Hacker News Reader

I planned a trip from Seattle to New Mexico on Amtrak and it was pretty cool... until they canceled the leg of the trip from LA to New Mexico and I had to take a Greyhound for like 19 hours.

I was only in business class but that got me access to the dining car. Since I was alone they sat me with different people for each meal and the food was actually really good!

Of the 5 or 6 times I've taken Amtrak only once has the trip not been delayed or screwed up in a way that horribly affected the trip.

I would love to do more train travel but my experiences have been so bad I can't imagine doing it much more than I have to, especially when it's way more expensive and takes way longer than driving a car.

I was worried about delays and canceled legs too but we got lucky on our trip and everything was exactly on time.

Amtrack has a page on it, with no route performing delivering more than half of riders on-time https://www.amtrak.com/on-time-performance

Part of the allure!

“We’ll get ya there…sometime.”

It’s not their fault. Passenger trains in the US run almost exclusively on freight lines.

They are high risk, low revenue…burdens(?) from that perspective.

Amtrak has also been starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it, so they don't have the funds to properly maintain their rolling stock. Engine breakdowns are frequent.

Exactly. If we spent as much on rail as we did airline infrastructure we wouldn’t have as many issues.

I don’t have a big problem with it like travel, but it’s like a car. Should be used less frequently and walking (riding the train) should be more common.

Airlines are (barely) profitable. Amtrak is not, outside of the Acela corridor.

Sure but please note I said airline infrastructure which would include airports, ATC, Etc.

We could built train stations instead of airports, for example.

Airports are also profitable though. And for that matter, rail infrastructure in the US is also profitable for cargo, which is its primary use.

Passenger rail (including its privately owned infrastructure, such as the railroads themselves) used to be profitable across the US and still is profitable in the Acela corridor and in densely populated parts of Europe and Asia. It stopped being profitable due to being outcompeted by airlines, which is why the US government nationalized it under Amtrak in the first place.

But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation, and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies. Airports are also usually public-private ventures and their operation is defacto subsidized by the federal government.

I don’t have a problem with airlines or anything but I don’t think we have the full competitive picture especially when we take into account the forced suburbanization of America which has all sorts of correlated problems.

For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too. But also who cares if it’s profitable?

> But the airlines are profitable because we don’t account for negative externalities caused by their operation

This is also true for trains.

> and saying that they are profitable is a bit rich given the history of bailouts and bankruptcies.

Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century.

Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them.

> For example an airport is “profitable” but there isn’t any reason train stations with similar infrastructure investment and overpriced shops couldn’t be profitable too.

In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete.

> But also who cares if it’s profitable?

American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.

> American taxpayers who don't want to subsidize whimsical nostalgia tourism.

We subsidize all sorts of whimsical nostalgia. I don’t find that to be a compelling argument.

> This is also true for trains.

Not really because passenger rail in the US is so small as to be negligible. Of course I’d it were to expand to something like the capacity of airlines then yes we would have to evaluate. Hard to see how it’s not cheaper though especially when accounting for other infrastructure changes that are required (fewer cars and less government waste from needless highway construction, appropriate density).

> Airlines have been bailed out twice in recent history--during the COVID pandemic and shortly after 9/11. In contrast, Amtrak has operated at a loss, subsidized by American taxpayers, virtually every single year since its inception. Rather than being occasionally bailed out during emergencies of historic scale, Amtrak has been continually bailed out for the past half century. > Yes, some airlines have gone bankrupt. We should let Amtrak do the same if they can't build a sustainable business after over 50 years. If they can carry out a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and restructure into a successful, profitable venture (which is entirely possible if they focus on Acela), more power to them.

The problem here is you are comparing apples to oranges.

The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized.

The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built.

> In some places, train stations are profitable, and I have no desire to interfere with them. American passenger train stations were profitable for a very long time until they were largely rendered obsolete.

The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more.

You are right that trains became obsolete in some ways, but those advantages that airline infrastructure once had are and continuing to erode. Trains and pedestrian traffic can judo move airline and car-only infrastructure because they’re able to play a different game. For example today many people say airlines are great because they get you from A-B in 2 hours. But priorities and preferences change, and speed to destination and the hassle involved such as TSA, pre-check, expensive airport lounges, soon to be increasingly high fees and taxes and more expensive fuel, baggage hassle, required rental cars, etc. are all things that will be avoided by rail revival. You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred.

I don’t think transportation improvements will work in the current political climate in the US (don’t move my cheese!!) which saddens me because it sets us up for abrupt shocks to fragile and dependent infrastructure.

> The subsidy argument doesn’t work because I’m not arguing that airlines or rail shouldn’t be subsidized at all, but that your claim about profitability is marginal because they’re all subsidized.

You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out.

> The Amtrack is never profitable argument by comparison doesn’t work because we haven’t built rail stations for passenger transit that compare to the airlines we built.

Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor.

> The stations themselves are perfectly fine from a profitability perspective. They don’t require runways or ATC or the TSA which is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy) and they can operate all the same stores, restaurants, and other facilities that an airport can and maybe more.

Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them.

> You can see that this is the case because where rail effectively competes with airline travel rail tends to be preferred.

Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.

> You're making a false equivalency here between a mostly profitable business sector that occasionally receives bailouts and an almost-completely unprofitable business sector that is continually bailed out.

But that’s what I’m trying to tell you, I’m not comparing them because the comparison doesn’t make sense when both receive subsidies but passenger rail in the US receives little support.

> Because those were profitable investments! Passenger rail isn't, at least not outside of the Acela corridor.

But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable.

> Amtrak itself is a big gubmint jobs program (subsidy). When it comes to ATC/TSA, I'm very much in favor of some combination of privatization and user fees; the airline sector could easily afford them.

Less so than the airline industries though. But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too. Otherwise how do we have competition?

> Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.

I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t, but it’s a chicken-egg problem. You’re describing current state and I’m interested in a better state.

> But we could have built passenger rail stations too and those also would have been profitable.

You can't just build a rail station and expect anything to happen; you also have to build the railroad. And this is currently not a profitable investment in the United States.

> But I’m not complaining about subsidies, only that if we are subsidizing airlines we should subsidize rail too.

We do subsidize rail. That's what Amtrak is. We've been subsidizing it for 50 years now.

> > Sure; the US doesn't have the population density for that to be the case outside of the Acela corridor though.

> I’m not sure what corridor you are referring to, but yes we don’t

If you don't even know what Acela is, you literally don't know the first thing about passenger rail in the United States. Thanks for conceding my entire argument.

Amtrak was outcompeted by cars long before it was outcompeted by airlines.

> starved of cash by politicians who want to kill it

I don’t think this is completely unreasonable. In FY20, Amtrak made $2.4B in revenue from riders and had $5B in costs.

I like trains and this post made me want to take a long ride. But the California Zephyr only serves 250k riders a year.

How much should politicians subsidize these trains? Is the money better spent subsidizing Disneyland?

I’m not sure what the right amount is, but I don’t think it’s really possible to spend the money that is needed given the costs and the utility. The only real hope is that one day population density will increase between Chicago and California so it becomes less costly to operate.

[0] page 4 https://www.amtrak.com/content/dam/projects/dotcom/english/p...

I don't think ridership on the Zephyr has much at all to do with population density --- it's hitting Reno, SLC, Denver, and Omaha on that route, too. The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco; you're basically getting people to sign up for a vacation of spending an extended period of time on a train. I get why that appeals to some people, but it's obviously a pretty unappealing proposition for most people.

What I meant is having 20 more cities of that size on the route.

It’s like if the cruise ship industry was subsidized with a few billion in funding each year.

> The issue is that Amtrak is a terribly impractical way to get from Chicago to San Francisco

You are correct, and that's why most long distance routes don't have end-to-end riders as the main customers. In 2019, for example, Chicago to/from Emeryville (endpoints of the train) was the 4th most popular city pair. The station with the most people embarking/disembarking is Denver. I suspect end-to-end ridership isn't lower on the Zephyr because it's a big tourist draw for the portion through the Rockies.

One of the most salient stats for me is that over half of trip (53%) are less than 500 miles. Trains excel in the too short to fly or too long to take the bus (for me, that's about 2 hours) segment.

> “We’ll get ya there…sometime.”

That sums it up, I rode the coastliner wen as sot up to +$5 in 2008 and I had to be tere by 6am to et to my destination at 10:30am; if I had nothing to worry about it mit ave been a pleasant experience. As the author indicates, you an meet lots of people on these trips, at first I met lots of travelers/tourists and made plans to meet up later in the week as I was being dropped off in San Diego marina every day so it was a large hub, the problem was I was waking up at 5am and getting home at 11pm most of the week which meant that my trips were usually a way to et a nap before leading into my next location and doing another 7 our stint.

Often I set an alarm on my flip phone, but Id sleep right through it and stressed I had miss my stop only to find out we were just delayed yet again for x reason.

I also did the trip from Colorado to California several times, and I eve wrote a pilot for a dining car tv show I wanted to pitch. It's pretty stunning to see, but after the 12t hour you start to realize that maybe you really should have just gotten a plane after all if you have something or somewhere to be.

I rode te train all over Europe as well, DB/Trenitalia/SBB and had a halb tax for the first year, but after the romanticism wore off I soon realized that cheap flights were a better option wit bus trips in between as my time commitments became more pressing.

Hahaha!! Yep!

I rode the Coast Starlight north through the Sierra Nevadas(?) 15-20 years ago. It was a 24hour trip, and I was delayed 24hours. We hit a pedestrian then an avalanche had us back up 2-3 hours until a Greyhound picked us up and took us the rest of the way.

Adventure: Check

I didn’t mind one bit.

Great people.

> We hit a pedestrian

Uh what?

My understanding is this is sadly not as rare as you would hope around level crossings. Likewise with trains hitting cars on the tracks.

Some crossings have gates which make this much less likely, others do not and rely on flashing lights and the train horn to warn people of an approaching train.

A friend of mine works at a law firm that exclusively handles train injury cases. It happens a LOT more than you'd expect, primarily at crossings. Hearing-handicapped or people blasting their speakers who don't hear the horn; faulty crossing gates; distracted drivers; and so on.

The cases almost always include a fatality.

It happens all the time in Vietnam and they constantly have it in the news. The people there don't have the culture to wait for anything... to the point where people try to get onto an elevator before everyone has gotten off already. It is mindless. Railroad crossings are no different and will just go around or ignore the crossing gates...

https://e.vnexpress.net/photo/news/commuters-risk-their-live...

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/train-collides-with-tracto...

https://e.vnexpress.net/news/news/man-killed-crossing-train-...

A relative was considerably delayed a couple of times on NE Corridor trips by the trains hitting pedestrians. Both apparently were suicides.

And persons not out to end their lives occasionally do, crossing a train track where the view is obstructed in one direction or another. Cars try to make it across the track a few seconds too late.

> I always feel like my vacation starts after I endure the entire airport + plane experience

Your whole comment brought back so many great memories for me, but this hits the nail on the head. I've only done one long train ride but the experience was so great that I'm eager to do it again. Being able to take a shower and lie down at night was a game changer - I slept so well. For me it was sort of a working trip in that I brought my laptop and did some emailing and light development, but I spent way more time just looking out the window and relaxing.

I have a pretty big shower but I pretty much never lie down in it ;)

Funny, I feel the exact same way about driving. We normally travel to visit family in Poland over christmas(we live in the UK), but the thought of airports and air travel around christmas is filling me with such dread, that we decided to drive this year - and it was glorious. Yes it took us nearly 3 days instead of 2 hours by plane, but I would do that again in a heartbeat. Overnight ferry to Amsterdam, then one hop to a hotel in Germany, then finally drive to family in Poland - it was great, pretty relaxing, and much much much less stressful than flying. I've done the drive across many times before, but now we decided to have a stop in the middle(we have a kid now, so didn't want to spend 12h+ in the car in one day) and it made the whole trip much more relaxed. We stopped in some small German village, had a look around their christmas market, went for proper German good in a tiny gesthaus.....just brilliant.

I find train travel so much better in Asia or Europe. I can’t really find it enjoyable in the states, even for a short jaunt from Portland to Seattle (though it still makes sense vs flying). I did a 3 night hard sleeper from Shanghai to Urumqi once, and the scenery was nice, I can’t imagine it being that nice in the states even with a better bed (hard sleepers are a bit cheap).

> I can’t imagine it being that nice in the states

Depends what part of the US you’re going through! East Coast, sure, the train scenery might be a bit plain. But the Mountain West is absolutely gorgeous. And the Coast Starlight goes right along the California coast, hugging cliffs the entire way - it’s completely surreal. I believe that the scenery is nice along that route in China, but if you think the US doesn’t have anything that can match it, you haven’t seen the US.

I live in the west coast now so I know the scenery is great. But the train experience just isn’t there. The food isn’t good (well, nowhere near boxed dinners and the dining car on a Chinese K/Z train), there are lots of delays (Chinese trains run on time), and you are offloaded at stations along the way (you can step off for 5 minutes at big cities, but that’s risky and you don’t need to get off until you hit your destination…3 days).

Agreed. The Coast Starlight is incredible as is the Zephyr through the rockies.

I did Shanghai Beijing. 15hours, no seats. Man I will never do this again.

The spring festival express :)

Ya, traveling without a seat is crazy hard.

Understandable, I used to take a K train twice every year before my grandparents passed away. I could always manage to get a seat as my route was less busy. It's certainly not a enjoyable experience.

However, I'd recommend to try again with the high speed trains. Chinese railway has changed a lot in the last 15 years. 5 hours between Beijing and Shanghai (that's more than 1200 km), on time, comfortable seats and quick transit to city center.

Or alternativly the sleeper trains, depart at night and get to destination in the morning, easily fits schedule and save one day of hotel. The comfortableness is a bit less than European's standard unless on the newest trains, though.

I always did that route overnight in either hard or soft sleeper. But these days that route is HSR so you are only on it 4 or so hours anyways, I’m pretty sure the HSRs do not sell no seat tickets. I don’t think they offer the overnight train between BJ and SH anymore, but I could be wrong.

Between Lafayette and New Orleans isn’t so bad

Agree. That’s why when I’m in Europe I just train everywhere. Milan Paris? Fuck it I’ll take the 5h train. It’s so chill and nice and I’m door to door.

Another vote for the Milan or Barcelona to Paris trains. I've taken them multiple times over the plane, even though on theory the plane is faster (but in practice it usually isn't if you count all the time wasted in getting to and from airports, the security checks etc.). Added bonus for Milan - Paris is that it passes through the Alps and has a few stops high up with magnificent views.

I did this once (different trip, but similar distance) and freaking hated it. The beautiful buildings in downtown are full of vagrants and the restaurants there suck. The train kept being stopped to let freight go first on single track sections. On the return trip our train was 90 minutes late and there was absolutely nothing to do in the station while waiting. Americans don't know how to do trains right.

> The beautiful buildings in downtown are full of vagrants

In every single town along Amtrak routes in the United States?

Just talking about my experience in cities like Los Angeles - grand buildings, little passenger traffic, many people there sitting around like they're just using the station as shelter.

Well you can thank white flight for that! Those Greyhound and Union Stations used to be magnificent back in the day. As the city declined in favor of the suburb, so too did these stations.

And the automobile, and the interstate, etc

> The staff and the whole process is very laid back without all of the security theatre nonsense of the TSA. It's about as formal as going to a play.

Note that TSA is working to change this. They've wanted to add airport-style security at all train stations for a while now. If we ever have a shooting on an Amtrak train it'll happen right away.

I don't think my heart could take it if that happened. Much of the majesty of taking Amtrak is being able to show up to the station in the downtown core minutes before departure and simply hop on the train, and then hop back off in the downtown core of your destination. I would take arriving at Moynihan Train Hall over JFK ten times out of ten. If they made it an undignified time-consuming hassle I might think to myself, "eff it, megabus is so much cheaper."

Pretty sure this would instantly kill off what remains of rail travel. Its big advantage in the Northeast is that you don't have to account for the unpredictable time to make it through security like you do for air travel, so the times often even out anyway. Remove that advantage and you've just driven a stake into Amtrak.

Your writing reminded me of this music video. The artist noted how during the pandemic he was captivated by train videos (like the first person videos of city walks/rides):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SpBO0RbLKJ0

> I loved it. It's hard to convey how different it is from flying.

> Then you get on the train and you get to completely relax. I brought a book to read and some stuff like that, but I spent more than half the time literally just looking out the windows.

One of my dreams was doing a transcontinental train trip in the US, and in the months before our child was born, my wife sensibly let me know that "now" was a great time to do it, so I took a 10 day trip around the country that would start in Boston and end in San Antonio, where my wife was traveling for work.

As it turned out, her trip was cancelled, so I made a round trip: Boston -> Washington DC -> Chicago -> Sacramento -> Los Angeles -> Chicago (via Texas) -> Boston.

The trip took 10 days and nights, 7 of which were on the train. I loaded my Zune with as many Sopranos episodes and movies as it would carry, and had some books to pass away the time. I'm pretty sure I made it through about 30 minutes of one Sopranos episode. I went to bed near dusk, awoke and showered at dawn, and spent the rest of the time chatting with folks in the lounge or diner, or watched the world go by from my room. Total cost at the time was $1800 for the entire trip, including hotels and meals for non-train nights.

One moment really stood out to me. We were in the Nevada desert somewhere (this is early 2000's, so no smart phone or GPS for me), and I didn't know where I was, what time it was, or even what day it was. What I did know was that I had a 5pm dinner in the dining car. It was, by several orders of magnitude, the most relaxed I've ever been in my entire life.

Time and life move differently from the overnight train. When a leg of your trip is a 24 or 48 hour end-to-end journey, a couple hours delay on either end doesn't make much of a difference. Seeing the US from this perspective is amazing, from fields to factories to mountains to deserts to valleys and everything else.

>Taking a sleeper car train ride isn't cheap in terms of time or money, but I would highly recommend it. I can't wait to do it again.

I have the benefit of in-laws living in FL in a town that has a train stop, so I managed to convince my family to take the train one time. They liked it, though they did think it got a little long in the end. However, given that our last trip via an airline took 20 hours, including sleeping on benches in an airport, I might be able to convince them to take the train again. Being late isn't fun, but it's far more palatable in a conveyance where you have your own room, can get up and walk around, and has both seated dining and a cafe.

I have taken the Coast Starlight multiple times. Unfortunately once I tried it with my wife who hated it. Granted we got the cheapest sleeper car option (roomette) but she found it far from comfortable. She'd rather take a flight and be done with the trip sooner.

So, do normal people not feel like they’re going to throw up literally the entire train ride? I had a hard time taking a half hour train ride, much less a long one, but I also have a hard time being in the back seat of someone else’s car. I feel like they must not because it’s very seldom talked about.

But googling it says 1 in 3 people experience motion sickness. Maybe mine is just really severe? Without Dramamine or meclazine I’m hopeless on a train.

> So, do normal people not feel like they’re going to throw up literally the entire train ride?

No, no issues with the motion at all. And absolutely none of that onboard a cruise ship for me either.

> But googling it says 1 in 3 people experience motion sickness. Maybe mine is just really severe?

That sounds to be the case. Perhaps discuss with your MD?

I’m unable to read on a bus or car due to motion sickness but never have that problem on trains.

I find it pretty unsettling how many people are raving about travel by train. If your standards are insanely low then I suppose you can say the food is good, dining with random people is fun and the cabins are comfortable.

It's a low bar to clear when you're comparing to the comfort and food on a typical flight nowadays.

Of course, the train trip will be longer so, tradeoffs.

With the whole check-in/boarding process planes actually become close to as slow as trains on short-ish trips.

> Of course, the train trip will be longer so, tradeoffs.

If you count everything in, a high speed train is faster or close enough (but compensating with much higher levels of comfort and most of the time being spent in the train itself, not separated in travel to airport, queuing there, wasting time there, boarding, flying, disembarking, waiting for luggage, travel from airport) with air travel less than 3 hours.

> I find it pretty unsettling how many people are raving about travel by train

Last August I travelled from Paris to Innsbruck by train with my 6 year-old daughter. Despite a misconnect in Germany after a delay to our TGV and then a cancelled ICE causing us over an hour's delay (although that was an excuse for a surprisingly good impromptu stir-fry for lunch at Mannheim station), then subsequently having to run, with five separate items of luggage, none of which she was carrying :) to connect in Munich, we had a great day.

I did an almost identical trip by car with my eldest years ago when he was also 6, the only things I remember about it were watching sun rise over Paris as we left, and sun set over Munich as we drove round on it on the Autobahn. The rest was just hours of keeping my eyes on the road.

Given the choice, I'd take the train every time.

> then subsequently having to run, with five separate items of luggage

When my spouse and I did a 3-week vacation in Europe and then a 2-week vacation in Japan, my one steadfast condition was that we were allowed one 19-liter backpack and one 23-liter backpack, full stop. If it didn't pack into one of the backpacks' zippered pouches, we didn't take it with us. It takes some planning and hacking to do well, including optimizing clothing, toiletries, and electronics for traveling with that little space, but the handful of times we had to get from point A to point B quickly through a crowd, it was glorious.

It's also nice knowing that all of my luggage trivially fits under the seat on the airplane. Takes away any stress relating to "OMG will there be enough overhead space?" panic that everyone goes through when jockying for a spot in line to board. I try to be the very last person on the plane, because I don't ever see the point of being in a hurry to squeeze myself into that tube before I absolutely have to.

It turned out we didn't miss the luggage we couldn't fit in the backpacks at all. The last time the family went to Hawaii and then to San Diego, it was the same story. One 19L backpack for me and each of the kids and a 23L backpack for the spouse. Again, no problem at all and totally worth it.

I couldn't help but think, "Heh, amateur!" when I read about the OP needing a grotesque 45L of luggage for a few days of travel mostly just sitting on a train. I guess I'm officially now one of those ultralight traveling snobs. If I'm not debating whether I really need 5 pairs of nylon underwear or if I could get by with 4 or maybe 3, I'm feeling like I'm not putting in enough mental effort in preparing for the trip.

I don't, but if you're upstairs you'll notice the "inverted pendulum swaying effect" much more. I slightly prefer downstairs roomettes on Amtrak for this reason, even though they may be a bit noisier. It doesn't make me sick but it's distracting when I'm trying to sleep.

what is this effect you speak of?

The train sways side-to-side as it rolls down the track. The effect is more pronounced at the top of the car since it's farther from the track.

That's an American problem. The Amtrack sleeper I went on was much much more shaky than any of the trains I have been on in Europe or Asia (except for maybe a commuter train in Norway). I think it has something to do with running trains on rails with hundred year old wooden ties.

I get motion sickness but generally find it much less severe on a train compared to a car.

For example, I usually have a hard time reading when riding in a car, but not on a train.

In Europe the trains are much much more stable than anything else (planes, cars, bus, etc.).

Also, in europe (Or at least austria) the trains are timed to line up with buses for the most part. Which makes commuting a breeze. Oh and they are mostly on time.

Yup. Experienced this in Switzerland when heading to a mountain village. 2 trains and 2 buses, all with 3 to 5 minute connections. Has worked flawlessly every time I've tried it so far.

I can't stomach tilt trains. But otherwise trains are better than automobiles or coaches. Flights with turbulence are also not good for my stomach.

I'm perfectly comfortable on a train but also don't see why you're being downvoted. If you have a problem, you have a problem. That's too bad. Me, I knew a person with an inner ear disorder that caused dizziness, who had no problem on trains. And on the other hand, I knew a dog who threw up in any car. So you encounter all kinds of things, it seems.

I've heard that seasickness is caused by a mismatch between what the vestibular system senses, and what the eyes sense. So, on a boat, you don't go belowdecks; you go up top and keep your eyes on the horizon. I wonder if even just looking out the window more would be of any help to you.