I probably have to get from Vancouver to San Francisco in a few months.
So I figured, I'll just take the train, since, being an Euro, that's just the normal thing to do…
Turns out your continent is really big, so that's over 1000km and 24h, but I'm not in a hurry, so that's not a big issue. Plus, I like going by train, as long as its on routes I dont know with some nice views or interesting engineering (I'm not a train foamer, however!).
But, is it worth it? Amtrak has two of their "famous" (at least according to german wikipedia) long distance trains on this route (Cascades and Coast Starlight), and from their website, it seems like the Coast starlight will cost me only between 112 and 216$, including bus parts from Vancouver to Seattle and Neverheardofthat to San Francisco. So that might even be cheaper than flying. Is it worth trying to get a connection that uses the Cascades instead of the starlight? How does customs work, when you cross the border on land, in a bus?
But on the other hand, you also hear a lot of bad things about the US train system, but the same applies to the airlines.
You have to experience it for yourself. I have taken the costal train between LA and San Diego a few times. Its cheaper than flying and its only a 2-3 hour ride. I usually would drive but a few times that wasn't an option. The trains are much slower and older than in Europe.
Taking the bus or a train is only really an option for me if flying would be much more expensive. Or if there are no airports close by.
The real American way would be to drive. Because of the distance I wouldn't personally consider any way but flying. Some people like car camping and several days of long drives. Not me. Sitting up for days on a dirty old train? No thanks.
>>1138237
>I have taken the costal train between LA and San Diego a few times. Its cheaper than flying and its only a 2-3 hour ride.
Well, yeah, that's a tad shorter. I would never fly such a short stretch, unless its a connection to a long distance flight, and its much cheaper that way. I have flewn stuff like Vienna-Graz or Stuttgart-Zürich, which is ridiculous. I guess that's one of the differences between Euros and Americans.
>The real American way would be to drive.
I thought about that too, but one way rentals are quite expensive, plus, I'd have to get hotels along the way. And while I am not really in a big hurry, making it a week long roadtrip with multiple stops along the way is too long.
>Because of the distance I wouldn't personally consider any way but flying. … Sitting up for days on a dirty old train?
I regularly take 9h train rides to visit friends and family, so I'm kinda used to it, and it seems a bit more interesting than flying (given that I have never been in that area), but the "dirty old train" I am worried about a bit, especially given the cliche that public transport in the US is only for poor people, that need to take the bus from the prison to the hood…
The bus between Vancouver and Seattle only takes four hours. You stop at the border and have to walk through customs. The train doesn't give much of a better travel experience, half the trip is going through a metropolis. The border is a lot less friendly than it used to be, but everybody gets through. You could fly Seattle-SF for about the same cost as the train.
I found the best part of starlight is the Cascades. But that's only Redding to Eugene. North of Eugene, you're in a big river valley. Lots of rivers and bridges. At least one big dam. Going north you wake up in it. But going south it's dark out during that time.
Amtrak has 2 types of riders. People wanting a cheaper option than flying, and tourists. Really depends on the route how much of each there is. Most of the commuters ride between LA and Redding. These are the people that complain about the train. It is worse than flying if you only care about going A-B. It's more the tourists who ride the entire distance. It's greyhound that gives inter city public transport a bad name. There's a cop that walks up and down the train if it makes you feel any better. It's not any dirtier than an airplane.
Driving 101 is the best option. But you would get charged a bunch for returning a car that far away. I'd say take the train.
>>1138241
>poor people, that need to take the bus from the prison to the hood
...and European tourists. SF has a good metro system though.
If you want to see the scenery that much then go for the train. You could also fly to SF then rent a car/take a bus a couple hours south to Big Sur. All of the nature you can handle there without the train.
Amtrak doesn't really have the "undesirables", that would be greyhound.
Can't wait for CAHSR desu.
>>1138241
Amtrak isnt dirty. In America, poor people stick to the bus.
It is slow though, and VAN->SF is a long way on a train that goes a max of 79mph. If you like trains though, do it, it's a nice looking part of the country for sure.
I dont get why you'd need a bus connection. The Amtrak Cascades will get you from Vancouver to Seattle, and from there you can catch the Coast Starlight to San Fran.
I've taken some long-ish Via Rail rides. My favourite way to travel, but pretty much always the most expensive option.
>>1138241
>I regularly take 9h train rides to visit friends and family
Swabian living in Berlin detected. Just take the fucking plane. Or the train, whatever. But listen, I know your type. If I see some Swabian hipster bragging about how he took the train from Vancouver to SF and how much better that was than taking the plane or car like everybody else, I'm going to cave in your fucking teeth.
>>1138360
>I dont get why you'd need a bus connection. The Amtrak Cascades will get you from Vancouver to Seattle, and from there you can catch the Coast Starlight to San Fran.
To get to SF proper, there's a bus link. Amtrak goes to Oakland or Emeryville (I've never taken the Coast Starlight, but I do know that the California Zephyr, another scenic Amtrak ride, terminates in Oakland), both in the East Bay, so someone has to get passengers over the Bay Bridge. SF, separated from the rest of the continental US by water on three sides and a long, skinny, crowded peninsula with a different rail service (Caltrain) has no Amtrak station.
>>1138463
That makes sense. For some reason i thought OP said he was taking the bus to Seattle.
Wouldnt the BART train from OAK->SF be faster and better than a bus?
>>1138360
AMTRAK is slow and expensive.
>>1138481
>Wouldnt the BART train from OAK->SF be faster and better than a bus?
In terms of time, quite possibly. But Amtrak sells tickets through to San Francisco, and brings passengers here on its own small fleet of Amtrak buses. So the last little leg of the trip is included with the price of your rail ticket.
>>1138455
>Swabian living in Berlin detected.
>Swabian
YES
>Berlin
FUCK NO!
I occasionally do take the plane, but it costs either three times as much as the train (not worth it, when the 9h in the train are simply a full "home office" work day) or actually takes the same amount of time and double the price, because the only "cheap" airline is airberlin, which first flies me to their hub in either Berlin or in summer Malorca, neither of which is anywhere near where I am, nor where I want to go.
Sometimes, long train rides are just the only option that makes sense, though, I admit, for the route in question, that might not be the case.
>>1138343
>Amtrak doesn't really have the "undesirables", that would be greyhound.
>>1138360
>Amtrak isnt dirty. In America, poor people stick to the bus.
Good to know.
However:
>>1138360
>I dont get why you'd need a bus connection.
>>1138481
>For some reason i thought OP said he was taking the bus to Seattle.
That's what the AMTRAK website tells me. The only option they give me, is bus to Seattle, and then on the starlight. Since they seem to have only a once-daily service, the Cascades is probably not connected to the starlight. Maybe I could add a short stop in Seattle, to do some sightseein in town.
>>1138370
>but pretty much always the most expensive option.
>>1138489
>AMTRAK is slow and expensive.
Slow it definitely is, both, compared to the plane and even compared to fuckin fucked up German railways, but as said, I dont really mind. Plus, it actually is not more expensive than a plane.
What I am currently seeing:
>AMTRAK: $112 or 163 in business class
>Alaska Airways: 136€
>>1138360
>If you like trains though, do it, it's a nice looking part of the country for sure.
So I guess I will go for it, if my developing schedule allows for it.
Only part I am still kinda worried about:
Does amtrak have border delays scheduled in, into their bus connection from Vancouver to Seattle? From my experience with US borders, you never know how long it takes. Might be a smooth ride, or might be an intense interrogation fuckfest, for no obvious reason. And it seems like I cant just simply take the next train from Seattle, an hour later, like I would in Europe.
>>1138601
Here is info on crossing the border on the Cascades line.
http://www.amtrakcascades.com/RidersGuide.htm
The reason youre being told to take a bus is that the daily Coast Starlight departs Seattle earlier than the first train from Vancouver gets in. So they have a bus that gets in early enough to catch the Coast Starlight the same day.
If you can spend a day in Seattle i'd recommend just riding the Cascades down, it's loads nicer than a bus.
