>>--Joanna writes:
>>
>>I should be able to get on a bullet train from SF in the
>>morning and get to NY the next morning. In a comfortable six
>>seater/couchette, I should have myself a great day meeting
>>people, chatting, reading a book, then have a great 8-hour sleep,
>>and then arrive in New York fresh and rested.
>>
>>
>
>And while you're at it, I'd like a pony, too! :-)
>
>By the way, have you ever spent 24 hours on a train? I've done
>overnight trips of 15+ hours in Europe, even on 'luxury' trains, and you
>don't arrive fresh and rested. You arrive cranky and rumpled.
>
Depends on the train. The trains in the U.S. are built like buses--not
comfortable. But the old trains in europe are built with compartments
(seating six) and an outlying walkway. In the comparments you can
convert the seats into three flat beds, one set of three on each side of
the compartment. Six seats become six beds & voila. Very nice and restful.
Now, you're right about the mountains. But don't trains already go across these mountains? And sure, factoring in the mountains might mean a two day trip. But so what? Is there nothing more to a journey than getting to the final destination? I kind of like the inbetween part too -- you know, where you meet people, have a chance to talk, read a book, knit, whatever.
I know that right now no one has time for a two day trip across country because we have minuscule vacations and business must proceed at the speed of light, but we're talking about the way we'd like life to be, not what we already have to put up with.
The real question is whether train travel across country is less energy efficient than air travel. Anyone know?
Joanna
-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <../attachments/20050912/f08b2b42/attachment.htm>