this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2025
410 points (97.2% liked)
People Twitter
8280 readers
2061 users here now
People tweeting stuff. We allow tweets from anyone.
RULES:
- Mark NSFW content.
- No doxxing people.
- Must be a pic of the tweet or similar. No direct links to the tweet.
- No bullying or international politcs
- Be excellent to each other.
- Provide an archived link to the tweet (or similar) being shown if it's a major figure or a politician. Archive.is the best way.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I wish they'd upgrade their long haul routes to go faster. There's one from SLC to SF I'm interested in, but it takes 18 hours, vs 11 by car or 2 by plane. If it was faster than driving, I'd consider it to avoid the airport.
I don't blame them for focusing on the easier trips though.
Same, but with the limited funding I get why. Shorter trips like that make money, long hauls don't - and since they don't own the tracks they can't even upgrade them or begin to do anything. I will say 18 is a lot (especially in a coach seat), but there is a positive of not having to drive. I usually take my steam deck and just zone out. Overnights though are tough in coach, for that you really have to want to be there.
Yeah, if I want to go anywhere interesting, it would be an overnight trip, with kids. A sleeping room is way too expensive, so it's a nonstarter. If it was 3x the speed, it would probably be fine, especially if they left in the morning instead of the evening.
So yeah, the only train I take is the commuter, and only to go to the airport because there's no connection from the train to my work (there's a way to get there, but the trip would take 2 hours each way). The commuter can't go very fast because it has to stop every 5-10 miles, but it's fine since it goes about as fast as a car.
So yeah, here's hoping Amtrak can make enough on the east coast to be able to upgrade the west coast.