Comments on: Why I’m spending 104 hours on the train this December

By: Stan

Stan — Wed, 10 Jan 2007 22:12:54 +0000

Just an update: it turns out I was in the 32% or travelers that do not arrive on time. There was an additional 8 hours each direction. So the title should be updated to “120 hours”.

Frankly, I’m shocked that the rate is as high as 68%.

By: myriam*

myriam* — Tue, 09 Jan 2007 07:57:15 +0000

Funny, this is precisely what I recently decided to do instead of a one-way flight to Chicago (from Orange County). My boyfriend works for Union Pacific and even he thought I was crazy.

For me, the view, the extra rumination time, and the price-point were the kickers. ….until I found out it was, in fact, much cheaper to fly. Sigh. Still not sure which way I’m going.

By: Smarty

Smarty — Mon, 11 Dec 2006 22:25:55 +0000

It also happens that the California Zephyr is one of the most beautiful train routes in the country, especially, in my opinion, in the winter. And passengers on long train trips tend to bond and form little social groups. The last time I rode the Zephyr, from Truckee to Emeryville, I was a little envious of the rapport that had developed between some of the passengers who had been on that train for more than three days.

The majority of those passengers, btw, had boarded in Chicago. 52 hours is only the best-case scenario; Amtrak is notoriously tardy, especially in winter when the Sierras and the Rockies are snowbound. Good luck!

By: Stan

Stan — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 20:43:00 +0000

That would be considered an incredible mandate in an election.

By: Brant

Brant — Tue, 05 Dec 2006 16:29:22 +0000

You also have a 68% chance of arriving on-time. Good luck Stan!