San Francisco-to-L.A. overnight train inches closer to reality

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Cost and Competitiveness vs Flying

  • Many argue the train must be cheaper than or at least comparable to flying to gain adoption; others say any reasonable (<5–10x) alternative should be welcomed.
  • Current examples (Amtrak LA–Seattle, NE Corridor, etc.) often cost similar to airfares, especially last-minute, which fuels skepticism.
  • Some point out that total trip cost for flying includes airport transfers, parking, and hotels for early meetings, so a $300–$350 high-quality sleeper could be competitive.

Time, Convenience, and Experience

  • Door-to-door, flying SF–LA typically takes ~3 hours or more once airport logistics are included.
  • Trains are seen as far more comfortable, especially with kids or as overnight sleepers where travel time overlaps with sleep.
  • The “luxury sleeper with good food and beds” model is seen by some as a viable niche even if not faster than planes.

Demand, Geography, and ROI

  • Critics stress limited intermediate population between SF and LA (mainly Fresno and Bakersfield) and multiple mountain ranges, arguing low ROI versus improving regional systems (BART, Caltrain, ACE, Capitol Corridor, etc.).
  • Others counter that California’s coastal corridor is densely populated where it matters and conceptually well suited for a rail backbone.
  • Some argue priority should be based on passenger-miles and integrated local transit at termini.

Infrastructure, Freight, and Reliability

  • This proposal would use existing Union Pacific (and in related services, BNSF) freight tracks, not new high-speed infrastructure.
  • Past experience with Amtrak on these lines suggests delays, poor track conditions, and freight priority, raising doubts about on-time performance.
  • Landslide-related closures and difficult terrain along the coast are cited as additional reliability and upgrade challenges.

Environment and Fuel

  • Trains would almost certainly run diesel; electrification is seen as unlikely for this low-priority freight route.
  • Some claim even fossil-fueled trains can have lower emissions per passenger-mile than planes, though others cite reports where this isn’t always true.

Comparisons to Europe and Asia

  • Many contrast US struggles with European and Chinese rail, noting: higher densities, better local transit, and more centralized political will elsewhere.
  • Counterpoints emphasize China’s higher population density, easier land acquisition, and large debts on its rail system.
  • Examples from Japan and Europe show that trains can be more expensive than flying but win on city-center access and comfort.

Politics, Law, and Feasibility in the US

  • Multiple comments blame US legal complexity, strong property rights, fragmented local governments, and auto/aviation interests for blocking major rail projects.
  • There is a recurring sentiment that the US once built large rail and highway systems but now lacks the political capacity or consensus to repeat such efforts.

Mass Transit vs Luxury Niche

  • Some worry that “luxury sleeper” positioning means it won’t serve ordinary travelers until equipment ages and prices drop.
  • Others are fine with a premium niche product, seeing it as one of the few economically plausible ways to add intercity rail in the current US context.