logoalt Hacker News

superultrayesterday at 8:43 PM3 repliesview on HN

I’ve taken this line - as many have and do all the time. Ride it once and you’ll realize why it’s the better way to travel in every way but cost and time - and both of those are a result of the United State unwillingness to fully fund something like Amtrak.

As the author states traveling by train just a more pleasant experience.

I should note that even though there is technically wifi on every Amtrak train, it’s cellular based. You’ll find that at least from atlanta to NY, the train somehow threads the needle between cellular ranges. Both your phone and of course the train will often be either out of range of fast cellular service or out of range altogether. Supposedly Amtrak is getting starlink but we’ll see. So, don’t expect to be getting on any video calls.


Replies

goaliecayesterday at 10:09 PM

> and both of those are a result of the United State unwillingness to fully fund something like Amtrak.

What kind of funding are we looking at? Is the issue that this is cost-prohibitive for reasons of scale that make this non-competitive for businesses themselves to fund as compared to elsewhere?

show 1 reply
aziaziaziyesterday at 9:47 PM

I’m curious if a classic starlings antenna works at 100-300 km/h with occasional rotation, or will it need to be mounted on a targeting motor on top of the train?

show 1 reply
standardUseryesterday at 9:46 PM

Years ago I tried to book a train from San Francisco to Chicago as part of a trip I had planned but found it to be more expensive and, more significantly, a multi-day journey instead of a few hours. If you happen to be an American living near one of the useful passenger rail lines, and desire to go to one of the few destinations it can take you to quickly and affordably, more power to you. But most Americans live nowhere near a useful rail system.

show 1 reply