actually MAKING these routes, as it involves loads of property seizing to demolish existing buildings to place these routes in, and even those neighboring areas that AREN'T in the direct path of the train don't want to suddenly have a train going by on it. Rail works for European countries, as so many of them are ACTUALLY compact regarding distance between cities, unlike how relatively spread out the US is. They also, if I recall correctly, had MUCH more ability to seize land for their projects, which the US has legal red tape for everything, and it only takes one holdout person to tie up projects for years. It's why city planning is a very important job not to be taken lightly, kinda like how home building is something you should REALLY prepare for what you want to be able to do. It's just easier/cheaper to do any project when you aren't dealing with retrofitting existing construction (running cables, knocking down walls, etc). The argument for trying to make long distance rail travel cheaper is almost an argument for trying to make gas lamps brighter... Sure we can... But why? Electric lights are already so cheap/bright/etc. I think a better investment would be to fund R&D into making air travel greener (supply grants to innovation in the field). Possibly even provide tax incentives for airliners to adopt the new greener planes as well. Laying down billions if not trillions of dollars to build rail for long haul that public will more than likely never use just seems like throwing money at a less than optimal solution.

[@sjhart14]

I think you're looking at this from the wrong angle. The goal isn't to compete with air travel, it's to get people out of cars. There is a huge environmental benefit (and other benefits) to getting dozens of cars off the road that would be used to commute or take a vacation trip and replace them with one vehicle. As for space for these routes: we already have giant freeways cutting through or adjacent to every major city. Delete the median and the inside lane from each side, replace with tracks, and boom you've got your route through built up areas.

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

Somehow none of these issues apply to building new freeways? They hoover above the land then?

[@baronvonlimbourgh1716]

@@techtutorvideos entire society was supposed to be bulldosed for the car all over the world back in the post-war era. Luckilly most realised the damage that was being done by this insanity and reversed course. But somehow the usa never had that moment, they still design their lives around these life and resource draining machines. And are proud of it as well, which really blows my mind.🤯 The gigantic amount of money that is wasted every year by organising society like this is trully amazing. And people wonder why poverty rates are so enormous. Basicly the gdp of a mid-sized country, simply wasted away into nothingness every single year. And still, the infrastructure that is the essential core for this insane system to function is neglected and just years away from falling apart. With car dependency this high and so essential to the economy you'd think the infrastructure it is so dependend on it would be world class. It just all seems so backwards. Like up is down and down is up.

[@kentslocum]

I took a 36-hour trip on the Coast Starlight down the West Coast two years ago. I rode Business Class, and it was totally worth it, since I got two whole upper-level seats to myself and saw the gorgeous California coastline. It helped me realize the importance of slowing down and appreciating the beauty of our country.

[@electrictroy2010]

NYC TO CALI: 6 hours $200 by plane. Three days $800 by train. TRAINS ARE OBSOLETE 1800s TECH. Just like horse-drawn carriages & gaslamps are gone, so too should passenger trains disappear except for high density areas (cities). We have new inventions called cars & airplanes for medium/long distance travel.

[@PanoWorks]

I was going to ask what you meant by "done with them at this point" when referring to the OnePlus. The only thing I see on twitter about it as that you are "not happy with the direction they've gone in the US market" and decided to go with something cheaper. Is that the main take (bang-for-buck), or were there other issues that made you switch?

[@mageyeah7763]

Incredibly disappointed that you didn't disassemble the train and show us how it works.

[@ZENITH_System_3]

One day I will take a unnecessarily long train ride for fun

[@Darxide23]

Amtrak and the USPS do not lose money. They cost money. They are services. Not businesses.

[@mCKENIC]

Thanks for this video - really enjoyed it. Dad and I flew to San Francisco (from Ireland) and got the Coastal Starlight to Eugene OR. It was one of the (many) highlights of the trip. Going to sleep by the coast as the sun set and waking up in snow covered mountains. Wonderful, wonderful memories that this video sparked, thank you. (Oh and there was a 6hour stop/layover for track upgrades that had JUST been completed the day before we traveled - phew!)

[@locke03]

Every time I travel I look at my options for taking Amtrak, spend a few moments lamenting that I am not wealthy enough to afford it, and then buy the cheapest economy airline tickets I can find.

[@electrictroy2010]

NYC TO CALI: 6 hours $200 by plane. Three days $800 by train. TRAINS ARE OBSOLETE 1800s TECH. Just like horse-drawn carriages & gaslamps are gone, so too should passenger trains disappear except for high density areas (cities). We have new inventions called cars & airplanes for medium/long distance travel.

[@locke03]

​@@electrictroy2010 This is a terrible comparison and you don't understand the technologies involved. Yes, American trains are slow and obsolete, but that's only because they are obsolete within their own category. Airlines use modern aircraft, not aircraft with performance similar to early biplane airliners. Amtrack trains operate at speeds that were routinely reached by trains in the 1850's. Modern high-speed passenger trains that are in regular use elsewhere in the world travel more than 3x that speed. Yes, jet airliners will always beat trains in travel time for long distance, but for trips out to about 430 miles, which is only slightly less than the average airline flight distance of around 500 miles, including the entire check-in and boarding process, modern high-speed rail can meet or beat airline travel times while being much more energy efficient. And this does not include travel distance to the transit hub, which could put things even more in favor of trains since train stations can potentially be located much closer to the places people live than large airports capable of serving airliners.

[@novelezra]

Oh my god that photo of the carriage at sunrise is beautiful. The idea of waking up and drinking coffee, looking at that... Well I'm just very jealous (in a good way. I will put this on the to-do list)

[@MichaelSHartman]

Thanks for bringing me along. After traveling airliners with sciatica, and my knees shoved into my hips, the idea of legroom, ability to stretch at will, and lie down looks luxurious.