[HN Gopher] Freight rail fueled a new luxury overnight train sta...
___________________________________________________________________
Freight rail fueled a new luxury overnight train startup
Author : Ozarkian
Score : 54 points
Date : 2025-06-06 08:57 UTC (14 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.freightwaves.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.freightwaves.com)
| comrade1234 wrote:
| I live in europe and have taken overnight trains to various
| destinations and they've all been nice - quiet, smooth, good
| food, decent nights sleep...
|
| I've also taken them in Egypt and Morocco and they were loud,
| jerky, and smelly...
|
| When I see pictures of trains in the USA they look very old and
| look like the locomotive is actually pulling the train vs
| providing electricity to each individual car's motors. This was
| the problem in Egypt and Morocco - the engine accelerate and all
| of the cars get jerked and when it slows down all of the cars get
| jerked again, making it hard to sleep.
| PaulHoule wrote:
| Many American freight trains are diesel-electric where the
| locomotive supplies electricity but the motors are distributed.
| Notably train routes in Western Europe tend to be electrified
| and get all their energy from a catenary.
| closewith wrote:
| 99 % of Class I freight locomotives in North America are
| diesel-electrics where a diesel genset provides power to
| electric motors on the locomotive. There are - to a rounding
| error - no freight locomotives provide electrical power to
| motors on the rake.
| mcfedr wrote:
| Quality of the rails makes a big difference, take the train
| from Ukraine to Poland and it's suddenly super smooth once you
| cross over into the EU
| jordanb wrote:
| Track quality and maintenance by US mainlines are more
| Ukraine/Poland camp.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| In the places where the average commenter lamenting US rail
| lives the track are crap because there's no reason to have
| everything be "cruise at 80mph" level smooth when you can't
| get a train up to such speeds before the next curve and
| even if you could there's invariably other rail traffic or
| a grade crossing soon thereafter.
|
| In BFE Texas or Utah or whatever the rails are like glass
| because crossing 300mi of nothing in 4hr instead of 8 has
| enough positive impact on the rest of the system that they
| deem it worth paying for.
|
| It makes sense if you think about everything in terms of
| time between points.
| bell-cot wrote:
| Pretty much. It is obviously a for-profit freight system
| - In areas where the RR's top-dollar freight customers
| (especially domestic parcel delivery companies) want
| speed, they'll happily spend big to make that happen. And
| in areas where the RoI on speed (whether upgrades, or
| ongoing maintenance of existing track) ain't there, they
| can be happy with 25MPH maximums:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Un
| ite...
| close04 wrote:
| > In BFE Texas or Utah or whatever the rails are like
| glass because crossing 300mi of nothing
|
| Europe is densely populated, you'll rarely see 300mi of
| nothing. High speed rail is still common. Only
| realistically limited by cost, not by the difficulty to
| get the train up to speed before the next curve, or other
| rail traffic, or grade crossings.
| hylaride wrote:
| 95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight
| tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth". On top
| of this, freight having priority means passenger
| schedules get messed up all the time.
|
| Freight trains carry heavy loads and have cars that are
| not inspected to have perfectly maintained wheels to the
| same level as trains that run on tracks for only
| passenger traffic, especially high speed rail (which runs
| on dedicated , highly engineered tracks).
|
| The big reason that passenger rail, even overnight, isn't
| as economical in north america is because rather than
| sleeping on a train, it's cheaper and more reliable to
| just fly in a few hours across the country.
|
| HSR makes sense in the dense US northeast or between
| Windsor and Quebec city in Canada (and probably
| California if it wasn't politically ruined with it's
| meandering lines), but sleeper trains for further
| distances would have to be dirt cheap to compete with
| flying. It'd essentially be for college kids or poorer
| people.
|
| Most people who do long distance trains in North America
| are doing it as a cruise-like vacation/adventure.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| >95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight
| tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth". On top
| of this, freight having priority means passenger
| schedules get messed up all the time.
|
| Freight doesn't mean slow.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_speed_limits_in_the_Un
| ite...
| kevin_thibedeau wrote:
| It does when your passenger train has to wait on a siding
| for another train to pass.
| mrgoldenbrown wrote:
| >The big reason that passenger rail, even overnight,
| isn't as economical in north america...
|
| That's a choice the country has made by subsidizing some
| kinds of transit more than others. Rail could be cheaper
| if we priced in externalities.
| chgs wrote:
| Why would really be cheaper if externalities were priced
| in - I can see cars and planes being more expensive but
| how would rail be cheaper?
| Kon-Peki wrote:
| > 95%+ of North American intercity trains run on freight
| tracks, which are not designed to be as "smooth".
|
| All over the US, the tracks are being upgraded to 110mph
| standards. It just a slow process: 5 miles here, 20 miles
| there. Whenever they can find the money they do a new
| section. Every single grade crossing must be upgraded,
| every single curve regraded, etc. Amtrak can run at 90mph
| on those sections with the locomotives they currently
| have.
|
| Sometimes they string together enough upgraded rail.
| Essentially everything in Michigan has been running
| 110mph for 10+ years, with the newer Siemens locomotives
| that can handle it. Also, the Texas Eagle and Lincoln
| Service - the entire time they are in Illinois they are
| running 110mph.
|
| Upgrading 5 miles of rail doesn't make the news. That
| doesn't mean it didn't happen :)
| lo_zamoyski wrote:
| Poland is in the EU. The point being made was that once you
| cross over from Ukraine into Poland, you notice a big
| improvement in the track quality.
| chiph wrote:
| There's not a lot of electrified track in the US. The distances
| are just too great and our railroads are freight-first,
| passengers second (the opposite of Europe).
|
| Even so, the passenger trains don't make abrupt starts/stops
| like the freight trains do, because people would complain. :)
| jordanb wrote:
| Actually there used to be a lot more electrified track in the
| US but the freight railroads tore it out to reduce capital
| ratios and allow tall-stacking containers.
| infecto wrote:
| As others have said. Freight is first in the US. I imagine
| Europe probably has more semis on the road transporting cargo.
| Except for special routes, passenger travel by rail is only for
| those dedicated individuals.
| philwelch wrote:
| > I imagine Europe probably has more semis on the road
| transporting cargo.
|
| They absolutely do: unlike the US where more freight is
| transported by rail than truck, the opposite is true in
| Europe. And personally I think this is the right tradeoff.
| The efficiencies of rail over road vehicles scale up with
| mass. The US has 200 car freight trains hauling 400 shipping
| containers at a time; compared to 400 semi trucks that's a
| massive improvement. European freight rail isn't even capable
| of this level of scale; their railroads have maximum train
| lengths well below the US average.
|
| Freight is also much less fussy than passengers when it comes
| to scheduling, comfort, or speed, which is why this level of
| scale is possible for freight rail and not passenger rail.
| tengwar2 wrote:
| Even with a traditional diesel, you can get a good ride. I took
| the sleeper train from Istanbul to Pamukalle (Laodicea), and
| even over the single track sections it was smooth. It might be
| down to the driver planning ahead - this one was definitely
| proud of his work!
| bjornorn wrote:
| European sleeper trains are usually also powered by
| locomotives, and the individual cars don't have motors, so I
| think the jerk motion you've experienced is caused my poor
| couplings or something else.
| xattt wrote:
| You're talking about EMU/DMUs versus locomotives. Higher-speed
| travel is less efficient with an MU than with a locomotive-
| pulled train. Higher-speed is important when North America is
| so large.
|
| See also: https://thebeaverton.com/2019/08/european-relatives-
| visiting...
| ginko wrote:
| American passenger trains are significantly slower than in
| Europe.
| ta1243 wrote:
| I took a train from New York to Miami last October in a
| "roomette". Sleep was fine, better than I get on UK sleepers.
| Food was amazingly good.
| chiph wrote:
| I'm surprised there isn't already a west-coast Auto Train like
| was briefly mentioned. The east coast one (used to bypass I-95
| traffic) is often sold-out. Drop off your car for loading, take
| your carry-on to your seat or cabin, arrive the next morning.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29KW3OAPrD4
| gregoriol wrote:
| This should be developed more indeed: doing anything more than
| 200km by road is annoying and tiring. The solution in the video
| seems great with cars and passengers on the same train, if the
| "loading" time is not long. Why don't people drive their cars
| themselves in and then go to the passenger spaces?
|
| The american trains seems too high for Europe though. Would it
| work for vans and RVs too?
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > doing anything more than 200km by road is annoying and
| tiring.
|
| Unless you are on a German Autobahn: drive on, go left lane,
| floor the gas pedal, and you cross that distance in an hour
| (or less).
| trinix912 wrote:
| Apart from the traffic causing other (slower) drivers to
| enter the left lane. Not to mention that you have to be way
| more aware of everything around you if you're going 200.
| The cognitive load is bigger than parking on a train and
| taking a nap, perhaps even overnight so you're set to
| continue driving in the morning.
| gregoriol wrote:
| Definitely that! Going faster is more intense: more
| stimulation, more reactions, but also more noise, more
| vibrations, ... so for the same distance, even with less
| time, you'll end up tired the same or more.
| GJim wrote:
| Clearly you have never driven on an autobahn.
|
| They suffer from as much congestion as any other major
| road; you aren't easily going to achieve, let alone
| maintain, that speed during 'ordinary' day-to-day traffic.
| mschuster91 wrote:
| > Clearly you have never driven on an autobahn.
|
| I have, top speed I used to do was around 250 km/h... and
| my longest stretch was a non-stop Munich-Vienna-Munich,
| 24 hours on the road. I'll admit though that I was _dead_
| after that one.
| devilbunny wrote:
| > more than 200km by road
|
| That's short enough distance that most Americans would regard
| it as a day trip: wake up, go, do whatever, come back. And I
| do mean 200 km each way.
|
| I have, at the more extreme end, done not just 400 but 1250
| km in one day as a round trip. A single 200 km segment is
| nothing. I go 300 km each way for a weekend break!
| ghaff wrote:
| There's a fair bit of NY to Florida traffic where people need
| to drive once they arrive and often do fairly long stays when
| they do. (And it's a doable drive but fairly lengthy.) Not sure
| you have quite the same dynamic in California.
| JKCalhoun wrote:
| Wait, so is this first-class rail service for who? For those
| whose private jets are in the shop?
|
| I instead so look forward to just making the existing services
| more convenient/affordable where you would prefer taking the
| train -- look forward to it even. I still have a memory of
| walking through a train car at night (going from Kansas City to
| Chicago) when I was 4 or 5 years old. Passengers sitting, sipping
| cocktails in the observation car like a scene out of "The Thin
| Man".
|
| I've taken the California Zephyr to Omaha a few times over the
| past decade. It was okay. But expensive as I recall.
| dylan604 wrote:
| > But expensive as I recall
|
| And slow. For many 'muricans, they only get two weeks of
| vacation, and it is very rare that their employer will allow
| them to take all of that time at once. I don't care what you
| get as a cushy HN reader, your situation is not most 'murican.
| When you only get to take a couple of days, you don't want to
| be spending it in transit. As it is now, air travel pretty much
| takes up a full day with arriving x hours early, delays, etc.
| afavour wrote:
| That's where, theoretically at least, the "sleeper" part
| comes in. Travel great distances while you sleep _and_ save
| the money on a hotel room.
|
| If the conditions were good enough I'd be perfectly happy to
| be on a train e.g. 6pm-6am rather than arriving at an airport
| at 6pm, doing security, baggage etc etc, taxiing to the
| center of a city then checking into a hotel late. But every
| time I look the pricing for that is way out of whack.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| That's the one thing that's a little annoying about the
| gaotie in China. It doesn't run at night, so you are
| limited to about 1200km a night on the slower overnight D
| trains (Beijing Shanghai say). Otherwise you could hop on a
| train in Beijing in the evening and wake up in Hong Kong,
| Shenzhen or Guangzhou.
| chgs wrote:
| Sleeper train G897 leaves Beijing Xi (West) at 20:13
| Friday, Saturday, Sunday & Monday nights, arriving Hong
| Kong West Kowloon 07:12.
| grues-dinner wrote:
| Oh I see! I went midweek and didn't realise it is
| different around weekends. I was so disappointed to have
| to fly to get there for 9am, I really hate planes and
| shorthaul really hates me! Hopefully I can arrange a
| Monday or Tuesday next time!
| ghaff wrote:
| It's unlikely that you come close to saving money with a
| long distance sleeper even if the additional time you spend
| isn't a factor. But this isn't even all that specific to
| US. As was just noted on a Facebook thread I was reading,
| the Caledonian Sleeper from London to Edinburgh isn't a
| particular bargain and I recall other European night trains
| I've taken didn't really save me money either.
| afavour wrote:
| For sure. But I think it's still worth pointing out that
| it _would be_ an attractive option if the price were
| right. Governments looking to combat climate change could
| subsidise such things if they wanted to.
| ghaff wrote:
| Sure. It's one of the MANY climate change subsidies
| governments could make. Which may or may not make sense
| in this particular case. Personally, I like taking trains
| in a lot of situations, but they're usually not cheaper
| or often especially more convenient.
| wongarsu wrote:
| That sounds like a great argument in favor of making sleeper
| trains a luxury experience. That way the train ride can be a
| destination in itself. The first stop on your holiday, rather
| than just a means to get to your holiday destination.
| ghaff wrote:
| I think they typically are. In the US the distances tend to
| be too lage thouhg equating Amtrak with luxury is probably
| a stretch. I've taken night trains in Europe (and China)
| and it _may_ have beaten navigating airports but not sure
| by how much.
| f6v wrote:
| Im in Europe and taking a train is the last thing I'd do.
| It's expensive and extremely unreliable for long-distance.
| efitz wrote:
| > Wait, so is this first-class rail service for who? For those
| whose private jets are in the shop?
|
| For all the VCs whose money they are going to burn.
| Mashimo wrote:
| I think you underestimate just how much more expensive a
| private plane is :D
| newsclues wrote:
| Elderly European tourists seems to be the market from my
| experience on via rail in Canada
| paxys wrote:
| Tourists. Luxury multi-day trains are a pretty common concept
| around the world. This is also why they are highlighting that
| the price will be comparable to a flight + hotel stay.
| GuB-42 wrote:
| Overnight trains are awesome. Yes, they move slowly compared to
| planes, but you may actually waste less time using them, think
| of them as moving hotels. You don't travel to the hotel, the
| hotel travels for you!
|
| The idea is that you get to the station in the evening, board
| the train, then on the train, you eat, relax or do some work
| depending on how busy you are, take a shower, and sleep and in
| the morning, you are at your destination. Train stations are
| usually closer to downtown than airports and you spend less
| time with security, check-in, etc... another advantage. If you
| account for the hotel stay you saved, net travel time can be
| effectively zero.
|
| And that's just the "transportation" aspect. In addition, train
| cruises are a thing. Not as big as cruise ships, but that's the
| same idea.
|
| If I had first-class air travel money, which is probably their
| target demographic, I would definitely ride such a train.
| efitz wrote:
| I love the aromatherapy candles :lol:
| martinald wrote:
| Unfortunately this is unlikely to be successful. There is just no
| way you can run a reliable overnight passenger service on the
| intercity rail infrastructure of the US.
|
| The track is mostly single track and heavily used by freight
| (where a few hours delay isn't the end of the world). Multi hour
| delays are extremely common and even with it being overnight, if
| you set off at say 11pm and aim to arrive at 8am, a 3 hour delay
| could see you arriving at 11am and your VIP passengers missing
| all their business meetings. They won't return!
|
| FWIW I don't think Europe's push to overnight rail trains will be
| very effective either. It doesn't work well with overnight
| maintenance windows, and the yield per train is extremely low
| (100 passengers in 50 'rooms' vs 1000 normal seating passengers
| dictate a 10x ticket price). Also is extremely complex in Europe
| with many different signalling/communication systems, traction
| systems, etc.
| gregoriol wrote:
| It's quite successful in Europe
| mschuster91 wrote:
| Yeah it's decent but the utter majority of cross European
| passenger travel happens by road and air.
| f6v wrote:
| Like, where? I lived in four EU countries and travelled to
| most of member states. I only heard of Austrian sleeper and
| some luxury Swiss expertise. Never heard anyone taking a
| sleeper in the modern times. Moscow-Paris train used to be a
| thing, but that's in the past.
| ghaff wrote:
| There's the London to Edinburgh Caledonian Express which I
| took and I took a sleeper from Brussels to Koln to Vienna?
| Koln was a stopover. Forget where the sleeper segment was.
| But I'll admit it was situations where neither time nor
| money were critical and were intermixed with business
| trips.
| myrmidon wrote:
| Have taken this in Europe, was really nice, and I consider this
| quite competitive with inter-European airlines:
|
| It saves a lot of time, because you can use central train
| stations instead of transfering to/from the airport, and you
| depart late in the evening (get full use out of the departure
| day) and arrive somewhat early in the morning (don't lose much
| of that day, either).
|
| So it does not have to be cheaper than an inland flight, it
| just has to be competitive with flight + 2x transfer + hotel,
| and while it might be slightly less comfortabel than a hotel
| room, you avoid airport transfer and -security, which is nice.
| potatolicious wrote:
| Agree with all of this. The _ridership_ might be there but I
| doubt the business case is - and this is true in Europe as
| well. As far as I can tell sleeper services generally are not
| money-makers, and are subsidized by regular passenger service.
|
| Which may be a desirable policy outcome for state rail agencies
| - but this is a private venture!
|
| I think cost is an under-appreciated aspect of this. You're
| carrying 5-10x fewer passengers per-train, at greater cost (the
| cost of turning over a stateroom is _many times_ higher than
| cleaning a coach seat, along with linens, food, etc.), on very
| expensive _custom_ equipment that isn 't suitable for other
| uses.
|
| There seem to be two "major" (really heavy scare quotes here)
| players in the US private sleeper service scene. Dreamstar IMO
| is the more promising of the two ( _heavy_ caveat that this is
| relative to each other, not absolute odds) by realizing the
| only way to make the economics work is the ability to charge
| $$$$$ for tickets.
|
| The other (Lunatrain) IMO is just out to lunch, with a claimed
| focus on affordability. None of the above leads to affordable
| tickets.
| ant6n wrote:
| As somebody who is working on exactly this problem, I'd say
| the problem can be solved technically if one can get a high
| density of passengers, while providing privacy and comfort.
|
| Most of the sleeper startups basically just work with
| renderings, we work with iterating on full sized mock ups. We
| did ergonomics/market testing with hundreds of test users. We
| have evidence that with the right cabin technology, you can
| be profitable, even produce a margin, and significantly
| disrupt air travel.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| Just looked up tickets on the Coast Starlight, Emeryville to LA
| is a $790 round trip in a standard bedroom. Assuming a "luxury"
| train service is at least double that, you could hire a private
| driver for less than this and be there in less than half the
| time... or take a $150 flight. Nothing will change about the
| economics of rail in this country until we actually make the
| investment in having legitimate service.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| >Amtrak's all-sleeper California Zephyr ended service between
| Chicago and Emeryville, California, in 1997
|
| Interesting statement since it still runs and you can book a
| private sleeper room for that route. Same with the coast
| starlight train that already runs the SF-LA route with sleeper
| cars.
|
| Note the weasel word all-sleeper. They run a non-sleeper
| passenger also car on both of the above for those getting off at
| the smaller stations on the way so that's how they can claim
| those services don't exist when you can just go book them online
| right now.
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| Btw for anyone curious the zephyr between emeryville and denver
| is up there for one of the most scenic routes in the world.
|
| Along the inlets of the bay, up the sierra nevadas, through the
| great basin, through the moab desert with mesas either side and
| then into the rocky mountains winding along cliff tops. It goes
| through the salt flats and salt lake city at night but the
| daytime views either side of that one night are incredible and
| make the train trip entirely worthwhile. A great way to
| experience a sleeper car, you'll see why people do it rather
| than fly and a great experience all round.
|
| Don't bother with the denver to chicago leg though unless you
| really like corn fields (chicago is absolutely worthwhile
| visiting but probably not worth the extra night on the train
| when you can fly)
| temp0826 wrote:
| The only time I took a sleeper was uh...at night. Is that not
| the case/point with them? (Scenic or not would be moot)
| AnotherGoodName wrote:
| 8am start in emeryville. 7:30pm finish in denver the next
| day.
|
| Getting from a to b is definitely not the point of such a
| trip. Think of it as a hotel where the view changes
| constantly and you just happen to end up somewhere new at
| the end of the stay.
| seanmcdirmid wrote:
| I took a sleeper from Shanghai to Urumqi, spent 3 days on
| the train (this is before HSR).
| ted_dunning wrote:
| AND if you do the zephyr during the full moon, you will see
| the salt flats in the moonlight. That's definitely a reason
| to stay up all night.
| royskee wrote:
| In the Washington, DC area, the Dover Harbor is a private rail
| car available for charter or one can join on select public trips.
| I believe it attaches to Amtrak trains. https://doverharbor.com/
| petesergeant wrote:
| As I get older, overnight train journeys are less and less
| appealing. My last few go-arounds on the Caledonian Sleeper have
| been expensive and left me exhausted with a very poor night's
| sleep. That "Dreamstar stateroom" they have a picture of is going
| to be excessively expensive.
| ghaff wrote:
| I enjoyed it as an experience but it wasn't cheap and not sure
| I would necessarily do again. With light enough luggage getting
| to Heathrow (or one of the other London airports) isn't a big
| deal and don't recall getting in from Edinburgh's airport being
| an ordeal either.
| jasonliu0704 wrote:
| who need a overnight train if you have a high speed rail!
| bergie wrote:
| Sleeper trains can be more convenient for some business travel.
| Leave in the evening, arrive right in the beginning of the
| business day well rested.
|
| We also did a lot of tourism in Europe with night trains. No
| need to book hotels or lose daytime in travel, always start the
| day in a new city.
| fblp wrote:
| There's another variation of this I'd like to see. A train you
| can work on during the day. With a private desk space with
| monitor etc where you could do zoom calls. Wouldn't need sleeping
| space.
|
| These would be especially good for 3-4hr trips.
| ant6n wrote:
| Best is if you combine the private office during the day with
| the sleeping cabin at night. Bonus points if you can get that
| at high density.
| zokier wrote:
| LA-SF distance is roughly 560km, that feels relatively short for
| overnight train? Like it's comparable to Madrid-Barcelona (500ish
| km) which is 2h37min by train, or Paris-Bordeaux at 2h11min; I
| doubt anyone is considering sleepers for those routes?
| ted_dunning wrote:
| LA-SF is nearly 500 MILES. That's close to 800km and driving
| through LA makes it feel like 1000km. If the sleeper would
| extend on to San Diego, this would be a sweet item for me.
| noduerme wrote:
| LA to SF doesn't make a lot of sense to me as an overnight route.
| Suppose you leave at 10pm. You get in at maybe 4am, maybe you got
| 5 hours of sleep, and have to wait 12 hours to check into a
| hotel...?
|
| 6 hours is maybe justifiable for the comfort compared to getting
| to LAX in traffic, checking in for a flight, then crawling out of
| SFO... why not run it during the day? Save the sleeper portion
| for getting to PDX and Seattle?
|
| Also, is the spa going to be open at 1am?
| wiether wrote:
| What's up with luxury trains?
|
| Now that airports are crowded with peasants thanks to low-cost
| companies, and private jets are still a bit too expansive, the
| new hype is to stay in a moving hotel?
|
| They are launching something similar in France
| https://legrandtour.com/en
| ghaff wrote:
| Assumption is probably that you're willing to pay (a reasonable
| amount) for comfort, a day or two of extra travel time isn't a
| big deal, you find advantages for city to city center travel
| (though you don't actually get that with San Francisco), and
| don't really like driving long distances.
|
| And private jets are more than a "bit" more expensive for most
| people. Multiples of first/business class even for a group.
| kylehotchkiss wrote:
| I took the coast starlight from SD to Seattle last year. I loved
| it. I wished there were more availability for LA to SF other than
| a single train. So long as the route had better internet than it
| does now, I'd prefer that to driving up in the future.
| paxys wrote:
| An overnight SF-LA train will work IF:
|
| - They time it _exactly_ right, so something like boarding at
| 10pm, reaching at 7am, and I am able to get a full night of sleep
| in the middle.
|
| - They price it to be competitive with a $79 flight or $60 worth
| of gas.
|
| I'm assuming both of them, especially the second, will be a solid
| "no".
| ghaff wrote:
| And... there's convenient car rental at arrival which will
| almost certainly be needed in LA. And the price will almost
| certainly be in the hundreds of dollars. Without looking it up,
| I'm assuming the price for a non-sleeper is over $100 today.
| jt2190 wrote:
| USD 80 values your time at 0, one extra night in a hotel at 0,
| the wear and tear on your car at 0, parking at 0...
| tristanb wrote:
| I wish someone would bring back the Snow train that used to go SF
| -> Sugarbowl.
| ted_dunning wrote:
| Check out the ski train from Denver to Winter Park.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-06-06 23:01 UTC)