Englishman considering visiting U.S next year. I'm seriously thinking about no hassle travelling just chilling while enjoying wonderful scenery.
Amtrak or Greyhound? I've heard Greyhound buses are pretty nightmarish. But what about Amtrak? I'd like to know what Americans think about travelling transcontinental by rail travel. Have you good or bad experiences? Cheers.
48 comments
I would genuinely just rent a car.
Amtrak is feasible, but slow. If you have the time to spend, it can be a solid way to travel.
As someone who lives in the middle and thinks it is underrated – I would just fly over the middle.
On the east coast, yes. Anywhere else, no.
It depends where you are hoping to go to
Amtrak is great between DC and Boston. That’s about it.
Where are you going? That’s the real deciding factor.
You’re best off renting a car if you have a drivers license, but between the two definitely Amtrak. Not that it’s great, but yeah. Greyhound is as bad as people make out.
One benefit of Amtrak instead of the bus, a car, or airplane, is that many people on the train are willing to have a conversation. It’s a great way to meet people. And most people will be thrilled to talk to an Englishman on holiday.
What part of the US? And how long will you be here? It can be feasible in the Northeast Corridor, but otherwise the routes are somewhat limited, and you would probably need a car (or be prepared to Uber/Lyft) in whatever cities you visit. It might be cheaper and would certainly be faster to fly between cities if you are going across the continent.
It’s certainly not as well-developed as the rail network in Europe/the UK, partly due to the large distances between cities.
It really depends on where you want to travel— I wouldn’t use it to cross the whole country, but going through the mountain states? Or down the coast? Yes!
I’ve gone DC to Boston (with stops in Philadelphia and New York) many times on Amtrak. It’s great for a short trip. But outside of the northeast corridor, I think you’ll be able to see more of what you want by renting a car and staying in motels along the way. There are lots of nice chain motels, like the Econolodge and Super 8.
Amtrak is ok if you’re only traveling between NYC, Philadelphia, Boston, and DC.
You have to tell us where you are planning on going. America is a big place.
Heavily depends, from what I understand, ANY other train gets priority over a track first, so Amtrak has MANY delays, but I’ve heard it can be an economical, if uncomfortable way to travel if you’re not worried about time and where/how you are sleeping and using the bathroom.
Amtrak is very slow and eye-wateringly expensive. Its a pleasant enough way to travel if you aren’t in hurry, but its not really any cheaper than flying or driving. It also just doesn’t go to massive swaths of the country.
I’ve never taken it across the country – not something I suggest unless you love train travel so much that you want to spend days doing it – but I’ve taken it for shorter trips (like San Francisco to Sacramento, from NYC to Boston) and for those, they are fun. The Capital Corridor/California Zephyr from SF to Sacramento is a beautiful trip.
It depends on what/where you are going.
NYC Boston, DC, Philly?
Sure.
Amtrak Cross country it is a several day trip, and it is expensive. I would fly unless seeing the countryside via rail is your whole plan.
Think Lisbon to Moscow. Would you take a train for that?
I would not go coast to coast on a greyhound unless I had no money at all.
Very much depends on what you want to do and how much time you have.
Yes, in the northeast at least. Where are you trying to go?
Oh, dear God. DO NOT take a Greyhound bus! Amtrak is very, very limited in its routes. Rent a car. That gives you the ability to go wherever you want on a whim and also, you’ll enjoy the scenery when you aren’t in a big city.
Airplanes
Depends. Are you traveling between DC and Boston? Yes, absolutely. Anywhere else and it’s quicker to fly.
Amtrak’s great if you have the time. If your destination is a major city all the better. The Empire builder from Chicago to Seattle is very scenic but a full 48 hours from end to end.
I’ve traveled across the country with Amtrak and it’s a long uncomfortable trip unless you shell out for a bed car. And yes you’re correct about Greyhound as I’ve traveled across the country that way as well. It’s especially bad in the summer when it’s hot and everyone stinks
For transcontinental travel, neither Amtrak or Greyhound. Fly or drive, depending on how much time you want to spend, and whether you want to see things along the way.
Amtrak from Boston to DC is good. Bus service between certain cities is actually quite good and convenient, and in other situations, it’s not at all.
Amtrak is good for visiting cities a few hundred miles away, but if you are going cross continental, take a plane. America is bigger than you think. That’s a week long trip on the ground.
Going from New York to California isn’t like going from England to France or Germany. It’s like going from England to Iran. In terms of miles at least.
It 100% depends on where you’re going.
It’s nice, but your option are extremely limited, I’m talking like 10% or less of the country has access to Amtrak stations. It’s not impossible, but we spent like 150 years destroying railroads for regular car traffic.
You can do it, it will take a few days. Amtrak is fastest in the North East US. For really long distances, you can get a roomette, which will give you a private room with two seats that turn into two beds (it may also have a toilet depending on the train/line). There’s supposed to be some great scenery on some of those lines, especially out west.
The important thing to note is that in the US, freight train companies own most of the rail lines, which means Amtrak does not have priority use. The means Amtrak trains often have to wait for slow, lumbering freight trains, putting them well behind schedule. If you don’t care much about when you arrive, it’s OK.
DO. NOT. USE. GREYHOUND. It’s an absolute nightmare for long distance travel. As an example I recently heard something long the lines of “I took Greyhound from Boston to St Louis. We got into an accident and the cops had us on the side of the road for over an hour. We got to St Louis 3 hours late. This was above and beyond the best Greyhound experience I have ever had.”
If you are on a tight schedule, neither are great options if you’re looking to make lots of stops, but I’d go Amtrack over Greyhound any day.
I travelled from Seattle to Chicago on Amtrack coming back from a trip to the west coast, and it was great, but I also got a sleeping car that was quite pricey.
During college I took Amtrak to go home for Thanksgiving. It was always late by a couple hours, but it was comfy and clean. The breakfast sucked.
If you have time to take your trip slow, Amtrak is a decent option. If you have a tighter schedule or need to go visit places well away from the Amtrak rails you will want to rent a car.
They’re both terrible. Fly between regions and rent a car if you’re going to an area without public transit (most areas are without public transit).
A lot of stations have an average departure delay of 6+ hours. If you can tolerate that you’re probably fine.
You can get AMTRAK in Penn Station in NYC. That all by itself is pretty nightmarish. You can get from DC to Boston, thru NYC, by AMTRAK.
Keep in mind that the USA does not have a well developed mass transit system.
Transcontinental by Amtrak sounds terrible tbh. 3 days straight on Amtrak vs 6 hours on an airplane (just looked at routes between NYC and LA) seems like a no brainer.
Folks saying it’s useful on the East coast are correct. Theres also a nice route (so I hear) that goes up the west coast, the Coast Starlight.
I mean you can do Amtrak, you shouldn’t, but you could.
It might be fun to do Amtrak for a day or two. But any more than that will just drive you crazy.
Depends on your schedule. I’ve taken Amtrak a few times (Chicago to Texas) and if you need to be somewhere on time…well, yeah…no. If not, it’s pretty pleasant.
If you’re not in hurry. My aunt took it from Portland to la and it arrived in la 2 days late
Feasible no. Useful. Only hardly. If you have any intention of enjoying your time in America, set aside a bunch of extra money for Ubers or a car rental because driving is going to be a requirement unless you specifically Target a metropolitan area with public transit.
Downtown Kansas City, for instance, has a free bus system and a street car rail that’s free to use, but you’re still limited by where they stop.
Most other cities don’t have reliable public transit, driving or Uber are your friends so is extra pocket money
If you’re solely trying to see major cities Amtrak will work. It can be expensive, and I only use it to go to NYC where a car is even more of a nightmare. I wouldn’t ride a greyhound for free.
If you want to “see the scenery” outside the cities, renting a car is pretty much mandatory. Too big, and too spread out to rely on anything else.
Edit: after seeing your other responses I’d recommend flying between your major destinations. Unless you’re okay spending over a week on the train with little to do.
Amtrak falls into three broad categories:
1. Northeast Corridor
2. State-supported services
3. Long-distance trains
The Northeast Corridor is probably comparable to a typical English rail line. It’s no TGV but it is a pretty convenient way to get between cities in the Northeast, from DC to Philly to New York to Boston. It is a recommended way to travel between those places and runs frequently, usually faster than driving but slower than flying.
The state-supported services are intercity trains in California, the Pacific Northwest, Illinois, and a few other places. These are shorter routes that are usually less frequent and slower than the Northeast Corridor but are still perfectly practical ways to travel between, for example, Seattle and Portland or between San Francisco and Sacramento or between Chicago and St. Louis.
Then you have the long-haul trains. These are the multi-day trips between, like, Chicago and Seattle or between New York and Miami.
These trains are **SLOW** and they are almost always **LATE.** And I *do not* mean “haha slow and late, sounds like British trains!”
No. You don’t understand. You will book a long-haul train that’s supposed to get to its destination on Tuesday and you will get there on Wednesday. Your average speed will be 35mph. This is advanced slowness and lateness.
That said, the scenery is very often ***breathtaking****.* Especially through the Appalacian mountains, the Rocky mountains, the Sierra Nevada, and the Pacific Coast.
So if you accept that you’ll pay more than a flight, travel slower than driving, and arrive later than an intercity bus, and want to travel by train anyway and see some incredible scenery, it is worth it.
Do not take greyhound.
Fly.
The itinerary described is multiple days on a train. It would not be enjoyable in the slightest. *Maybe* NY to Chicago but even then why?
Amtrak is nice, not as nice as European trains but not bad. I’ve taken it a few times.
I wouldn’t do Greyhound.
Just keep in mind that America is _massive_. A non-stop train from Los Angeles to Dallas (less than half the width of the country) is 40 hours. Flights are cheap here, get on a plane.
If you’re exploring one particular region, especially for enjoying nature, drive. A lot of our most beautiful national parks are not accessible by train because they’re deep in mountains or forests.
If you’re mostly sticking to the Eastern US you can get around on Amtrak just fine though. But seriously, as soon as you even look at the Western US get a car or a plane, it’s way too big and spread out to take a train.
If the train itself is part of the vacation and you have plenty of time, then yes. It won’t be glamorous, but a sleeper room of some sort is perfectly fine to travel in (and much better than what you -might- deal with on greyhound).
If the train is just a mode of travel, unless you’re in the NE Corridor, the train is going to be much slower and likely more expensive than flying.
For your potential itinerary, NYC, Chicago, and SF are perfectly fine without cars (well, SF isn’t and Chicago is slightly easier with a car, but ride services/taxis are prevalent and plentiful in both places, so no worry). I’ve never been to Glacier but a National Park wouldn’t be my first guess as being accessible without a vehicle unless you’re setup to be able hike/camp quite a bit). But as I said, I’ve never been to Glacier so could be wrong!
Have you considered flying between major cities and then taking regional guided motorcoach tours? You get the flexibility of a car, a guide, a planned itinerary, and someone to drive you. As other posters have mentioned, trains in the US outside of the Washington DC to New York City area or Southern California (San Luis Obispo to San Diego) tend to be expensive, slow and (even in Southern California) somewhat unpredictable when it comes to scheduling. Public transportation even in many major cities is challenging.
A guided motorcoach tour of the regions you want to visit solves a lot of these problems.
The answer is yes, in general. Amtrak does NOT cover the USA very well but it’s awesome for many routes. For me it’s Washington, D.C. to New York (or Boston). We have also used the auto train from south of D.C. to Florida near Orlando. Your auto goes in one car and passengers in other cars. Various classes of pax cars including sleeper cars.
It’s slow. It’s expensive.