Train question

US or UK?

There are probably train schedules online you can consult.

Time depends on where and when. In the US, 1960, a train crossing a populated state with stops in various towns would take more time to cover the same distance (say 100 miles) than a train crossing a non-populated area (last 100 miles coming in to Salt Lake City.) These days, there aren't nearly as many trains running. Puma

For the US, a ride that distance would be Amtrak, and not a commuter rail system. New York City to Boston, MA or Washington, DC, if you're not on the Acela, is about four hours. Amtrak's schedules are at http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer/Page/1237405732505/1237405732505.

If you give me the city of departure or arrival, I can pair it out to four or five hours.

Understand that Amtrak's schedules are just guidelines. For example, the Lake Shore Limited is nicknamed the "Late for Sure Limited." The California Zephyr went a year with a perfect record -- not on time once. It's much different from trains in England.

Also, the year of travel makes a lot of difference. Train service has a very up and down history in the US in the past thirty years. Also different trains have different personalities. The City of New Orleans is a party train, the Down Easter is incredibly friendly, Acela's are full of type A personalities.

Best of luck,

Jim Clark-Dawe

Just give us as many particulars as you can (time period, general location--west coast, east coast, New England, etc.) and we can probably give you a reasonable estimate. I rode a train a few times back in the seventies (mostly The Floridian between Florida and Chicago).

By the way, you can sort of play this either way (except you don't want a train going 200 mph). I was once on a trip from Nashville to Chicago that was suppose to take 10 hours and it end up taking 14 going and 18 returning because it had been a wet spring and the rails were in poor condition part of the way.

You could just make a rough estimate of around 40 mph on average for a short hop (or maybe less if it makes stops). So a five hour trip could be somewhere close to 200 miles, give or take a little. A cross-country express (in the old days) was probably faster.

Jclarkdawe beat me to Amtrak!

When I was going to Appleton, Wisconsin from Washington DC (900-1000 miles), I compared trains and planes. The two fares at the time were about the same in price (I'd thought train would be a lot cheaper!). Plane trip was only a couple hours; train was 29 hours. If I'd driven, it would have been 15 hours driving time. The problem is the train can't take short cuts. It's got to follow the tracks.

The_Ink_Goddess said:

US, but I live in the UK AND I have no knowledge of geography or direction. That kinda hampers my search for train timetables too. But I will look.

Click to expand...

Start with the current Amtrak website. They have timetables, menus and even route guides. Your characters can eat, drink and see the sights. Of course, if you aren't all that familiar with American geographic, you might want to have a British setting. Are you any more familiar with the trains in your home country?

alleycat said:

By the way, you can sort of play this either way (except you don't want a train going 200 mph). I was once on a trip from Nashville to Chicago that was suppose to take 10 hours and it end up taking 14 going and 18 returning because it had been a wet spring and the rails were in poor condition part of the way.

You could just make a rough estimate of around 40 mph on average for a short hop (or maybe less if it makes stops). So a five hour trip could be somewhere close to 200 miles, give or take a little. A cross-country express (in the old days) was probably faster.

Click to expand...

There hasn't been train service to Nashville since 1979, and that route was noted for particularly poor track conditions. Most long distance trains travel on well maintained track that's good for a maximum of 79MPH - although averages are less because of station stops and slower stretches. Sometimes the trains run on time these days. Shocking.

I just took the Amtrak train known as the Empire Builder from Seattle to Chicago and then back again. At speed, the train travels at 79 miles per hour. It goes much slower near towns. We were running about an hour and ten minutes behind schedule on arriving in Chicago ( due to a split rail from the sub-freezing temps in Minnesota -- the engineer had to get out and walk along the track to lead the train over the split parts) and on the return trip, we were detrained in Everett and were going to be bussed to Seattle from there due to a mudslide ( I wound up taking a taxi -- it was faster). Lots of adventures can happen on a train. PM me if you want details.

Amtrak ride from Seattle to Simi Valley (just outside Los Angeles) - 37 hours. 3 different locomotives - 2 broke down.

Yep, jclarkdawe has it. Look up the different schedules on Amtrak. And esp. this part of his post is true:

Also different trains have different personalities. The City of New Orleans is a party train, the Down Easter is incredibly friendly, Acela's are full of type A personalities.

Click to expand...

There are also different cars on a longer train ride; for instance, there are trains with the "Quiet Car" where you can't use cell phones or anything with noise, the "Business Car" which has outlets at each seat and the New York Times and one free soft drink or coffee. Then there's just plain ol' coach which is for anyone else.

Currently, the Heartland Flyer takes four hours to cover 206 miles from Oklahoma City to Dallas, TX. It makes only a handful of stops along the way.
In the country, it runs about 70mph.

EG

AmericaMadeMe said:

There hasn't been train service to Nashville since 1979, and that route was noted for particularly poor track conditions. Most long distance trains travel on well maintained track that's good for a maximum of 79MPH - although averages are less because of station stops and slower stretches. Sometimes the trains run on time these days. Shocking.

Click to expand...

That's what I suggested 40 mph as a rough estimate (but I'm no train expert).

It was 1975 when I made the trip to and from Chicago on the Floridian.

Amtrak is epically slow. They could be going 100 miles in those five hours. I've sat in a stopped train for HOURS before. They have to share rails with the freight trains, then they have to wait for them to pass and stuff. I've also been on a train (this was a commuter train though) when someone commits suicide on the tracks. The trains in both directions will stop for hours in this case while they investigate and clean up the scene.

My advice--have them go wherever you want them to go, and any amount of delay or slowness is totally believable.

Kitty Pryde said:

Amtrak is epically slow. They could be going 100 miles in those five hours. I've sat in a stopped train for HOURS before. They have to share rails with the freight trains, then they have to wait for them to pass and stuff. I've also been on a train (this was a commuter train though) when someone commits suicide on the tracks. The trains in both directions will stop for hours in this case while they investigate and clean up the scene.

Click to expand...

Here on the east coast of the US it's the same. Takes about the same time--or more--to drive as it does to take the train (but my sons and I like trains). And the suicide by trains is on the rise in this area. It's like one every month or two.

The furthest route I ran on NJ Transit was from Hoboken, NJ to Port Jervis, NY, about 89 miles. All stops takes about 2 and a half hours. And express will take about two hours. A lot of that territory is 70 and 79 mph, but there are points where you have to slow to 30 mph for curves and certain bridges, not to mention the stops themselves. 4 to five hours would more or less double your miles, 180-200. If we ran from Binghamton, NY to Hoboken, like they did in the old days, it would probably take 4 to 5 hours.