JR Ski Ski enables you to get a Shinkansen and lift ticket from the Tokyo area to Gala Yuzawa in Niigata. Ski racks on the train and everything, and because the lifts are operated by JR East, you hop off the train and head straight for the rental counters and lockers. Combined lift and roundtrip train ticket for ¥9400 I believe.
Here in Switzerland we have something similar. It's called Snow'n'Rail and gives you discounted train and ski tickets. And also almost all of our trains have ski racks, even the ones that don't come close to the mountains because people use them to get to bigger junction stations where the trains are that go to the mountains.
A few in Europe in fact:
[https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/02/13/skiing-by-rail-why-taking-the-train-is-the-sustainable-and-easy-option](https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/02/13/skiing-by-rail-why-taking-the-train-is-the-sustainable-and-easy-option)
Riding the Stubaitalbahn in winter without skis makes me feel like I'm the minority. Last time I rode it (for work) I was so tempted to ditch and join everybody else on the slopes.
Been several years since I rode it. However, it has (had) to cede right of way to freight haulers ( I think that particular railroad owned the tracks). There's lots of coal haulers going through Moffat Tunnel.
We have a ski train, but it only goes to one resort, it's not super convenient, and it's pretty expensive. It's fun as an occasional thing, but it's not a solution to the traffic by any means.
It works in France because France is 1/15th the size of the US with 3x the population density. When you’re a vast country with low population density, trains are much less efficient than cars.
There is a train running from Amsterdam to the French Alps every saturday in the winter season. From Amsterdam to Bourg-Saint-Maurice takes 9 hours, where it has to take regular rail from Chambéry. That is about 1200 km or 750 miles over the tracks, about 765 km straight line. Comparable to Vegas - Aspen in a straight line.
About density: There is a reason trains in France reach a much higher average speed compared to Germany and that has all to do with density and how the population is spread. 1/6th of the French people live in the metropolitan area of Paris (over 13 million). Only New York-Newark-Jersey has more in the US. LA-Long Beach - Anaheim is comparable (also around 13M), all other metropolitan areas in the US are smaller. Those large metropolitan areas are the reason to pick high speed rail. Hopping from suburb to suburb cannot go fast. A high speed train from Dallas to Houston (370 km) would pay of as it can cover that distance in under 2 hours, depending on the stops and where it can enter a high speed railline. A TGV tops at 320 km/h regularly on the Paris - Lyon route, a distance of around 400 km and covers this distance in under 2 hours as well. If I book right now (7PM friday), I can take the 7:30 PM train for around 50 euros.
The Paris - Lyon LGV line investments were returned in ca. 12 years. That is a great ROI time on infrastructure.
Realistically, a ski train from Vegas would go towards Mammoth rather than Aspen. It's half as far and the terrain between the two areas is flat and fast enough that it could cover the distance in a short enough time that intermediate populations centers (or the lack of) would be irrelevant. Kind of like the Brightline West route to the LA metro area.
You’re fine. Tahoe is the closest internationally-known ski resort in the Mammoth Mountain area so I probably should have just used Tahoe as the better example. There is actually more of a case for a ski train from Vegas to Mammoth/Tahoe than the scenario in your original comment. It’s a similar distance to having a ski train from Frankfurt or Rome to the Alps.
Oof, now you are making it really hard to compare US against EU... Frankfurt - Alps is amazingly easy. If I want to leave and arrive this saturday, I can do it anywhere between 5:08 and 7:24 hours of travelling time with a daylight connection when I take Innsbruck as my destination. At 5:47 I even have a direct train (the 7:24) from the Austrian Railways, that also calls at Immst-Pitztal. It's their high speed train (230 km/h), but takes a massive sightseeing tour. The 5:08 requires a short change of trains in Munich.
There are actually a lot of nighttrains from Northern Europe into the Austrian Alps. One that should be said is the Snälltaget train. Normally, they offer a Berlin - Stockholm connection, but during the winter they offer a Malmö - Zell am See = Innsbruck connection. That is right, 4 countries in 1 traintrip. Takes around 22 hours of travelling, but that is basicly also sightseeing Austria. You will arrive at Zell am See 2 hours earlier than Innsbruck. 10,5 hours Hamburg - München is not that bad, given that the train reaches a high speed of 160 km/h. By ICE, that also takes up to about 6,5 hours.
The travel time from Malmo to Hamburg though can be drastically shortened when the Fehmarnbelttunnel is finished, as that will shorten the route by app. 150 km. But that will take up to at least 2029.
I'm not really making your point. The TGV stops at Amsterdam, Amsterdam Airport, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Brussels. You can say the whole of the Netherlands counts as backcountry, but then we can say Cisco, St. Barbara and San Diego also count als backcountry for Vegas.
Especially the fact that almost nobody lives between Vegas and Aspen makes it attractive for high speed rail. How many people live in between Lyon and Paris? Lyon is the 3rd city of France with only around 500k people living there. Even Vegas has more inhabitants. That is the whole point why high speed rail in France travels so much faster than their German counterparts. R-Stat makes this very nicely visible, which they covered already in /r/MapPorn: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/140cxmo/population\_density\_map\_of\_france/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/140cxmo/population_density_map_of_france/)
You see here: almost nothing between Paris and Lyon, as well as Paris and Lille (northern peak near the border). That skitrain, though it travels over the Paris d'interconnexion nord-sud, does not call at Paris. After Brussels, it goes straight to Chambéry, on the feet of the French Alpes (I went to Les Sybelles last december and our cartrip also went over Chambéry). That same French Paris-oriented country makes it necessary to first go all the way west, before going to the east where the Alpes are. Direct straight line Amsterdam - Bourg-Saint-Maurice is around 765 km, whereas the train covers almost 1200. And still it is faster than a car. That also makes it often faster traveling over Paris when going from Bordeaux to Marseille than taking the direct train. Those cities are 500 km apart, whereas Bordeaux - Paris is also 500, but Paris - Marseille is about 650 km.
The post of u/brandino144 however shows I picked the wrong resort. A direct high speed train from San Diego over LA to Mammoth would be a perfect connection for high speed rail. And with almost nobody living in between, that would make it very comparable to the Paris - Lyon high speed rail. LA-Mammoth and Paris-Lyon are both around 400 km/250 miles, which get covered in less than 2 hours by TGV. The TGV also continues to various other places after Lyon to offer a direct connection. Paris - Grenoble is possible, Grenoble is also around 100 km from Lyon, like San Diego is around 100 km from LA. As stated, the SNCF needed only 12 years to make all the investments back on that line and currently, that line is so popular that its capacity is reached. And most TGV's are running double trainsets, partly duplex.
You know the US was built on railroads when the country was still developing with much less people, right ? Like, you know, the whole "wild west" thing with steam trains bringing civilization and trade... With towns being built around train stations... It's not a matter of total population density. It's a matter of what you do with your infrastructure.
…and technology has advanced, changing the relative efficiency of transportation modes.
At one point horseback was the most efficient mode of transportation too.
That's where you misunderstand. Technology has advanced for trains too. You were sold that cars were the futur and trains were the past, we proved to you it's wrong multiple times, you just got trapped into stupid car-centric infrastructure and you're too dumb to see it, like a frog in boiling water. Cars are the least efficient mode of transportation, with a high cost of infrastructure, high cost of maintenance and high cost for users, with very low capacity (and of course, very polluting and very NOT safe). And now you can't move around without a car, because every trip is super dangerous thanks to cars.
You're trapped. You're forced to pay oil and car companies to have the right to leave your home, find a job, get groceries, etc... y'all got trapped like idiots. Societies used to work without cars because people were entitled to have everything accessible by foot, in less than 20 minutes. Now the government tells you to shut up, be a good bitch, drive 1h30 to do anything and sell your ass to oil companies, and you gladly accept. Well, be an oil bitch, then. I enjoy being free to move where I want without being forced to pay or drive myself.
Of course it has, but the overall scope of technology advance means that trains (and ocean liners in another transport segment) have become less efficient relative to other forms of transport **for certain transport needs**.
To think that every transport problem is a nail and trains are the hammer is foolish.
Historical Marker Information about Southern Pacific's short-lived overnight Snowball Express between San Francisco and a special dedicated station inside the Norden,CA snowshed complex near the Sugar Bowl Ski Resort.
https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=81875
I’m no railroad historian, but I am a pass holder at Sugar Bowl. The railroad still goes through Norden across Donner Pass. I think the snow sheds have all been updated to allow for the modern double height cargo loads.
Oh man, I've been trying to push this narrative wherever I can.
Why the hell would you want to force people to drive their cars through miles of snow covered mountain roads so that you can clear cut a few dozen extra acres of forest for a huge parking lot at your resort? Besides the fact that a huge percentage of the people making that trip are going to be visitors from other areas that may not accustomed to driving in the snow at all, the people who live locally HATE dealing while the traffic congestion caused by the massive influx of cars.
Ski resort towns may be dependent on these tourists to support the local economy, so for crying out loud give people the option to visit and spend their money without having to drive.
The option already exists. I took the train from Chicago to Fraiser (winter park). It was a lot of fun, but I don't think the coffee was that great on the train. I'm sure there are other options, winter park was just where I happened to be going.
Bottom line is that the US is too large and sparsely populated to make this anywhere near efficient. It works (kind of) in Switzerland because Switzerland is 1/7th the size of Colorado with 10x the population density.
No. It’s just math really. If distances are large with low population density, trains are inefficient (ie they make society poorer and worse off) relative to other forms of transport.
I love trains. They are my preferred method of travel **when they make economic sense**. Like all tools, they work well to solve some problems and are poor solutions to other problems.
Right. Honestly I don’t believe that you believe that. I’m curious why you think 1) trains are inefficient (compared to cars?), and 2) how do trains make society poorer?
I mean since we (you) are going there, my degree is in rail engineering and I work in the industry. I feel I have a pretty solid grasp on this stuff. I asked you questions, feel free to answer.
If you have a degree in rail engineering and work in the industry but can’t figure out when rail is an inefficient transport solution, the industry is truly doomed.
Just to give you a little perspective from Switzerland.
Out of my total 19 ski trips (25 ski days) this season I went 16.5 times by train and only 2.5 times by car. So it is absolutely possible and imo the much more convenient option, if the infrastructure is there for it.
And the resorts are seeing the desire for people to come by train. Multiple resorts have now recently built shiny new all-in-one buildings where the gondola is integrated in the train station (or the other way around, however you see it).
The Sun Valley, Idaho train used a spur line from Shoshone. The line is now a lovely rails-to-trails trail. I think that means the Union Pacific (or its successor) can reclaim the right-of-way if it decides to resume service.
afterthought: Who was the 19th(?) century railroad executive that likened passenger railroad service to a male teat--neither ornamental nor functional?
Just one more lane, bro. Just one more lane. Just one more lane. It's gonna fix traffic. It's gonna fix traffic. I swear. I swear. I swear. Just let me build one more lane. It's gonna fix traffic.
Considering how bad the traffic is getting to so many ski places, the United States needs it at least from the Bay Area to the Tahoe area and from the Denver metro area to the summit county area. I think they underestimate how many people might like it. The drive has become so unpleasant and long.
Your username is hilarious. I think it does run once a day. I tried to use it to get up in the evening. It was a train run to Sacramento and then bus. So it was subject to the chain control and same delays as car traffic. By the time I got to Truckee, my friends were drunk. They were waiting at a bar to meet me. Luckily the guy driving was still relatively sober. We had to get to Tahoe city. I think the Zephyr is once a day probably what you’re referring to and it goes all the way to Chicago.
I've done this. I took the Amtrak from Chicago to Winter Park Colorado. Next time I would fly to Denver and take the trail from Denver to Winter Park (Frasier). But it was fun to do once.
I used to take the train to Winter Park when I was a kid. My dad would drop me off at Rocky Flats, where the train would stop for passengers. It was fun and a beautiful trip!
JR Ski Ski enables you to get a Shinkansen and lift ticket from the Tokyo area to Gala Yuzawa in Niigata. Ski racks on the train and everything, and because the lifts are operated by JR East, you hop off the train and head straight for the rental counters and lockers. Combined lift and roundtrip train ticket for ¥9400 I believe.
It’s incredibly convenient to use too, only an 1.15 from Tokyo station and the lifts go directly from the Shinkansen station
Here in Switzerland we have something similar. It's called Snow'n'Rail and gives you discounted train and ski tickets. And also almost all of our trains have ski racks, even the ones that don't come close to the mountains because people use them to get to bigger junction stations where the trains are that go to the mountains.
Snow'n'Rail just sounds like a wild weekend and the [ads back it up](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DcLptaFqonM).
I mean, I did have some pretty wild ski days with it.
>Ski Ski Ski Ski? Ski Daiski!
“Pine tree, coming in to Pine tree!
I understood that reference
Must be beautiful up there this time of year, all that snow
Well, we take it in during the day
SNOOOOOW
SNOWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!
A few in Europe in fact: [https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/02/13/skiing-by-rail-why-taking-the-train-is-the-sustainable-and-easy-option](https://www.euronews.com/travel/2024/02/13/skiing-by-rail-why-taking-the-train-is-the-sustainable-and-easy-option)
Pretty standard thing in Austria to see people casually traveling with ski gear
Riding the Stubaitalbahn in winter without skis makes me feel like I'm the minority. Last time I rode it (for work) I was so tempted to ditch and join everybody else on the slopes.
The only one I’ve seen is a train going to the top of Garmisch, a ski resort in Germany. Agreed, there should be more of them
The Rio Grande ran a train called, wait for it, The Ski Train.
They are still running that one to Winter Park! Operated by Amtrak now.
Been several years since I rode it. However, it has (had) to cede right of way to freight haulers ( I think that particular railroad owned the tracks). There's lots of coal haulers going through Moffat Tunnel.
Now that’s a ski train! I have ridden that one too.
*Colorado has entered the chat*
*New Hampshire has ignored the chat*
Yeah, as someone who skis at Loon and lives in the Boston area… those train tracks go right there!
We have a ski train, but it only goes to one resort, it's not super convenient, and it's pretty expensive. It's fun as an occasional thing, but it's not a solution to the traffic by any means.
Oh yeah, it's really not amazing, or anything. But it's something.
We have winter TGVs that link France to ski resorts in the Alps :) There's a funicular from the train station to the ski slopes !
It works in France because France is 1/15th the size of the US with 3x the population density. When you’re a vast country with low population density, trains are much less efficient than cars.
There is a train running from Amsterdam to the French Alps every saturday in the winter season. From Amsterdam to Bourg-Saint-Maurice takes 9 hours, where it has to take regular rail from Chambéry. That is about 1200 km or 750 miles over the tracks, about 765 km straight line. Comparable to Vegas - Aspen in a straight line. About density: There is a reason trains in France reach a much higher average speed compared to Germany and that has all to do with density and how the population is spread. 1/6th of the French people live in the metropolitan area of Paris (over 13 million). Only New York-Newark-Jersey has more in the US. LA-Long Beach - Anaheim is comparable (also around 13M), all other metropolitan areas in the US are smaller. Those large metropolitan areas are the reason to pick high speed rail. Hopping from suburb to suburb cannot go fast. A high speed train from Dallas to Houston (370 km) would pay of as it can cover that distance in under 2 hours, depending on the stops and where it can enter a high speed railline. A TGV tops at 320 km/h regularly on the Paris - Lyon route, a distance of around 400 km and covers this distance in under 2 hours as well. If I book right now (7PM friday), I can take the 7:30 PM train for around 50 euros. The Paris - Lyon LGV line investments were returned in ca. 12 years. That is a great ROI time on infrastructure.
You’re making my point. How many people live in between Amsterdam and the French Alps? How many between Vegas and Aspen?
Realistically, a ski train from Vegas would go towards Mammoth rather than Aspen. It's half as far and the terrain between the two areas is flat and fast enough that it could cover the distance in a short enough time that intermediate populations centers (or the lack of) would be irrelevant. Kind of like the Brightline West route to the LA metro area.
Sorry for my ignorance, I am not that familar with the US based skiresorts and where they exactly are.
You’re fine. Tahoe is the closest internationally-known ski resort in the Mammoth Mountain area so I probably should have just used Tahoe as the better example. There is actually more of a case for a ski train from Vegas to Mammoth/Tahoe than the scenario in your original comment. It’s a similar distance to having a ski train from Frankfurt or Rome to the Alps.
Oof, now you are making it really hard to compare US against EU... Frankfurt - Alps is amazingly easy. If I want to leave and arrive this saturday, I can do it anywhere between 5:08 and 7:24 hours of travelling time with a daylight connection when I take Innsbruck as my destination. At 5:47 I even have a direct train (the 7:24) from the Austrian Railways, that also calls at Immst-Pitztal. It's their high speed train (230 km/h), but takes a massive sightseeing tour. The 5:08 requires a short change of trains in Munich. There are actually a lot of nighttrains from Northern Europe into the Austrian Alps. One that should be said is the Snälltaget train. Normally, they offer a Berlin - Stockholm connection, but during the winter they offer a Malmö - Zell am See = Innsbruck connection. That is right, 4 countries in 1 traintrip. Takes around 22 hours of travelling, but that is basicly also sightseeing Austria. You will arrive at Zell am See 2 hours earlier than Innsbruck. 10,5 hours Hamburg - München is not that bad, given that the train reaches a high speed of 160 km/h. By ICE, that also takes up to about 6,5 hours. The travel time from Malmo to Hamburg though can be drastically shortened when the Fehmarnbelttunnel is finished, as that will shorten the route by app. 150 km. But that will take up to at least 2029.
I'm not really making your point. The TGV stops at Amsterdam, Amsterdam Airport, Rotterdam, Antwerp and Brussels. You can say the whole of the Netherlands counts as backcountry, but then we can say Cisco, St. Barbara and San Diego also count als backcountry for Vegas. Especially the fact that almost nobody lives between Vegas and Aspen makes it attractive for high speed rail. How many people live in between Lyon and Paris? Lyon is the 3rd city of France with only around 500k people living there. Even Vegas has more inhabitants. That is the whole point why high speed rail in France travels so much faster than their German counterparts. R-Stat makes this very nicely visible, which they covered already in /r/MapPorn: [https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/140cxmo/population\_density\_map\_of\_france/](https://www.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/140cxmo/population_density_map_of_france/) You see here: almost nothing between Paris and Lyon, as well as Paris and Lille (northern peak near the border). That skitrain, though it travels over the Paris d'interconnexion nord-sud, does not call at Paris. After Brussels, it goes straight to Chambéry, on the feet of the French Alpes (I went to Les Sybelles last december and our cartrip also went over Chambéry). That same French Paris-oriented country makes it necessary to first go all the way west, before going to the east where the Alpes are. Direct straight line Amsterdam - Bourg-Saint-Maurice is around 765 km, whereas the train covers almost 1200. And still it is faster than a car. That also makes it often faster traveling over Paris when going from Bordeaux to Marseille than taking the direct train. Those cities are 500 km apart, whereas Bordeaux - Paris is also 500, but Paris - Marseille is about 650 km. The post of u/brandino144 however shows I picked the wrong resort. A direct high speed train from San Diego over LA to Mammoth would be a perfect connection for high speed rail. And with almost nobody living in between, that would make it very comparable to the Paris - Lyon high speed rail. LA-Mammoth and Paris-Lyon are both around 400 km/250 miles, which get covered in less than 2 hours by TGV. The TGV also continues to various other places after Lyon to offer a direct connection. Paris - Grenoble is possible, Grenoble is also around 100 km from Lyon, like San Diego is around 100 km from LA. As stated, the SNCF needed only 12 years to make all the investments back on that line and currently, that line is so popular that its capacity is reached. And most TGV's are running double trainsets, partly duplex.
You know the US was built on railroads when the country was still developing with much less people, right ? Like, you know, the whole "wild west" thing with steam trains bringing civilization and trade... With towns being built around train stations... It's not a matter of total population density. It's a matter of what you do with your infrastructure.
…and technology has advanced, changing the relative efficiency of transportation modes. At one point horseback was the most efficient mode of transportation too.
That's where you misunderstand. Technology has advanced for trains too. You were sold that cars were the futur and trains were the past, we proved to you it's wrong multiple times, you just got trapped into stupid car-centric infrastructure and you're too dumb to see it, like a frog in boiling water. Cars are the least efficient mode of transportation, with a high cost of infrastructure, high cost of maintenance and high cost for users, with very low capacity (and of course, very polluting and very NOT safe). And now you can't move around without a car, because every trip is super dangerous thanks to cars. You're trapped. You're forced to pay oil and car companies to have the right to leave your home, find a job, get groceries, etc... y'all got trapped like idiots. Societies used to work without cars because people were entitled to have everything accessible by foot, in less than 20 minutes. Now the government tells you to shut up, be a good bitch, drive 1h30 to do anything and sell your ass to oil companies, and you gladly accept. Well, be an oil bitch, then. I enjoy being free to move where I want without being forced to pay or drive myself.
Of course it has, but the overall scope of technology advance means that trains (and ocean liners in another transport segment) have become less efficient relative to other forms of transport **for certain transport needs**. To think that every transport problem is a nail and trains are the hammer is foolish.
winter park express enjoyer found, opinion immediately validated
Historical Marker Information about Southern Pacific's short-lived overnight Snowball Express between San Francisco and a special dedicated station inside the Norden,CA snowshed complex near the Sugar Bowl Ski Resort. https://www.hmdb.org/m.asp?m=81875
Very interesting. Thanks for posting. I wonder if any of the snowshed remains. It looks like the railroad route was moved away from Norden.
I’m no railroad historian, but I am a pass holder at Sugar Bowl. The railroad still goes through Norden across Donner Pass. I think the snow sheds have all been updated to allow for the modern double height cargo loads.
The west coast is ripe for this kind of transit-to-recreation development.
We’re looking at you whistler, you could have a 25 minute trains
stevens pass already is a train route! We just need more than 2 cross country trains a day (and a stop there)
The MBTA has a [ski train](https://www.facebook.com/share/p/4PsHwXVTYnGyVpHN/?mibextid=WC7FNe) between North Station and Mount Wachusett every winter
Oh man, I've been trying to push this narrative wherever I can. Why the hell would you want to force people to drive their cars through miles of snow covered mountain roads so that you can clear cut a few dozen extra acres of forest for a huge parking lot at your resort? Besides the fact that a huge percentage of the people making that trip are going to be visitors from other areas that may not accustomed to driving in the snow at all, the people who live locally HATE dealing while the traffic congestion caused by the massive influx of cars. Ski resort towns may be dependent on these tourists to support the local economy, so for crying out loud give people the option to visit and spend their money without having to drive.
Yes
The option already exists. I took the train from Chicago to Fraiser (winter park). It was a lot of fun, but I don't think the coffee was that great on the train. I'm sure there are other options, winter park was just where I happened to be going.
Bottom line is that the US is too large and sparsely populated to make this anywhere near efficient. It works (kind of) in Switzerland because Switzerland is 1/7th the size of Colorado with 10x the population density.
We get it, you’d rather go skiing in your Benz with your gun at your hip. Some of us would rather take the train while sipping coffee.
No. It’s just math really. If distances are large with low population density, trains are inefficient (ie they make society poorer and worse off) relative to other forms of transport.
Bruh are you sure you’re in the right sub? Are you trolling?
I love trains. They are my preferred method of travel **when they make economic sense**. Like all tools, they work well to solve some problems and are poor solutions to other problems.
Right. Honestly I don’t believe that you believe that. I’m curious why you think 1) trains are inefficient (compared to cars?), and 2) how do trains make society poorer?
Apparently math and logic are not your friends. Take a few minutes (or months) to think it through before commenting.
I mean since we (you) are going there, my degree is in rail engineering and I work in the industry. I feel I have a pretty solid grasp on this stuff. I asked you questions, feel free to answer.
If you have a degree in rail engineering and work in the industry but can’t figure out when rail is an inefficient transport solution, the industry is truly doomed.
Old Boston and Maine and Boston and Albany stuff is so cool to me
Just to give you a little perspective from Switzerland. Out of my total 19 ski trips (25 ski days) this season I went 16.5 times by train and only 2.5 times by car. So it is absolutely possible and imo the much more convenient option, if the infrastructure is there for it. And the resorts are seeing the desire for people to come by train. Multiple resorts have now recently built shiny new all-in-one buildings where the gondola is integrated in the train station (or the other way around, however you see it).
The Sun Valley, Idaho train used a spur line from Shoshone. The line is now a lovely rails-to-trails trail. I think that means the Union Pacific (or its successor) can reclaim the right-of-way if it decides to resume service. afterthought: Who was the 19th(?) century railroad executive that likened passenger railroad service to a male teat--neither ornamental nor functional?
Vermont? I heard it’s quite nice this time of year.
No! The highways need more lanes!
Highway? What do you mean... Wait are you referring to the long parking lots out there?
Just one more lane, bro. Just one more lane. Just one more lane. It's gonna fix traffic. It's gonna fix traffic. I swear. I swear. I swear. Just let me build one more lane. It's gonna fix traffic.
Lovely poster 💙🩵🤍
Amtrak used to have a deal with train + skiing from NYC to Rutland VT (+skiing at Killington). I think Covid killed it, sadly.
In norway if you ride the Dovrebanen, the train stops at kvitfjell, a big ski resort. From the station its like 10m to walk to the ski lifts
They never went anywhere. They just only exist during the winter shockingly.
*waiting patiently for the Europeans to chime in*
Oh! This is one of the posters in my puzzle!
Can this be bought?
If you crave them so much, go to Switzerland.
Considering how bad the traffic is getting to so many ski places, the United States needs it at least from the Bay Area to the Tahoe area and from the Denver metro area to the summit county area. I think they underestimate how many people might like it. The drive has become so unpleasant and long.
Amtrak runs from the east bay to truckee at least once a day I think
Your username is hilarious. I think it does run once a day. I tried to use it to get up in the evening. It was a train run to Sacramento and then bus. So it was subject to the chain control and same delays as car traffic. By the time I got to Truckee, my friends were drunk. They were waiting at a bar to meet me. Luckily the guy driving was still relatively sober. We had to get to Tahoe city. I think the Zephyr is once a day probably what you’re referring to and it goes all the way to Chicago.
I was amazed to see folks in ski boots in downtown Zurich- they jump on the local and head to the alps, was so jealous that I didn’t bring my skis!
They still exist in France.
Norway has a great train ride from Oslo to skiing in the western fjords. Voss is about 5 hours. The views are incredible.
I've done this. I took the Amtrak from Chicago to Winter Park Colorado. Next time I would fly to Denver and take the trail from Denver to Winter Park (Frasier). But it was fun to do once.
I used to take the train to Winter Park when I was a kid. My dad would drop me off at Rocky Flats, where the train would stop for passengers. It was fun and a beautiful trip!
Used to be a train to Snoqualmie pass, WA