Hacker News Reader

Comment by rconti | Hacker News Reader

I'll trade a slightly slower border crossing for faster trains and airplanes.

Most trains today actually run slower than their 1920 version on the same track. We invented high speed rail in the 1960s which of course goes much faster, but most trains are not high speed and most operators of regular lines (including subways) have slowed the trains down.

They run a lot more smoother nowadays though due to continuous welded rail.

Despite smoother rail, computer dispatching, and computer safety controls: the trains are still running slower.

My brief googling suggests this is not so in the UK at any rate.

>Some trains, such as the famous "Flying Scotsman" in the United Kingdom, were able to reach speeds of up to around 90 miles per hour (145 kilometers per hour). However, this was not the norm and most trains had a top speed of around 50-60 miles per hour

They are quicker now - 130mph, 80 mph is normal

Fair enough. There is a certain romance to crossing the atlantic by ship, though. That's been on my bucket list for a while - IIRC a ticket is on the order of $1-2k for a weeklong journey from UK to US.

Really? That seems like a very reasonable cost! Any idea where you book something like that?

Any major cruise line has both trans-Atlantic and trans-Pacific cruises. You'll have to book two voyages for a round trip or fly for one of the legs.

The round trip idea is unlikely to work well unless you're willing to wait awhile as the cruise ships are repositioning to handle specific seasons (e.g. Northern Europe in the summer, the Caribbean in the winter).

The exception is the Queen Mary II, which is an ocean liner that still does regular trans-Atlantics.

If you can afford 2 weeks off for a round trip, you should really take at least a week in the country to arrive at to see it. Cruises are nice, but you don't see the culture of the places you go. Either fly back, or take more than a two weeks. I recommend fly back, the one way trip is a once in a lifetime thing, but the return trip seems like it would be repetitive (having taken several cruises, though none trans ocean)

Of course both Europe and North America are large continents with a lot more to see than you can do in a week, but few of us have the budget to be a world traveler for a few decades to see everything.

> Either fly back, or take more than a two weeks.

Right, the point is it might be six months, since a lot of cruise lines will do only one crossing for northern/southern hemisphere summer toggling.

e.g. here in Seattle the cruise ships that go between here and Alaska make a single trip down to Australia or somewhere in the fall, and then don't come back for half a year.

So yes, like you said - probably fly back.

Ah okay, I guess I was thinking that OP was talking about a more traditional sailing ship or something rather than a cruise ship! I've lived in Europe a few times and really enjoyed it but going across the Atlantic by boat is on the bucket list

Yeah we were talking cruise ships, which are by far the cheapest way to cross the ocean on a ship. A sailing ship is gonna be unbelievably more expensive, as that's a more bespoke experience on a much smaller vessel with worse economies of scale. Repositioning cruises on cruise ships are actually the cheapest ones per day to make up for the inconvenience of not ending where you started. The ship needs to move from one region to another for the season anyway, so from their perspective any revenue during the repositioning is an added bonus.

You can be one of the passengers on a cargo ship like Greta Thunberg if cruises aren't for you. There are different places to book.

The Queen Mary 2 sails from Southampton to NYC [0].

I think you can get a ticket for less than $1k,though you'd probably be cramped with no window.

[0] https://www.cunard.com/en-gb/find-a-cruise/M509/M509

Reply on news.ycombinator.com