High speed Trains.

[Anonymous]

I just saw an interesting program on the History Channel this evening. You no. Why can't this so called country have the same type of high speed Train system like all of the other countrys in the world. The TVC and Japan's most Fastest Trains in the world. Wow. I mean Amtrak is to me is a real joke. I just know for a fact the good ol' USA could have the fastest Passenger Rail system in the World. This makes me sick that we as Americans are being looked at real dumb by other countrys. We have the highest technology in the word and we can't even invent the most FASTEST passenger system of all? Come on,What the Hell is going on in this country? I would just love to see a High speed Rail system. Say from New York to San Fran in Cal. I mean there are Trains that can go as fast as almost 200mph. Why can't our Government help out. Allan.

[photogeek88]

Money money money mo-ney...MO-NEY!

Of course, we're the richest country in the world too, so I don't see what the problem is. And if we can't fund it right now, we'll just loan ourselves more money!

[Anonymous]

If you build it, they will come.......

[Anonymous]

We are much bigger, and have a much better free way system than other countries. We invested in our freeways system back in the 1930's America is different than the rest of the world. Do you really think we could pay for another transcontinental railroad, and what about terrain? How do you get high speed through the Rockies and the Sierras? I remember reading about a radical idea between New York and Chicago for a bullet train, but it didn't make money. Since America is founded on capitalism not everything is, nor should it be, government run. Other countries envy us for being so rich, having the free time to sit at our computers discussing things like this, and having the freedom to hop into a car and drive anywhere. It doesn't matter what we do, we will always be viewed as fat lazy Americans.

If it would make money it would be built, if it doesn't, it shouldn't be. Sure the government gave our railroads the land the first time, but made up for it in taxes many times over. Would MOST people use it? The answer is:
HELL NO! People don't like the idea of sitting around waiting for a train that is still a lot slower than an airplane, when we want things, we want them now. As Jefferson said in 1801 “Agriculture, manufactures, commerce and navigation, the four pillars of our prosperity, are the most thriving when left the most free to individual enterprise.”
Should we upset the pillars of prosperity to imitate a bunch of European socialist?
I think not!

[CANADIANPACIFIC2816]

Does Europe have an interstate highway system like we have here in the U.S.A? I could be wrong, but I don't think so. Too many people in this country are used to having a car to drive, and I think that is part of the problem. The railroads in this country didn't have much competition for the passenger dollar until after the interstate highway system came into being. Plus a lot more people are flying these days than was so 50 years ago.

If "SLAMTRAK" dies on the vine and goes belly up, it will be because the federal government is not providing it with enough funding. Private enterprise could do a much better job of running an operation like Amtrak, but the question is, WHO WANTS TO??
The class I railroads in this country want nothing to do with it.

CANADIANPACIFIC2816

[Anonymous]

Also, America is much more rural.

[Modelcar]

...Priorities....Politics and Money.

[miniwyo]

Id like to see them move a train over sherman hill with an electric loco.

[Anonymous]

Or the size of the genoraters to power it.

[Anonymous]

For the midwest, maybe the focus should be on expanding Metra to a couple hundred mile radius of Chicago. Maybe add some extra services.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by BNSFrailfan.

I just saw an interesting program on the History Channel this evening. You no. Why can't this so called country have the same type of high speed Train system like all of the other countrys in the world. The TVC and Japan's most Fastest Trains in the world. Wow. I mean Amtrak is to me is a real joke. I just know for a fact the good ol' USA could have the fastest Passenger Rail system in the World. This makes me sick that we as Americans are being looked at real dumb by other countrys. We have the highest technology in the word and we can't even invent the most FASTEST passenger system of all? Come on,What the Hell is going on in this country? I would just love to see a High speed Rail system. Say from New York to San Fran in Cal. I mean there are Trains that can go as fast as almost 200mph. Why can't our Government help out. Allan.

Two problems:

1) Amtrak is a political football. The quasigovernment agency took over rail passenger service because it was a money loser for the railroads and the government for so long wouldn't let them abandon it. In many places it was a public utility.

2) Distance. Major population centers in Europe are MUCH closer together than they are in the US, more like the Northeast Corridor where (surprise) we do have a 150 MPH passenger train, and Amtrak in this corridor provides 53% of the passenger trips of all types of transportation. So where it's efficient, it is working. The federal subsidy to run this section of railroad is much cheaper than subsidizing the other forms of trnsportation.

[PNWRMNM]

We made a political decision to bout $100s of billions into highways. They made a political decision to invest $100's of billions in railroads.

[Anonymous]

The wealthier Western European countries have excellent freeways, or motorways if you want to follow British parlance. I've hitchhiked on French autoroutes and German autobahns -- now, this was in 1980 but I noticed a couple of things immediately. One is that drivers there have (have to have) a degree of skill far beyond the American drive-around-the-corner type of driving test to qualify for a license. The idea over here that a driver's license is the next thing to a civil right and letting multiple DUI offenders kill and kill again is unknown there. For their pains the European system is called "elite," but to look at the other side of the coin--very, very few people HAVE to use cars--mostly farmers, carpoolers, people moving house and so on. Most people don't mind bicycling or walking half a kilometer (third of a mile) between bus stops. The other thing is that, at least back then, the autoroutes and autobahns could move so fast --cruising at 80-85 is the norm if your car can handled it--because most of their mileage was in the sticks. Small towns (which in Germany would mean below about 40,000 people) might be right next to the road and still lack an exit. It's like the situation here with the Ohio Turnpike, say, that has only one exit for Toledo (the German system charges no tolls, though). Therefore the motorways don't become clogged with commuters. That is starting to change, but not by much. German politicians point with disdain to "American suburban sprawl and the deterioration of the inner city" and the voters tend to agree that that is a social ill to be avoided.

That dovetails with the reasons why France's and Japan's high-speed trains are leagues ahead of anything Amtrak could or would want. Land is much more strictly rationed than in the US or Canada; basically the single-detached-house Levittown suburb doesn't exist except for the border-wealthy and above. (Average blue and white collar workers who live in cities, live in small apt. buildings or high-rises.) Because of this, and because of automobiles' elite traditions, public transit was never allowed to deteriorate the way our country let it after WWII. Just think if it were 1950 when Hurricane Katrina hit N.O. The only real obstacle to moving the poor would be to pay the fare, because at that time an efficient streetcar system, a happenin' depot, and buses to wherever you'd want to go were the norm. In Germany, the only serious internal air flights are to Berlin, or between Munich and Hamburg. The trains have not lost their business passengers; they have lost some of the family trade but still retain a great deal of it. Especially when even an 85 mph Mercedes pales in speed next to a 135 mph Intercity!

This is not to say that Europeans don't like their cars, use them for vacations or on the farm, and so on. The average German or French person is well-off enough to afford a nice car, but they usually stop with one. Public transit is for the employed middle class as well as for everyone else, and only very privileged people can count on free parking where they work. Shopping is downtown, the biggest and best supermarkets are downtown (usually in the basement of the more popular department stores), pedestrian malls abound, so football stadium-sized parking lots and “spaghetti junctions" are pretty much nonexistent. When every city is of "Williamsburg" historic interest, it doesn't please the populace to tear down old buildings just for parking lots!! This idea of Americans driving a mile one way to the supermarket and two miles the other way for the post office and zigzagging up and down the lanes at Wal-Mart for five minutes rather than take another 100 paces to the store--it's something Europeans don't understand. And it has been speculated that one reason there is so much less obesity in Europe is that practically everyone walks about a mile a day to and from their transit and work, or errands, visiting, etc. Not to mention the fact that the more livable a compact inner city is, the more the advantages of rail lines heading right into the middle of them serves as part of a balanced transportation network.

I haven't been to Japan as either tourist or student but I think that the same situations you would have in a country like Germany or the Netherlands with restrictive zoning, most of the populace living in condos or apartments, and a refusal to endorse much in the way of Levittowns that would flow out into the countryside, goes double for Japan. In Tokyo a citizen can't even REGISTER a car without proving s/he has off-street parking for it. What I have seen of Tokyo shows a fascinating combination of systems--electric commuter trains, interurbans, regional rail, ultra-fast speed and so on.

Our government is anti-railroad but very pro-auto by comparison. Politicians cop the attitude that the roads belong to everyone but RRs are run by a bunch of greedy Homer Bedloes. (Hell, even I feel that way sometime!) We all know our gas is cheap compared to practically anyone else's. The original Interstate Highway Act that Eisenhower proposed would have been for toll roads running from city limit to city limits, but as we all unfortunately know Congress went and added interstate spurs into town and rings around town and those roads became the "traces" that attracted our spread-out suburbs. That and the G.I. mortgage loan meant that the federal government--probably more by accident than design--effectively evacuated the urban white middle class to suburbia between 1950 and about 1975. Most Europeans will take a smaller living space to be near things, and the idea here that even a fairly classy suburban area these days will dispense with sidewalks and public busses ("school busses" rarely exist in W. Europe) seems quite bizarre to them. The still-largely-socialized rail systems of W. Europe like France's SNCF or Germany's Deutsche Bundesbahn (nicknamed "die Bahn" or "DB") are there to extend service, not ration it, and public policy thus far has kept them from becoming quite the political football as the above writer so astutely noticed with Amtrak. And it's certainly true that the built-up areas of France, Northern Italy, the German-speaking countries, Low Countries, southern Scandinavia and England below Scotland have very high population densities--the closest things we have to that is along the NEC and maybe Southern California.

I don't entirely blame institutions for this. Sure, GM bought some rapid-transit systems and then shut them down to sell buses, but we Americans have perpetuated enough of a pioneer mentality that sometimes it seems that we all want to live on the edge of town. You'll notice for example that before Las Vegas started going high-rise, it had pretty well flooded the valley with little suburban tract homes.

The technology level of American passenger trains bites--how hard most people don't realize. The last really big breakthroughs in American passenger RR technology were the RDC out of Budd ca. 1952 and the Pullman-Standard (I think it was they and not ACF) with the mid-door, bi-level commuter coach ca. 1954. The Metroliner was not a terribly original design--basically it's warmed-over Budd design of RDCs done as m.u.'s. The Acela is from Sweden and that part of Sweden it serves is not highly populated. In fact, part of the route has only been electrified in the past few years.

Perhaps our nation could have committed the land to an American New Tokkaido Line or TGV had we done so in the fifties or sixties, but now it's way too late to requisition any land close enough to city centers that people could use the trains to travel from town to town. (It is not often noted that these trains split the air so much they are LOUD, so Nimby factors in too.)

Sadly, I don't see it getting better, and I for one think Maglev is pie in the sky in a country as anti-RR as ours. I do look for public transit in large cities to have something of a comeback. Observe how in Toronto the people have their suburban ranch houses but with myriad small changes in the rules such as higher taxes on extra cars that keep people happy with one "family car" or maybe one plus a motorcycle (especially effective has been superior TTC service that sends busses down even small cul-de-sacs at rush hour and then takes people to rapid-transit or GO to get downtown.) A point I should have perhaps made earlier is that when train stations are clean, bright, full of stores and affluent people traveling every work day by train, the notion of catching a long-distance train from such a place isn't quite as challenging as it is here.

I don't mind driving but I for one have gone out of my way to live in places where I am not forced to every day. Spending 15 hours a week commuting is no kind of "freedom" to me, even if I do get to smoke and lip-synch to the oldies! But the mass of the past two generations of Americans has known nothing but car, car and more car.

al
****

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

We made a political decision to bout $100s of billions into highways. They made a political decision to invest $100's of billions in railroads.

Hmmmm, yet another pathetic attempt at history revision by an ilk. Not suprising.

What "we" did was to make a political descision to dump $100's of billions into land grants for proprietary closed access railroads, with the thought that the public would receive certain service guarantees in return. "We" were apparently wrong, because "we" decided we needed something better than private closed access railroads to achieve the necessary public service returns. Subsequently, "we" developed a magnificent Interstate Highway System, paid for mostly through user fees, and through that user fee highway system we have developed into the most prosperous country in the world. We learned a lesson from that first exercise in public transportation development and the subsequent drawbacks it entailed, and used that lesson to develop a much better public transportation conveyance wherein no one company or government agency can exploit or suppress any one user of that system.

From the public service returns perspective, the Interstate Highway System was a much better investment than the original railroad land grants.

The fact that the U.S. with it's lack of HSR passenger systems still manages to have the highest median incomes, lowest average unemployment, and the most optimistic patrons in the world, while the European nations with their myriad of high speed passenger rail systems are struggling with double digit unemployment, low income growth prospects, and rising interracial unrest, perhaps that is a lesson in why it is non-sensical to force public investment in mass transit systems (e.g. forcing non-users to pay for the bulk of the system), especially when individual transit systems seem to get the ravest revues via it's usage numbers.

[Anonymous]

I saw it too and had an interesting thought. Since the federal policy is to leave it to the states, Florida goes ahead and builds a Maglev. California builds a line that runs on 12000 volts D.C. while Texas builds a 5' gauge line with gas turbines that burn natural gas. Colorado builds a narrow gauge line with 1000 volts DC 3rd rail. The entire system eventually does get built, but a cross country traveler has to change trains 16 times.

HSR might make more sense in Canada, but it hasn't been done there either. The population centers are generally spread out along a geographic line that follows the 2 existing transcons, so you don't have the political networking problem like the U.S. has.

Ever thought about how a Star-Trek Transporter would change the way we live?

[cnw4001]

Europe indeed does have more large cities closely spaced than we do but there's still no reason that true high speed transportation couldn't be in place in our closely spaced population centers.

It comes to a matter of transportation policy and whether the US has one can be debated but clearly the prority is the motor vehicle.

[Modelcar]

....A good description of conditions and priorities between nations of Europe and our country regarding transportation systems....by al.

[SchemerBob]

Not going to happen. Not now, not ever. Who wants to waste a bunch of money trying to build a huge high speed rail system when you have thousands of miles of interstate highways? The freight railroads don't want anything to do with it, and why should they either? Not to mention how LONG it would take. It would take DECADES to build a GOOD high speed railroad across the country. Or you could just slap it together like they did when they built the first transcontinental railroad and get it done in 6 years...and then have to tear it up and do it all over again because you did such a lousy job.

Little electric high-speed trains wouldn't be able to get over the Rockies or the Sierras without HUGE amounts of power. Could you imagine Acela going through Raton Pass? They need three locomotives as it is now!!

[Modelcar]

....We waste large bunches of money all the time so don't count it out for that reason....Example: our war we're in now by choice...wasting human lives and billions of dollars.

[Anonymous]

A note to guys claiming HSR will not be able to top the rockies.

LGVs are built with inclines up to 4%. Remember - these trains have ~20 hppt...

[TH&B]

European countries have better freeways then the USA, higher speed limits, smoother pavement, and even better grip pavement for shorter stops and tighter control (+ better tires even) !!

The USA is the richest country in the world so it can't realy be $$$ that we don't have hi speed trains or even a decent inter city passenger rail network can it now? The main reason we don't have good passenger trains is population denstity in our country. I think that has got to be the main reason. European cities are old, dense and central and even rich $. Railways have higher concentrated capacity but are less flexable. The USA still needs more flexability because it is a relatively much newer country.

2 cents worth.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

We made a political decision to bout $100s of billions into highways. They made a political decision to invest $100's of billions in railroads.

Hmmmm, yet another pathetic attempt at history revision by an ilk. Not suprising.

What "we" did was to make a political descision to dump $100's of billions into land grants for proprietary closed access railroads, with the thought that the public would receive certain service guarantees in return. "We" were apparently wrong, because "we" decided we needed something better than private closed access railroads to achieve the necessary public service returns. Subsequently, "we" developed a magnificent Interstate Highway System, paid for mostly through user fees, and through that user fee highway system we have developed into the most prosperous country in the world. We learned a lesson from that first exercise in public transportation development and the subsequent drawbacks it entailed, and used that lesson to develop a much better public transportation conveyance wherein no one company or government agency can exploit or suppress any one user of that system.

Wow, talk about revising history.

The railroads were given land grants in the late 1800's to build railroad through long distances of unoccupied land because no private investor(s) would do it. They were the only transportation system at the time that was faster than a horse could walk/trot. These grants came nowhere near covering the cost of building the railroad. They were required to be what was later called a "common carrier," carrying all freight and passengers presented, so I'm not sure what "proprietary, closed access railroads" are that you're talking about. Prices were controlled by the government right up to the passage of the Staggers Act which didn't completely deregulate them according to the DOT.

"We" made the decision to invest more in the building of roads and highways because of the American Citizen's love of the private automobile after WWII, and had little to do with the performance of the railroads in passenger and freight traffic.

Unfortunately, your source of funds for the building of the Interstate Highways didn't come from "User's Fees," only a small portion of it came from fuel taxes, most came from the General Fund. Or are you implying that all highways started out as toll roads?

Also, the US WASN'T prosperous before WWII????

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

We made a political decision to bout $100s of billions into highways. They made a political decision to invest $100's of billions in railroads.

Hmmmm, yet another pathetic attempt at history revision by an ilk. Not suprising.

What "we" did was to make a political descision to dump $100's of billions into land grants for proprietary closed access railroads, with the thought that the public would receive certain service guarantees in return. "We" were apparently wrong, because "we" decided we needed something better than private closed access railroads to achieve the necessary public service returns. Subsequently, "we" developed a magnificent Interstate Highway System, paid for mostly through user fees, and through that user fee highway system we have developed into the most prosperous country in the world. We learned a lesson from that first exercise in public transportation development and the subsequent drawbacks it entailed, and used that lesson to develop a much better public transportation conveyance wherein no one company or government agency can exploit or suppress any one user of that system.

Wow, talk about revising history.

The railroads were given land grants in the late 1800's to build railroad through long distances of unoccupied land because no private investor(s) would do it. They were the only transportation system at the time that was faster than a horse could walk/trot. These grants came nowhere near covering the cost of building the railroad. They were required to be what was later called a "common carrier," carrying all freight and passengers presented, so I'm not sure what "proprietary, closed access railroads" are that you're talking about. Prices were controlled by the government right up to the passage of the Staggers Act which didn't completely deregulate them according to the DOT.

In terms of public access, do you know the difference between the railroad network and the Interstate Highway network? And prices weren't controlled until the early 1900's when rail regulation was initiated.

QUOTE:

"We" made the decision to invest more in the building of roads and highways because of the American Citizen's love of the private automobile after WWII, and had little to do with the performance of the railroads in passenger and freight traffic.

It had everything to do with the performance of railroads, because if the railroads had managed to provide what the American public wanted e.g. the ability to get from Point A to Point B with as little hassle as possible, then we would never have had the need for the Interstate Highway System. The railroads ceased to evolve after the early 1900's, a period when railroads were far superior to roads. The road network continued to evolve until it passed the railroads, at which point road travel became Option A. The rest is history.

QUOTE:

Unfortunately, your source of funds for the building of the Interstate Highways didn't come from "User's Fees," only a small portion of it came from fuel taxes, most came from the General Fund. Or are you implying that all highways started out as toll roads?

Fuel taxes have always been the chief federal source of highway construction funds after WWII. The Interstate Highway System came after WWII, ergo fuel taxes have paid for most of the federal share.

QUOTE:

Also, the US WASN'T prosperous before WWII????

Yes, but we weren't yet THE most prosperous nation. After WWII the U.S. took the lead, and much of that is due to the transportation advantages begot by the Interstate Highway System.

[tatans]

Distance--Distance, that's the key factor here, it's a big difference to build a high speed system to cross Italy or Austria than from Halifax to Vancouver or N.Y. to L.A. we are talking over 4000 miles, thats 900 times around Austria. It's amazing we have transcontinental rail travel at all with the size of North America, Just how many people will travel from San Diego to Fargo, North Dakota??? Fill the cities with good hi-speed rail travel and connect some close large cities with hi-speed, but a 4000 mile hi-speed train is out of the question. By the way, Europe is out of land, try to buy a piece of any size property anywhere on the continent, Holland is even increasing their size out to sea. Size does count.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by PNWRMNM

We made a political decision to bout $100s of billions into highways. They made a political decision to invest $100's of billions in railroads.

Hmmmm, yet another pathetic attempt at history revision by an ilk. Not suprising.

What "we" did was to make a political descision to dump $100's of billions into land grants for proprietary closed access railroads, with the thought that the public would receive certain service guarantees in return. "We" were apparently wrong, because "we" decided we needed something better than private closed access railroads to achieve the necessary public service returns. Subsequently, "we" developed a magnificent Interstate Highway System, paid for mostly through user fees, and through that user fee highway system we have developed into the most prosperous country in the world. We learned a lesson from that first exercise in public transportation development and the subsequent drawbacks it entailed, and used that lesson to develop a much better public transportation conveyance wherein no one company or government agency can exploit or suppress any one user of that system.

Wow, talk about revising history.

The railroads were given land grants in the late 1800's to build railroad through long distances of unoccupied land because no private investor(s) would do it. They were the only transportation system at the time that was faster than a horse could walk/trot. These grants came nowhere near covering the cost of building the railroad. They were required to be what was later called a "common carrier," carrying all freight and passengers presented, so I'm not sure what "proprietary, closed access railroads" are that you're talking about. Prices were controlled by the government right up to the passage of the Staggers Act which didn't completely deregulate them according to the DOT.

In terms of public access, do you know the difference between the railroad network and the Interstate Highway network? And prices weren't controlled until the early 1900's when rail regulation was initiated.

Yes, I do know the difference. The railroads are built and maintained by private companies. The highway and road system is built and maintained by different levels of government by tax dollars. So you're suggesting a socialist system where the railroads are taken over and people can drive individual vehicles on them? It would be hard to imagine the chaos this would bring. Public money provided a small percentage of the construction cost of the railroads, and that was pretty much over with by 1890.

One of my other favorite terms in a discussion like this is "historic context." You're putting the events of the past in the light of how things are today.

The public road system before 1900 was pretty much dirt paths outside the cities and some of the better streets in the larger cities were paved with stones or bricks. Still, everything else off the railroads was moving the speed of a beast of burden (horse, mule, oxen, etc). The speed differential would be like comparing a biplane to the SST nowadays. Private automobiles didn't exist before 1900 and weren't much more than a curiosity before WWII

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

It had everything to do with the performance of railroads, because if the railroads had managed to provide what the American public wanted e.g. the ability to get from Point A to Point B with as little hassle as possible, then we would never have had the need for the Interstate Highway System. The railroads ceased to evolve after the early 1900's, a period when railroads were far superior to roads. The road network continued to evolve until it passed the railroads, at which point road travel became Option A. The rest is history.

So you're saying the railroad should have built a spur down every street and stop at every house when we are ready to go to work or the store, or return home? Or that they should continue to offer LCL freight with a siding to every industry, no matter how small? I don't think such a Socialist attitude would be able to continue for very long without HUGE tax subsidies. Again, in "Historic Context," the technology to move large quantities of freight and passengers was developed first on the railroads, starting around 1830. About 70 years later, technology reached the point where smaller vehicles that would run on roads started to be developed. However, these remained a curiosity until both automotive and road building technology reached the point where we had a viable system for private transport without the use of beasts of burden. This still did not take over the transportation system until the level of prosperity in this country reached the point where the private auto was affordable to a larger percentage of the population. The highway system wasn't built on speculation, like the first railroads through the wilderness of the west, they were built to provide a more efficient pathway for the existing cars and trucks.

What you've seen is an evolution of the transportation system as newer technology is developed and takes over certain parts of the system. The railroads still excell in providing transport for large quantites of freight form point A to point B. The trucks have taken over what was essentially LCL freight and express business. As new business developed, the trucks allowed business to be located away from rail lines. Intermodal shows that these systems complement rather than replace each other.

Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown

• Reply