Amtrak exploring ending Southwest Chief through service | Hacker News Reader

Amtrak exploring ending Southwest Chief through service

hutchnews.com

44 pointsniftich72 comments

I just rode the Southwest Chief from New Mexico to Illinois and back, last month.

Had a long talk with one of the conductors while on the trip. We discussed the remarkable pattern that the Republicans follow: starve everything they don't like (or that they want to privatize so they can pocket the money), then use the subsequent difficulties and failures and budget shortfalls of the starved agency as proof that the agency can't function and deserves being shut down. They do this with Amtrak, they do it with the State Department, they do it with public schools, they do it with state universities, with healthcare, with prisons, with everything they want to privatize.

Funny, they do this with minorities too. Systematically deny them, over many generations, a good education, decent healthcare, safe neighborhoods, ability to vote, and economic opportunity, and then blame them for being uneducated, unhealthy, unsafe, frauds during elections, and for not contributing to the overall economy. Funny how the Rs' playbook is the same everywhere you look.

As for Amtrak, all the transcontinental routes are in jeopardy, the conductor told me. It's only a matter of time before they're gone.

No other civilized country in the world has such lousy transportation infrastructure. Especially trains. The U.S. should have bullet trains going everywhere, but no.

> The U.S. should have bullet trains going everywhere

I love trains, but I disagree. Trains outperform cars and planes in regional contexts. Cross-country rail, if it’s maintained, needs to be explicitly subsidised. Given voters in the middle of the country prefer to scrap their regional transportation infrastructure, I—as a coastal taxpayer—am fine with that.

It’s called “starve the beast” and it’s an actual tactic

Indeed. There is an excellent film documentary by that very name that documents how they're starving public universities across the country and how some may go bankrupt soon.

The irony is, the Rs collectively are the beast, and if we were honest we'd see that their strategy is actually Feed the Beast all the way. Redirect public money to private profit.

The thing is, it isn’t “public” money — it’s my money and your money. It doesn’t belong to the government; it belongs to the people that earn it. And, we should have a right to require better public stewardship of the funds we pay. As far as public universities going bankrupt, citations definitely needed. In conservative Texas, universities seem to be operating just fine. Perhaps a solution is to restrict usage of federal student loan funds to only public schools. Federal student loans currently are being used to subsidize the operation of immensely wealthy private institutions. Harvard has billions in endowment, yet the taxpayer still gets to subsidize loans for students that go there. How is that fair? Perhaps we should tax the endowments of private schools and get them to start paying their fair share? It’s more fair than taxing me more.

If we tax the rich to pay for the poor, should we tax the rich schools o pay for the poor schools? Why should I subsidize Harvard?

Troll language: their strategy is actually Feed the Beast all the way. Redirect public money to private profit.

What was the cost from New Mexico to Illinois? How long did it take? How long would a bullet take? How much does a SWA flight from Phoenix to Midway cost? How long does it take? The idea of a cross country train in the US is just ridiculous. Lay (and maintain) thousands of miles of track when an airplane just needs a place to land and some maintenance of the aircraft itself and you’re done. You don’t have to negotiate thousands of miles of right of way — with all the politics that involves, not to mention the extraordinary construction and maintenance costs. Even if you used existing freight rail, that can’t simply be used for high speed.

Anyone taking a long distance train in the US is doing it out of nostalgia or out of contrarian quirkiness or just for the tourist value of it. We have an amazing interstate highway system and buses that run everywhere — yet the only people that take buses do so because they have no other choice — they would all rather fly than be packed on a bus for 12+ trips. I can go to Tokyo in that amount of time, but some people long for the ability to enjoy that length of trip to go from New Mexico to Illinois?

We should be making air travel better, not dwelling on 19th century nostalgia. However, When it comes to commuter-level travel, such as Sacramento to San Francisco or similar types of trips, then certainly rail is a great option because the economics make sense.

The other problem with trains is that as population and economic centers shift, it take years before train systems can respond — you have to actually build more track to change the system. Airplanes can change routes anytime they want (regulatory approvals notwithstanding.)

Even in Europe where trains are icons, try taking a train from Marseille to Geneva. It’s an 8 hour trip requiring two connections. It’s a 45 minute flight at a similar cost.

No normal person is going to chose an 8 hour train ride over a 45 minute flight. Even with heavy subsidization of trains by the French government, the costs are still almost identical. If you remove the subsidy, long distance trains quickly become economically ridiculous compared to airplanes.

If you were to remove the huge taxes on air travel, it would be even cheaper.

No business traveler going from LA to Chicago is going to waste days on a train if given the choice. It’s progress in my mind to eliminate transcontinental passenger trains. We should be looking up and not back.

According to google, Geneva to marseille is only less than 4 hours with a transfer from one TGV to another.

https://www.google.com/maps?q=marseille+to+geneva&oe=UTF-8&h...

Considering airport transit/check-in time, that makes it pretty competitive with taking a short plane trip.

Looking at it now, there is a direct Lyria train that takes 3 and a half hours.

Google hasn’t taken that route in real world conditions. That TGV-TGV routing is nice but also more expensive; often you have to connect to regional, non-TGV trains. And, you also have train station transit/check in times too. Not everyone lives next to the St. Charles station in Marseille. From check-in counter to gate, it rarely takes longer than 15 minutes at the Marseille Airport. Took me 30 minutes once because of a slow passport line, but outside the major hubs, airport check in isn’t much slower than trains. Airports have the added benefit of being safer. There have been several knife and acid attacks at the St Charles train station. Pickpockets are ubiquitous.

But still, a 45 minute flight versus 4 hours with a connection on a train at a similar cost..

Connecting TGVs is hard, but I’ve done it before from Lausanne to Nantes, through different train stations in Paris no less. Was worth it, since I would have needed a 30-40 minute train trip to Geneva anyways.

Airports are usually outside of the city, train stations are usually inside the city, that is a big deal worth a couple of hours. Geneva airport is a bit more convenient, but if you are coming from Lausanne, it’s still an hour.

>Even in Europe where trains are icons, try taking a train from Marseille to Geneva. It’s an 8 hour trip requiring two connections. It’s a 45 minute flight at a similar cost.

While I’m sure you could take that long and transfer that many times, I see a direct 3.5 hour trip for €65

You can’t really compare train travel in the US to that of Europe. The US is gigantic in comparison, Amtrak doesn’t own many of the rails they use and get delayed as a result, and airport security is atrocious to say the least.

If you’re looking at the total time to fly, getting to the airport early, going through the funhouse of “security” and then waiting for your luggage, I would imagine it’s not just 45 min.

We discussed the remarkable pattern that the Republicans follow...

Well said. I've been saying a form of this for years (probably not as articulately as you), but I've noticed recently that more and more people seem to be getting it. This is a good thing, because once enough people understand this is what they are about, then it will become less effective.

> No other civilized country in the world has such lousy transportation infrastructure. Especially trains. The U.S. should have bullet trains going everywhere, but no.

It depends on what metric you use. The US freight rail system is the envy of the world, for example.

The reality is that HSR isn't cost-effective if the trip takes more than about 5 hours. When you superimpose that time limit on the US, there's rather few viable HSR routes. A Chicago/NYC run is at that very margin of viability--and compared to most European countries, that's a longer trip than travelling from one border to another. It's quite easy to set up routes in UK or in Germany that hit all of the major cities in fairly short order, but that task is impossible in the US. Especially grating is the lack of collinearity between major cities; the Midwest in particular ends up having to be a star topology, since Chicago-X doesn't include multiple cities, and there's no route useful enough to be worth bypassing Chicago.

> The reality is that HSR isn't cost-effective if the trip takes more than about 5 hours.

Can you expand on that? It's not obvious to me.

It’s certainly not cost-effective on a relative basis when compared to air travel. The Delta Shuttle runs Chicago-NY-DC every hour on the half hour for a song. Hard to compete with that on rail.

With rail you do get the benefit of landing in the middle of the city rather than an airport 30 mins from city center, but it’s still far less expensive in both time and money to fly when the trip exceeds about 4 or 5 hours.

And, indeed, high-speed rail isn't very price competitive with budget air a lot of the time either. Doesn't mean it's a bad idea; transporting a lot of people who are willing to pay a premium off the roads and out of airports may well be a net win. But understand that it's premium travel.

Several reasons:

* Airplanes travel about twice as fast as top-speed HSR. By 5 hours, even assuming generous airplane penalties, there's no speed advantage to HSR.

* For business travel, you've already lost the entire working day at that timepoint, so downtown-to-downtown isn't as much of an advantage anymore.

* You start to have to have nasty scheduling times for intermediate stops. Having to disembark at 3:00 AM is not going to be conducive to ridership.

* Sleeping cars and full-service dining start to become necessary around that point in time, and that's really going to eat into your operating costs.

I drove the number of 5 hours largely on the meal concern, but it does seem that most planning exercises tend to profitability wall closer to the 3 hour mark.

The US is 2680 miles across, and the minimum speed for new high speed rail is 160MPH. So, it would take less than 16.8 hours for a non stop high speed to go coast to coast.

In other words, the 5 hour rule of thumb predicts that a modern system where the coastal cities were densely connected and there were a few money-losing lines that crossed unpopulated regions would be wildly profitable.

State-of-the-art high speed rail (like in China) would be even faster, and make even more sense.

It's unlikely that you'd be able to push trainsets above 220mph or 350 km/h in revenue service. Even then, the actual average speed for a Chicago-NYC run would be closer to 160mph, since you'd have to make some stops along the way, and there's no way you're maintaining 220 in the Appalachians. The shortest plausible route would be essentially the turnpike route (parallel the NJ, PA, OH, and IN turnpikes in a NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago route), which is going to run about 800 miles or so--or about 5 hours. More importantly, you can't shrink the project to a smaller viable project--not connecting Chicago and NYC is going to give you a losing line, and not hitting that top speed is going to be too slow.

And Chicago/NYC is the "easy" connection. Atlanta, Texas Triangle, and Florida are simply too far away, let alone trying to reach across the Plains to hit Denver, Phoenix, and Las Vegas en route to LA/SF.

Well in other places, the HSR just tunnels through the mountains. Rome to Bologna, which is a comparablyish distance to Harrisburg to Pittsburgh is a good example. Highish speed rail already exists between NYC and Harrisburg and Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago is comparably easy (especially if you can use the already-electrified SSL tracks to get in Chicago).

By my count, a NYC-EWR-PHL-HAR-PIT-CLE-TOL-SBN-CHI train would directly serve metros with ~50 million people (and indirectly serve much of the rest of the northeast and midwest).

Realistically, your problems start between roughly Youngstown and Harrisburg. Between Harrisburg and Altoona, the terrain is ridge-and-valley, which means the tradeoff is twisting to follow a water gap or punching a small tunnel through the ridge. West of Altoona, the dissected Allegheny Plateau begins, but you have to first make an 800-1000 foot climb to reach the plateau, which means in practice a ~7mi, 2% grade tunnel. From thence to around Youngstown, you're on a dissected plateau, which means every water course (for whom the idea of a straight line is anathema) has carved a gorge. It's a rather different situation from just tunneling through a massif.

Sure, you can fix issues with tunnels and bridges. But that doesn't come cheap. And what is by far the most expensive portion of the line is the part that's necessary for any sort of traction, which greatly increases the chances of the entire project being a white elephant (keeping in mind, again, that even in the best-case scenario, you're still at the very margin of being able to run a profit). The economics look worse than the Turin-Lyon HSR, which is already criticized as an expensive, unnecessary boondoggle.

The US is the leader when it comes to freight transport via rail. That's why our passenger rail is so crappy -- rail transport companies make plenty of money with freight and have zero interest in messing it up by having barely loaded passenger trains use the lines.

I would also add that there is this really large mountain range that divides the heavily populated West Coast from the rest of the continent. Anyone who has ever driven on I-90, I-40, I-10, or I-8 between can tell you just how large it is. The lowest pass I can think of is ~4000 feet. There are a few European rail routes that go that high, but there are zero bullet trains that do.

There is far more to the story than freight companies being uninterested in serving passenger trains. There is also the fact that many of the efficient routes we had a century ago are gone, in some cases even the tracks have been removed; the fact that railroads must compete with heavily subsidized highways and airports; and the fact that we over-regulate passenger rail service (compared to Europe, our trains are much heavier and more expensive to operate). There is also the chronic under-investment in local public transit throughout the country, which makes trains less convenient in the numerous medium-sized cities that exist between major metropolitan areas. Amtrak also inherited "deferred maintenance" at its various stations and on the Northeast Corridor, and they are still trying to dig out of that hole (the fact that their funding is approved annually makes some of the larger projects difficult to plan).

A Republican actually created Amtrak, in case you didn't know.

With the intention of the whole project failing:

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=164320

The Republican party used to have a brain, soul and guts, even if it was wrong on a number of issues. Now it's just mouth and a bad attitude. Both Lincoln and Reagan would be disappointed.

The Southwest Chief runs between Chicago and LA, via Kansas City, Albuquerque, and Flagstaff. It approaches Wichita within 25 miles, but bypasses it to run west for ~350 miles across rural Kansas and Colorado, serving several small towns, and forming a significant transportation backbone. Thereafter, between La Junta, CO (east of Pueblo, CO) and Lamy, NM (adjacent to Santa Fe, NM), the Southwest Chief runs over track owned by BNSF that the freight railroad no longer uses. This lattermost stretch is the most troublesome section, and the topic of much of the article.

BNSF has offered [1] to host this train over a different route that it actively uses -- the Southern Transcon. Using the Southern Transcon would add direct service to Wichita, Amarillo, Clovis, and Vaughn, but would bypass southwest Kansas, southeast Colorado, and northeast New Mexico. Doing so would also remove direct service from Albuquerque and put it even further from Santa Fe. If it weren't for the Albuquerque complication, this would be a pretty good route.

Amtrak has, under its previous leadership, worked with the governments of Kansas, Colorado, and New Mexico, and various localities along the route to solicit funding for continuing the service over its original route. It also got some federal grants. Previous CEOs were staunchly supportive of continuing long-distance service. The new CEO, significantly less so. Representatives from these states were caught unaware by his new approach, and now those matching funds could be in question.

The Southwest Chief is a notable cross-country service, but it's also the transportation backbone of southwest Kansas and southeast Colorado. In my opinion, KS and CO, together with Amtrak and BNSF, should investigate a service between eastern Kansas (e.g. Wichita or KC) and Denver, serving many of the same rural towns of both, but also the major cities of Pueblo, Colorado Springs, and Denver in Colorado. The track is owned by BNSF and is in good shape, and would provide service to new markets on a less fraught route. New Mexico should investigate a solution that works for them, which may or may not include more transportation options from Las Vegas, NM, to Santa Fe and Albuquerque, and working with Texas to explore routes towards Lubbock and Dallas.

[1] https://www.codot.gov/about/southwest-chief-commission/swchi...

I live in Manhattan, Kansas and man, do I wish we had Amtrak service to Denver! It would be fantastic to board a train here in E. Kansas after dinner and wake up on the Front Range. We have a track--I'm nearly certain that it's BNSF-owned--that runs right through town. It doesn't seem heavily used, maybe 3-4 trains daily, but the trains run fast and are long. Most are made up of bulk grain cars but there are some mixed trains, too, with containers and boxcars and even the occasional wind turbine blade train. Surely this track is good enough for passenger service.

Manhattan, as Kansas's most important college town, is perfectly emblematic of Kansas's screwed-up transport routes. Interstate 70 passes ten miles south of Manhattan, through barren prairie without a gas station for 25 miles in either direction. (ask me how I know!) It's not as though somebody decided there was something more important to visit at that particular latitude; they just decided not to go through Manhattan. When I must drive through Kansas I typically take US-54 instead. That road actually transits inhabited areas.

The same moron who designed I-70 must have drawn up the Amtrak routes too. Traveling from Kansas City to Denver? Why the hell would anyone do that? If you're in Kansas City, you must want to go to La Junta CO, to smell those stockyards. (Literally, that's all the town has. Stockyards. Maybe two restaurants? Also tumbleweeds.)

Kansas is sort of like Siberia, in that fifty years from now when the population has completely collapsed it will be recolonized by more visionary people from more visionary places. No I'm not talking about Johnson County.

D'oh! Of course I meant longitude...

> The Southwest Chief is a notable cross-country service, but it's also the transportation backbone of southwest Kansas and southeast Colorado. In my opinion, KS and CO, together with Amtrak and BNSF, should...

Stop right there. Colorado and Kansas should, together, buy the 219 mile segment that BNSF no longer uses and no longer wants to maintain. They can then hand off management of the segment to Amtrak and leave BNSF completely out of it.

Back in 2012, the Republican-controlled, car-loving state of Michigan bought a 135 mile segment from Norfolk Southern. At this time, over 90% of the Chicago-Detroit Amtrak service in Michigan runs on publicly-owned rail (Amtrak owns another large segment). The Michigan Department of Transportation maintains the line for 110 mph service.

There is no reason that Kansas and Colorado can't do the same. It's just a lack of ambition.

Good idea. New Mexico needs to be included too. There's probably more of this track segment in NM than in Colorado.

"but it's also the transportation backbone of southwest Kansas and southeast Colorado"

What exactly do you mean when you say this? How many people per day on average, use the train to travel this area vs. using cars?

NM already has commuter rail between Alberquerque (and Santa Fe) and Belen, where the Southern Transcon reaches. In a world where Amtrak LD trains ran on time, the schedules could be adjusted for a convenient transfer making it not so bad for Albuquerque.

Las Vegas, New Mexico is a town that used to be a major rail station. Amazing Victorian houses, as the rail line enabled prosperous folk to import building materials and household items from Sears-Roebuck in Chicago. 100 years before Amazon was a thing.

I love the Lamy Amtrak station and ride every chance I get to leave town. Los Angeles for less than $100, or the other direction from Lamy to Raton to visit the family ranch.

Two months ago we rode that line out of Lamy and I was really surprised how busy it was, at least 50 people boarding at that station.

My favorite vacation ever was a long sleeper-car service, out of Emeryville (my home town at the time) and Denver. The views are spectacular. Meals are inclded with the sleeper service, and is really good. The people are remarkable. I was working for an early dot-com at the time and I slept deeply for 12 hours.

Also: NO STRESS of an airport. FREE PARKING. Show up 20 minites early, whatever, just walk right up and get on the train.

Even with coach service, the seats are huge recliners and you don't need to stay in your seat. Walk around!

Interesting how the politicians demand it be kept running and maintained yet don't talk about where the $30-$50 million in repairs to the existing track or the $55 million to install the required positive train controls safety systems will come from.

I find it interesting that politicians increase military spending by $100 billion or we cut future revenue by $1 trillion and nobody bats an eye. Meanwhile, people hem and haw over $50 million to maintain critical infrastructure.

Rich people sell guns, poor people ride trains.

Not all of them, obviously, but enough to "guide" the decisions of career politicians.

By and large poor people ride buses or drive. Buses go a lot places trains do not and, in the Northeast, buses are far cheaper than trains. Get above about 500 miles or so and planes are often cheaper.

If there was a highway bridge that needed $50 million in repairs, those same politicians wouldn't bat an eye, before signing the cheque.

That is, if they didn't earmark $2 billion to replace it.

Especially if Boeing offered to build the bridge with an advanced tactical HUD and friggin lasers n'stuff. That bridge would go all "pew pew"... And would maybe employ two people per-state in design while the contractor pocketed most of the difference, still that's the way it goes these days.

This is sad; as a Boy Scout I actually rode this train from Chicago to Raton for a trip to Philmont Scout Ranch. I know my troop and many others utilize this transportation option as flying can be expensive and inconvenient for large groups, especially when you are bringing large backpacking gear with TSA prohibited or check-only items like camping stove fuel, pocket knives, etc.

I hate to break it to you but some of those items don't seem to be allowed on Amtrak either.

One of these days I'd like to do one of the Amtrak long-haul Western US routes although I expect the idea is more appealing than the actual experience would be.

Unfortunately, Amtrak's Northeast Corridor basically makes money that it loses in almost of its other routes. There may be a few city pairs here that may eke out a profit but not a lot.

Rode Emeryville, CA to Omaha, NE. Glad I was able to take the kids on that experience while they still can.

I used to be an Empire Builder regular. Now a regular on two other Amtrak long-distance routes.

There are some spectacular views, but remember that a good portion of it happens in the dark and you end up looking at a lot of nothing.

It really is an experience, as long as you go first class (sleeping berth).

Some routes have events for the first class passengers that are themes with the route. Wine and cheese tastings, for example. Or miniature margarita and nachos fiestas.

What I find interesting is that the level of service varies from run to run. I suspect due to staffing issues. Not everyone wants to spend a week or more away from home at a time to be a waiter.

> One of these days I'd like to do one of the Amtrak long-haul Western US routes although I expect the idea is more appealing than the actual experience would be.

If I had to take one of those routes again, I'd do it as a sleeper car passenger.

I took the Empire Builder as regular passenger. I'm glad I tried it once, and the views in the Rockies were amazing, but 30+ hours straight in a reclining seat is a bit much to do again. I think it would have been much more enjoyable with a proper place to sleep.

Do it in a sleeper, a very pleasant experience...

I'd definitely go for the sleeper. I'd almost certainly do either Empire Builder or California Zephyr.

Agreed. I did the Crescent route (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crescent_(train)) once and never will again if not in a sleeper car. Looking back, I wouldn't go as far as saying it was torture (being unable to sleep), but I thought it was in the moment.

Alternate view: I did it in coach but with stops in between (so not 30+ hours at a time) and would recommend my version. One of the highlights of the trip was talking to everyone else in the train, which is bound to happen when you're in what amounts to a very long corridor for 12 hours at a time. Most youngish solo travelers seemed to be doing it this way.

Yep, went cross-country from NY to SF in coach. It's hard to get sleep; would not recommend. (But on the upside, got a $130 coupon for a future ride after a 9-hour delay!)

I've done the California Zephyr between Denver and San Francisco (at Emeryville). The actual experience was much better than I expected it to be. It's stunningly beautiful.

It's pretty clear that these routes are under threat. I intend to ride as many of them as I can before they close.

It's definitely worth the time.

It's natural to wait for a point where I have more time and maybe more inclination to take less energetic trips. But you're right that long-haul Amtrak routes probably won't be around forever.

If you like long distance trains make sure you ride the Amtraks before it's too late.

Or just go to Europe.

Unless you mean Russia, Europe doesn't have the same kind of long-distance rail service. Remember Europe is geographically very small.

And as much as it pains the anti-Americans in the audience, the United States still has the world's largest rail network. Number two is Russia, which is a distant second, followed by China.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_tran...

Rail network != passenger rail network, though, which was the point of the top-level comment AIUI.

If we look at patronage, US passenger miles in 2017 were 6.53bn. UK passenger miles in just one quarter were 10bn.

We have a lot more rail commuters jammed into medium distance trains.

Well american trains don't go anywhere anyone wants to go to in a reasonable amount of time.

I can get from Boston to NYC in a reasonable amount of time using the train. Very competitive with air. Not so much on my next trip from Boston to San Francisco.

There are some long distance services in Europe, although many overnight services have been withdrawn.

Amsterdam to Moscow remains, and is probably the longest, although it still can't compete with the USA on distance. I don't know what the scenery is like.

The scenic rail journeys I'd recommend to a tourist are all much shorter. I also wouldn't recommend travelling just for the journey, which could be reasonable for crossing the USA (or Russia, China). Travel by train in Europe because you can conveniently visit several cities, avoid tiresome driving, or use the flexibility to hike/cycle/whatever without needing to return to where you started.

(PS; I only made a rough calculation, but adding the network lengths of the EU countries on your link comes to around 80% of the USA length.)

At least we have trains. Even if we are not allowed to access this news site. Was this one of the GDPR panic sites, that blocks all Europeans or just a random error?

It's really not the same. Amtrak long distances are very different from actual economically viable passenger rail lines. It's mostly the people: no one who rides Amtrak long distance does it because it's an efficient way of getting somewhere else. Precisely the reason why I think it's bound to go away.

The closest thing I did in Europe was Budapest-Zagreb on an old German IC-style train. 7 hours for 150 miles or something like that. Croatian border patrol hops on the train and leaves with your passport at a border crossing in the middle of nowhere.

I havent done the Transsiberian but that seems more similar to Amtrak than Western European trains.

I did Budapest to Zagreb once as well! Actually, we stopped for a few days in Siófok, so it didn't seem like such a long trip.

A little over 10 years ago I took the overnight train with a sleeping berth from Berlin to Stockholm. The train rolled slowly up to the coast, onto a ship and crossed to Sweden. I would highly recommend it, except that it doesn't exist anymore. In fact Germany no longer have any "overnight-style" trains at all.

There still is a Berlin-Stockholm nigh train, just not so frequent. https://www.snalltaget.se/en/destinations/berlin

There are also still a few other overnight trains within Germany, just by a different operator. https://www.nightjet.com/en/

One item on my bucket list is circumnavigating the US by train, in a big loop, stopping here and there along the way.

I'm not sure I'll ever find the time, but I also worry it won't be possible anymore when I do.

I did NY->SF in a little under 2 weeks. The actual train ride is under 3 days. It doesn't take that long. Highly recommended.

I use this train and it will be a pity to lose it. It's quite pleasant; you can often get a sleeper for less than the price of a flight. Unlike a plane, you can get up and walk around, work on your laptop, talk on the phone, charge all your devices from a real 110v outlet, and eat fairly decent food. The scenery is beautiful. (The onboard wifi does suck but that's no surprise; I solve that problem by bringing my own hotspot.)

That said, over the last year or two, service has been degrading to the point of the train often being hours late. Food quality, cleanliness, and general attention to detail have been slipping from constant budget cuts.

Wonder if this means that there is no hope for expanding the Amtrak line through OKC into Kansas. I hope they are able to expand north into more states.

Apparently the plan is to offload management of passenger train service to the states, as this is clearly a states' rights issue. Possibly related: the current head of Amtrak is an airline guy.

clearly a states' rights issue

Some of the states have formed regional rail alliances. There are also non-profits doing good work in this area.

Example: https://www.midwesthsr.org

Reply on news.ycombinator.com