Better departure times more true near major cities, not all. See Salt Lake, Cincinnati, Cleveland and lots more. Agree with the rest though.1) More room & walking around space. DVT not likely to be a problem on trains, can't ne ignored on 14/16 hour sectors, let alone the coming 22 hour sectors.
2) Much better scenary.
3) Often more convient arrival/departure time.
4) Arrives/departs closer to home.
5) No security lines.
6) Less baggage hassels.
Just off the top of my head.
I suggest you don’t look too closely at comparative fatality rates in the US between trains and planes. They don’t paint so nearly an optimistic picture.just a thought - if there is an accident, on a train you might fall 30 ft; on a plane you fall 5 miles - enuf said
I also agree - I’m coming to the States from the UK in part just for the fun of riding the trains (Texas Eagle then Coast Starlight) I could easily have flown from Austin to Seattle in a day for sure but decided a trainride would be a good way for me as a solo traveller to see parts of the States I otherwise wouldn’t see and meet people I wouldn’t otherwise meet hopefully in a safe environment.
I agree that the journey is the destination, but unlike most folks on this forum, that includes any thing that rolls, flies, or floats....
That is true. If you look closely you will find that the number of those killed by rail are, on average, higher than those killed by plane - or are they ????I suggest you don’t look too closely at comparative fatality rates in the US between trains and planes. They don’t paint so nearly an optimistic picture.
It’s certainly statistically more likely to be in an accident involving fatalities on the train. However if you do get into one you probably have more of a chance of not being one of the fatalities (while many airplane crashes are 100% no survivors) not to mention a likely quicker death if you are than the sheer terror of knowing death is coming for possibly minutes or more on a plane.I suggest you don’t look too closely at comparative fatality rates in the US between trains and planes. They don’t paint so nearly an optimistic picture.
Why don't you use data instead of pulling your claims out of thin air? If you want straight fatality numbers, the DoT breaks down the numbers in exactly the ways you say they don't--they have categories for actual accidents, grade crossing collisions, and pedestrian strikes. They furthermore give the split between freight and passenger trains if you want it.That is true. If you look closely you will find that the number of those killed by rail are, on average, higher than those killed by plane - or are they ????
When a commercial passenger plane crashes it makes big news - especially when all on board are killed. But, that does not happen all that often.
On the other hand, numbers seem to show that people are killed by trains far more often that those newsworthy commercial passenger planes accidents.
But, let's go ahead and look "closely":
So, yes, we should not look too closely at comparative rates of trains vs plane deaths.
- Train deaths are all lumped together
- There is no separation of those who die on passenger trains from those killed on/by freight trains
- Plane crash numbers are those of actual passengers who die or those who die in a passenger plane crash
- Military plane deaths, crop dusters, small plane crashes and any bystander killed by accident are not included in the numbers
- The majority of those killed in train accidents each year were not "on" the train
- People in cars, on bikes and even walking account for the largest number of those killed "by" trains
- Those killed at train crossings are usually not the fault of the train and seldom cause death of train passengers