The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.

Cross Country Train Travel... Yay or Nay?

DidgeridooDidgeridoo Flighty DameRegistered User regular
edited April 2012 in Help / Advice Forum
Hello H/A forum, I crave your opinions

I will be moving across the country a bit later this year (coast to coast), and find myself faced with the choice between riding the rails or taking the airplane! At the time of the relocation, I have no hard deadline to be there so the difference in the time it takes to travel is not an issue. I don't have many belongings and no large furniture items that will be transported. If I went with Amtrak I would most likely be riding coach, because of the price.

My thoughts currently are thus:

Train: It seems like it would be very interesting to see the country in this way, and would be an experience you couldn't really get using any other method of travel. Amtrak allows three large checked bags and two carry-ons for no extra fee, which would mean I wouldn't have to pack everything so tightly or be so brutal in what I will have to give away or leave behind. Coach travel is also very inexpensive, less than a plane ticket. You can also move about the train as much as you like along with access to power outlets, which is a nice change from an airplane.

However it is a very long trip, and if I'm traveling coach that means I would not have access to a showering facility and would not have a bed, just the reclining seat. One leg of the trip is 49 hours, the other 16. It is possible that at the main change-over I could find a gym or something and pay for a day pass, thus gaining access to a shower before the last leg of the trip. Food might be a concern, as the train food is probably pretty expensive. The train does allow you to bring your own food if you like, but of course it would all have to be non-perishable.

Plane: The plane would be much faster, obviously. No need to worry about not having access to a shower, as it's not an overnight affair. I would be allowed one carry-on for free, but any other bags I want to bring would be subject to a 25-40 dollar fee. That means I would most likely have to leave behind much more than if I took the train. I wouldn't have to worry about food, again because the trip is shorter. So main advantages: short short short. Main disadvantages: Cost, luggage situation

So how about you, H/A? Has anyone ever done a coast-to-coast trip on the train? Is it an interesting experience? Would you recommend it? Am I crazy for even considering this?

Didgeridoo on
«1

Posts

  • EshEsh Tending bar. FFXIV. Motorcycles. Portland, ORRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Take the plane. You're going to lose your mind on a train trip that long and you're going to be very, very uncomfortable without a sleeper car.

    What airline are you taking that's charging you for anything past a carry-on? How many bags do you need to take?

    Esh on
  • Gabriel_PittGabriel_Pitt Stepped in it Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Didgeridoo wrote:
    Main disadvantages: Cost, luggage situation
    Neither of those are actual disadvantages compared to making the trip by train. There are literally no advantages to taking the train instead of flying.

    Gabriel_Pitt on
  • BlueThiefZeroBlueThiefZero Denver, CORegistered User regular
    Well, as someone who is getting ready to move myself I completely understand the want to ease the transition. I also, in the future, love to take a cross-country train tour the the US and visit the best roller-coasters this country has to offer.

    I have taken a few train rides in my time. Once from Albuquerque, NM to Los Angeles, CA with my mom when I was 13 or so. It was a lot of fun, I got to see a lot of the country and have an awesome experience. It was a 12 hour trip so we shared a sleeping coach but spent most of our time in the viewing car just watching the countryside. The second time was from London, England to Edinburgh, Scotland. A shorter trip and very cool.

    This one is tricky because I understand the want to take a train ride, but that is a long trip and I can't offer any insight to sleeping the coach. I mean, a lot of people do it so I can't be all bad, I just haven't done it personally.

    I did a little research to see how much it would be to UPS one of your bags across the country and it was in the $250 range for a 40 lb bag, not good at all. You could always see if a company like Mayflower could ship your belongings cheaper if you wanted to fly but not have to leave anything behind. But the coast still would probably be cheaper just to fly with them.

    So personally I would fly. I love train rides but 55 hours is a little rough, especially with having to find food and no access to a shower. But I would defiantly re-visit the idea later.

  • ThanatosThanatos Registered User regular
    There is very little between the Appalachians and the Sierra Nevadas worth seeing from a train, for, like, 40 hours.

  • godmodegodmode Southeast JapanRegistered User regular
    Definitely take the flight! Checked bag fees aren't so outrageous as to be prohibitive, so maybe just stuff what you can into there, then you can take a carry-on PLUS a "personal bag". But yeah, if I were you I wouldn't want to sit on a train for two days, especially when you have nowhere to sleep or shower. It seems like plane is the best choice. Get there quickly with the essentials you've packed and you're set, and you won't be paying that much more than you would for a train.

  • StraygatsbyStraygatsby Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Anything longer than a day on a train without proper sleeper cars and whatnot is just an exercise in pain management and endurance with a scenic view. I wouldn't rec it. It sounds like cost is a big issue for you, otherwise I'd recommend the correct answer: driving, but if you're talking true coast to coast (the longest I've done was Boston to Los Angeles) it'll be more expensive (and difficult solo). It's a great experience, but I guess it's less viable these days with 4 dollar gallons of gas and the rest. I'd go with the flight.

    Straygatsby on
  • a5ehrena5ehren AtlantaRegistered User regular
    Thanatos wrote: »
    There is very little between the Appalachians and the Sierra Nevadas worth seeing from a train, for, like, 40 hours.

    I'd say the Rockies are pretty cool, but yeah. If there is specific stuff you want to see, just take a vacation later on.

    Take the plane. Ship your extra clothes via FedEx/UPS if you really need it. Ground shipping will be a tiny bit cheaper than checked bag fees.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    Only reason to take a train in the US is if you are moving more than one car across more than four states, then the Auto-Train is pretty down useful (with a sleeper car).

    For what you have, you may want to either leave all but your bare essentially for a week or so with someone back home and have then ship them for you once you get settled, or have your stuff shipped ahead of you to where you are going. Compare the rates with the airplane, but usually its cheaper to ship than to check them as bags.

    The romance of a train is considerable, and if you were in most of the other countries in the world you would have a good time. In the US, though, our rail system isn't interesting or luxurious enough to make it worth it over a flight.

  • Drake ChambersDrake Chambers Lay out my formal shorts. Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    I know a couple that flew to the west coast for their honeymoon and took a train back (coast-to-coast) for the romance of it. They had a sleeper car. She later described it to me as excruciatingly long and miserable (the trip, not the sleeper car).

    They're now divorced.

    Not because of the train trip, but I'm sure it didn't help.

    Drake Chambers on
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Trains sound very exciting until you realize the trip is mostly this...
    Image1.html

    for 70... freaking... hours.

    Sentry on
    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    grr...

    mr5VZ.jpg

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • bowenbowen Sup? Registered User regular
    Hope you bring some books and a laptop for a train trip.

    Fly. Trust me.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • mtsmts Dr. Robot King Registered User regular
    where are you guys getting 40 hours? it took less than that to drive cross country and that is with stopping to sleep at night and doing 12 hr driving days.

    camo_sig.png
  • bowenbowen Sup? Registered User regular
    It takes roughly 50 hours to travel from one side of the US to the other in a straight drive. A train would be slightly faster than that. A plane would take a few hours.

    not a doctor, not a lawyer, examples I use may not be fully researched so don't take out of context plz, don't @ me
  • SentrySentry Registered User regular
    he also... you know... says how long the trip is right in the OP.

    [SIGPIC][/SIGPIC]
    wrote:
    When I was a little kid, I always pretended I was the hero,' Skip said.
    'Fuck yeah, me too. What little kid ever pretended to be part of the lynch-mob?'
  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    The obvious reason to take the train (or a bus) in this instance is if it's dramatically cheaper. Since we're talking about the US, train fare is probably going to be a multiple of what a flight would cost.

    Take the flight.

    Really, take the flight. I've done multi-day bus and train trips; the misery is worth it if you're saving a lot of money. Since you're not going to be saving any money, why would you put yourself through it?

  • naporeonnaporeon Seattle, WARegistered User regular
    bowen wrote: »
    It takes roughly 50 hours to travel from one side of the US to the other in a straight drive. A train would be slightly faster than that. A plane would take a few hours.

    Except that a train does not follow an optimal path, and has things like layovers. It is not at all a speedy way to travel a distance that great.

    However, I can say as someone with experience in both a train and a bus ride this long, it can be an absolute blast. You will see some cool sites, meet some cool people, and have a ton of time to read and write. There will be terrible bouts of ennui, but for me anyway, it's something I would do in a heartbeat.

  • EncEnc A Fool with Compassion Pronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered User regular
    naporeon wrote: »
    bowen wrote: »
    It takes roughly 50 hours to travel from one side of the US to the other in a straight drive. A train would be slightly faster than that. A plane would take a few hours.

    Except that a train does not follow an optimal path, and has things like layovers. It is not at all a speedy way to travel a distance that great.

    However, I can say as someone with experience in both a train and a bus ride this long, it can be an absolute blast. You will see some cool sites, meet some cool people, and have a ton of time to read and write. There will be terrible bouts of ennui, but for me anyway, it's something I would do in a heartbeat.

    But would you do it carying all of your suitcases worth of possessions you are moving?

    Train adventures can be fun, but only when you travel light and don't care about reaching a destination quickly. Being able to hop off and explore a town is part of the benefit, but a cross country ride with a ton of stuff is not going to be fun and you will be worrying about your shit everywhere you go.

    I explored England and Scottland by rail, and had a blast. Difference is that there are a great many rail lines that have regular trips wherever you are going and I only had a single large backpack to look over.

  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Yup! Having a carefree adventure is a far cry from being burdened with a bunch of heavy luggage that prevents you from going anywhere, hobbles you if you do try and go anywhere, and keeps you from letting your guard down.

    Done both, wouldn't recommend the second.

    @Didgeridoo - I see in your OP you say that the train is less expensive than flying? Would you mind posting your destinations? That is the exact opposite of what I would expect. For instance, a flight from Seattle to NYC costs $160, lasts 8 hours, and has one layover; the cheapest AmTrak fare for the same destination and date costs $212 and lasts 65 hours (not counting delays)!

    adytum on
  • EshEsh Tending bar. FFXIV. Motorcycles. Portland, ORRegistered User regular
    adytum wrote: »
    Yup! Having a carefree adventure is a far cry from being burdened with a bunch of heavy luggage that prevents you from going anywhere, hobbles you if you do try and go anywhere, and keeps you from letting your guard down.

    Done both, wouldn't recommend the second.

    @Didgeridoo - I see in your OP you say that the train is less expensive than flying? Would you mind posting your destinations? That is the exact opposite of what I would expect. For instance, a flight from Seattle to NYC costs $160, lasts 8 hours, and has one layover; the cheapest AmTrak fare for the same destination and date costs $212 and lasts 65 hours (not counting delays)!

    Not all hubs have cheap Jet Blue flights like that. I'm assuming that's the carrier? It depends largely on where you're going to and coming from. Portland, OR to Providence, RI was almost $700 one way for me.

  • adytumadytum The Inevitable Rise And FallRegistered User regular
    edited April 2012
    That was just the results of the first random search I did.

    Seattle, WA - NYC 04/26/12 - One way

    $160 - Delta
    $179 - Delta
    $180 - American
    $190 - Sun Country
    $190 - Delta
    $202 - American
    $215 - American

    Vs. Amtrak

    $212 - $420 for a coach seat

    Etc.

    It's obviously going to depend on the specific parameters, which is why I asked!

    adytum on
  • UsagiUsagi Nah Registered User regular
    Didge, the longest I've ever been on Amtrak was 9 hours from DC to South Carolina and by Virginia I wanted to shoot myself in the face.

    Take the plane!

  • This content has been removed.

  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    mcdermott wrote: »
    Usagi wrote: »
    Didge, the longest I've ever been on Amtrak was 9 hours from DC to South Carolina and by Virginia I wanted to shoot myself in the face.

    Take the plane!

    I've done seattle to montana and yeah. Coach on a train is better than coach on a plane, hands down. But not "want to spend 10x as long there" better.

    Yeah, for short trips (between DC and New York, for example), coach by train can be very nice, but I wouldn't recommend it for longer trips. I've taken the train from Los Angeles to New York before. It was actually pretty awesome, to tell you the truth, but there are a couple of things to keep in mind:

    1. I was working and didn't have to pay for my ticket or meals in the dining car.
    2. I didn't have a choice; the nature of the job ruled out air travel.
    3. I had a sleeper compartment. I don't know who sleeper cars were designed for, but they *aren't* designed for a 6'4" 205 lb man. It definitely beat the shit out of coach, though. If I hadn't had the compartment, I would probably have managed one night in coach, but I would have shot myself on the second evening.

    And yeah, it gets boring as hell between Colorado and Pennsylvania. Indiana is no more interesting from ground level than it is from 35,000 feet.

    It's still kind of a cool experience if you have something to do during the train ride, if you have the time to kill and the money to spare, and if you're willing to spring for a sleeper compartment. If you can think of literally anything else you'd rather be doing with that spare day in either your old home or your new home, though, I'd say take an airplane.

    SammyF on
  • DidgeridooDidgeridoo Flighty Dame Registered User regular
    Ha ha, looks like the overwhelming answer is PLANE. Perhaps someday I'll spring for a sleeper car and do a proper train trip, but for now it sounds like it isn't worth the trouble.

    And I'd rather not post my precise location, but yes it is cheaper to take the train. This is because both my departure and destination cities are a bit out-of-the-way, and are not major airport hubs like NYC or Seattle.

    Thanks for the advice, everyone!

  • DidgeridooDidgeridoo Flighty Dame Registered User regular
    Esh wrote: »
    Take the plane. You're going to lose your mind on a train trip that long and you're going to be very, very uncomfortable without a sleeper car.

    What airline are you taking that's charging you for anything past a carry-on? How many bags do you need to take?

    United! Don't all the airlines charge for baggage now? And I would like to take as many bags as possible, but if I'm being charged I'll likely be limiting it to two.

  • EshEsh Tending bar. FFXIV. Motorcycles. Portland, ORRegistered User regular
    Didgeridoo wrote: »
    Esh wrote: »
    Take the plane. You're going to lose your mind on a train trip that long and you're going to be very, very uncomfortable without a sleeper car.

    What airline are you taking that's charging you for anything past a carry-on? How many bags do you need to take?

    United! Don't all the airlines charge for baggage now? And I would like to take as many bags as possible, but if I'm being charged I'll likely be limiting it to two.

    They charge for two bags generally, but not one...

  • illigillig Registered User regular
    If you want to see the country, then drive. Three days on a train (in coach, no less) will destroy your soul.

  • UsagiUsagi Nah Registered User regular
    United charges $25 for the first bag, $35 for the second, or $100 each if they're overweight. You're better off mailing your stuff to yourself via Parcel Post.

    And Didge, if you've set your sights on train travel I would suggest you look outside of the US for a pleasant experience--Amtrak is pretty awful all around

  • EshEsh Tending bar. FFXIV. Motorcycles. Portland, ORRegistered User regular
    Usagi wrote: »
    United charges $25 for the first bag, $35 for the second, or $100 each if they're overweight. You're better off mailing your stuff to yourself via Parcel Post.

    And Didge, if you've set your sights on train travel I would suggest you look outside of the US for a pleasant experience--Amtrak is pretty awful all around

    Amtrak is great for shorter distances and much more preferable to say...Greyhound. I've used it from Portland to Seattle a bunch of times and even down to California here and there, but for cross-country? Definitely not. Especially not in a moving situation.

  • MalgarasMalgaras Registered User regular
    edited April 2012
    Taking a train trip a cross-trip for the sake of a cross-country train trip is something I would fully endorse doing, at least once in your life. Trying to move via train though, sounds like an awful headache. And I would NEVER even consider it without a sleeper car. Even under different circumstances, you have to be the right kind of person for it, if you are the type that gets antsy and anxious easily and don't like to just lay back, relax, and do nothing from time to time, you will hate it.

    Train can be fun and relaxing under the right circumstances. For example PAX train last Thursday, about 8 and a half hours in coach, was an absolute blast. Yeah, I could have made the flight in an hour, but I had a lot of fun, and will be doing the same thing again next year. 50+ hours in the train with a crap ton of luggage to look after, by yourself, in coach, with no shower or anything..... take the plane, no contest.

    Malgaras on
    1tLJUH2O.png
  • MichaelLCMichaelLC In what furnace was thy brain? ChicagoRegistered User regular
    Esh wrote: »
    Amtrak is great for shorter distances and much more preferable to say...Greyhound. I've used it from Portland to Seattle a bunch of times and even down to California here and there, but for cross-country? Definitely not. Especially not in a moving situation.

    Multi-state Trips:
    Plane >>> Car >>>>>>>> Amtrak >>>>>>>>>>> Grayhound >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Megabus

    In-state Trips:
    Car >>>> Amtrak/Metra >>>>> Plane >>>>>>>>> Grayhound

  • MulletudeMulletude Registered User regular
    Rode a bus from Kansas to Daytona Beach. It was a soul devouring journey into the bowels of hell.

    XBL-Dug Danger WiiU-DugDanger Steam-http://steamcommunity.com/id/DugDanger/
  • SammyFSammyF Registered User regular
    Usagi wrote: »
    You're better off mailing your stuff to yourself via Parcel Post.

    Whether you're moving to the other side of the country or the other side of the world, this is the cheapest and easiest way to move as long as you're not trying to bring furniture with you.

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    Trains are great if you don't have any specific need to be where you're going in any reasonable window of time. Also, they run so chronically late you may not be in the right timezone with a few hours until your "scheduled" arrival. They can be fun, and are pretty comfortable, but you have to be in the right mindset to take one. Just fly, it's cheaper and quicker. Train travel is a novelty, you'd probably arrive at your destination quicker on a greyhound bus than on amtrak.

  • ASimPersonASimPerson Cold... ... and hard.Registered User regular
    I drove from Alabama to California when I moved out here.

    I probably wouldn't do that again. Though it helps now that I could probably actually afford movers and stuff.

    But, yeah, moving is pretty stressful without a 50 hour train ride (with no shower) and if you don't have to move a car or furniture, check some bags with your flight and ship anything else you might want. Note that you may want to pack what you want into boxes or bags first and then weigh them - flying domestically each bag can be up to 50 pounds, and it will be more expensive to ship a 50 pound bag than it will be to check it. You don't want to check more than two bags though, as fees go through the roof at for the 3rd bag and beyond.

  • dispatch.odispatch.o Registered User regular
    I'm the opposite, I moved from California to Tennessee and the drive was enjoyable. Did it in 3 days. Just preference I guess, but I also don't own much. Flying is still the way to go if you have a strict timeframe in which to move.

  • DelzhandDelzhand Registered User, Transition Team regular
    My wife and I decided to take a train from Greensboro NC to Moline IL. 27 hours hours including layovers. It was so bad we got a refund for the return tickets and drove home.

  • Blake TBlake T Do you have enemies then? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life.Registered User regular
    Yeah. Trains (and busses and planes) are fine for 12 or less hours. Anything longer and the lack of general ammenities and freedom makes them difficult to deal with.

    Cars are slightly different because at any time you can say fuck it, pull over and do whatever you want.

  • KarrmerKarrmer Registered User regular
    Southwest Airlines is extremely
    cheap, decent, and doesn't charge for two checked bags. They're the biggest airline in the US for a reason IMO, but if you're not coming from an airport they serve that doesn't help I guess

Sign In or Register to comment.