[AlexG]

. . . but, if America embraces high-speed trains (why haven't they followed the example of Japan, France, Germany, Spain etc?) even that may dwindle.

Oh the reasons are varied – a few would be: 1) we have had a love affair with the automobile since day one, 2) we had access to incredibly cheap gas for decades, 3) we built the Eisenhower Interstate System after WWII, 4) we began using air travel for short hops in favor of trains after WWII, which in turn caused passenger train travel to decline to its present state as Amtrak, which is also related to 2) above, 5) we're a continental spanning republic empire with a vastly spread out citizenry (excepting the two left coasts, of course), which can hardly be equated to small-sized European nations with populations that are not only living cheek to jowl in density, but that are not much bigger in land area, then our second largest state of Texas.

Lastly, I won't get into the collusion of the oil industry, tire industry, the government etal, after WWII to encourage Americans to use their cars over that of mass-train transit.  8)

“I like a good story well told. That is the reason I am sometimes forced to tell them myself.”
~ Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens (1907)

[cpbell0033944]

Oh the reasons are varied – a few would be: 1) we have had a love affair with the automobile since day one, 2) we had access to incredibly cheap gas for decades, 3) we built the Eisenhower Interstate System after WWII, 4) we began using air travel for short hops in favor of trains after WWII, which in turn caused passenger train travel to decline to its present state as Amtrak, which is also related to 2) above, 5) we're a continental spanning [s]republic[/s] empire with a vastly spread out citizenry (excepting the two left coasts, of course), which can hardly be equated to small-sized European nations with populations that are not only living cheek to jowl in density, but that are not much bigger in land area, then our second largest state of Texas.

Lastly, I won't get into the collusion of the oil industry, tire industry, the government etal, after WWII to encourage Americans to use their cars over that of mass-train transit.  8)

I shouldn't hijack Mimi's post, but I'm interested as a rail enthusiast.  I've watched many US videos on YouTube on the rail system and it's interesting to hear your reasons for the lack of US passenger rail travel, particularly as it's no good having Interstates if the speed limit is so low – 55 mph if I remember correctly, as opposed to 70-80 mph on many European roads.  Do you think that with higher fuel prices and increased inconvenience of air travl that high-speed rail trael will become popular?

Apologies to Mimi.

[AlexG]

65 mph.

Nevada I've heard, someone here might be able to confirm or deny it, allows a legal 75 or 85 mph.

I shouldn't hijack Mimi's post, but I'm interested as a rail enthusiast.  I've watched many US videos on YouTube on the rail system and it's interesting to hear your reasons for the lack of US passenger rail travel, particularly as it's no good having Interstates if the speed limit is so low – 55 mph if I remember correctly, as opposed to 70-80 mph on many European roads.  Do you think that with higher fuel prices and increased inconvenience of air travl that high-speed rail trael will become popular?

Apologies to Mimi.

“I like a good story well told. That is the reason I am sometimes forced to tell them myself.”
~ Mark Twain / Samuel Clemens (1907)

[Lingster]

In the U.S. we simply have too much space between our large cities, everywhere except the Boston-Washington corridor.  So people in the U.S. tend to combine travel modes instead of relying on one.  Trains aren't that flexible, and they're slow, so people prefer to use planes (inflexible but fast) and cars (flexible but slow).

Also, the infrastructure costs of rail construction and maintenance are pretty high.

And 55 is not the national speed limit anymore.  In most states its 65 or 75 on the open highway.

[cpbell0033944]

In the U.S. we simply have too much space between our large cities, everywhere except the Boston-Washington corridor.  So people in the U.S. tend to combine travel modes instead of relying on one.  Trains aren't that flexible, and they're slow, so people prefer to use planes (inflexible but fast) and cars (flexible but slow).

Also, the infrastructure costs of rail construction and maintenance are pretty high.

And 55 is not the national speed limit anymore.  In most states its 65 or 75 on the open highway.

Well, I'm glad you don't trundle around at 55 mph anymore. ;D

I fear, though, that you are falling for the old American trait of viewing rail travel as being slow.  In Europe, trains regularly travel safely at 180 mph.  In Japan, 200 mph is not unknown.  How much slower is that tha air travel, after you factor-in check-in, baggage check-in, security, etc?

[rodman]

How could I be so lucky! Amazon muscle women growth and fantasy; and rail travel to boot. As another believer in a BALANCED transportation system and supporter of rail travel and muscle women, I am encouraged to see this discussion on AmazOns. As Lingster has pointed out,I understand the limits of rail and It's ability to compete in terms of speed, etc. However unlike Europe and other nations, the US has never had a rational and balanced transportation policy.
In this era, now with higher oil prices and serious supply problems, we may finally come to grips with the issue.
Thanks, It's nice to know other Amazon and Muscle Growth fans are also rail enthausiasts.
Regards 8)

[Lingster]

Well, I'm glad you don't trundle around at 55 mph anymore. ;D

I fear, though, that you are falling for the old American trait of viewing rail travel as being slow.  In Europe, trains regularly travel safely at 180 mph.  In Japan, 200 mph is not unknown.  How much slower is that tha air travel, after you factor-in check-in, baggage check-in, security, etc?

Really?  Your commuter trains travel at 180 mph?  I've been on the Eurostar going over 200 mph, but that's meant to travel between three national capitals.

Automobiles are great up to 150 miles distance.  Trains are great from 50 to perhaps 500 miles distance.  Beyond 500 miles, air travel is the best way to go.  While Washington and Boston – the TERMINUS points on the only financially successful passenger rail corridor in the U.S. – are only 450 miles apart (with Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark, New York and Hartford in between), most DESTINATION cities in the U.S. are further apart than that.  Atlanta and Chicago are more than 700 miles apart.  St. Louis and Denver are 850 miles apart.  Hell, you can go almost 300 miles in any direction from St. Louis before you hit another major city, and that's the center of the country and a major urban hub.

Additionally, anyone going west from South Florida probably ought to fly.  Anything going east from the upper midwest ought to fly, because the land route is blocked by Lake Michigan.  The Rockies are an impediment to trains, too. 

And let's not forget than any train trip lasting more than about 12 hours is either going to be very uncomfortable or very expensive, depending on whether you've booked a sleeping car.  When trains can average 400 mph then they'll be practical for the U.S.  Until then it doesn't make sense for us to invest in a long-distance transportation infrastructure that takes two or three days to get from one end of the country to the other, when a jet can do it in six hours at a fraction of the cost.

[ScottG]

When trains can average 400 mph then they'll be practical for the U.S.  Until then it doesn't make sense for us to invest in a long-distance transportation infrastructure that takes two or three days to get from one end of the country to the other, when a jet can do it in six hours at a fraction of the cost.

I'm going to have to disagree with your last statement Lingster, I think trains could be very practical in the US especially when you have to travel from Iowa.  Air-fare is outrageous in Iowa since are surrounded by some major cities (Minneapolis, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago.  We have to travel 3-4 hours to get to some of those spots for decent air-fare.  I have started going to Atlanta for Christmas for the last couple of years and if I had the option to take a 180-200 mph train down there or to Chicago for the weekend, I would never drive again.  You would have to account for stops on the way at other locations, but at that speed, even 700-800 miles could still be covered in 6 hours (compared with 14 for driving.)
If train use were more common in the United States with more destination options and faster trains, I think we would have plenty of people that would be willing to use them.  Look at how reliable they are in China and Europe.  They aren't perfect, I realize, but then again neither are planes.

[Ad_Meyer]

Really?  Your commuter trains travel at 180 mph?  I've been on the Eurostar going over 200 mph, but that's meant to travel between three national capitals.

Actually, several of my colleagues do commute at 150mph (240km/h)

Currently, the fastest regular train services in Japan are 300kmh. (185mph)
The 200mph (320km/h) service in Japan is not due until 2011.

Automobiles are great up to 150 miles distance.  Trains are great from 50 to perhaps 500 miles distance.  Beyond 500 miles, air travel is the best way to go.  While Washington and Boston – the TERMINUS points on the only financially successful passenger rail corridor in the U.S. – are only 450 miles apart (with Baltimore, Wilmington, Philadelphia, Newark, New York and Hartford in between), most DESTINATION cities in the U.S. are further apart than that.  Atlanta and Chicago are more than 700 miles apart.  St. Louis and Denver are 850 miles apart.  Hell, you can go almost 300 miles in any direction from St. Louis before you hit another major city, and that's the center of the country and a major urban hub.

From Japanese experience, 3 hour Train Journey is the break-even point when competing against air
travel.  This means a 250mph average (300mph top speed) service between Atlanta and Chicago will
be just about viable. 

Well, JR Central has announced their plan to launch a Maglev successor to Shinkansen by 2025.
They will go 320mph (500km/h) so will be competitive against air travel even between St.Louis and Denver.
They plan to dig a 50km tunnel across 10,000 ft mountain range, so Denver would be no trouble either.

The technology's there.  It's just the matter of economics and mental inertia.

[Lingster]

I'm going to have to disagree with your last statement Lingster, I think trains could be very practical in the US especially when you have to travel from Iowa.  Air-fare is outrageous in Iowa since are surrounded by some major cities (Minneapolis, Kansas City, St. Louis, and Chicago.  We have to travel 3-4 hours to get to some of those spots for decent air-fare.  I have started going to Atlanta for Christmas for the last couple of years and if I had the option to take a 180-200 mph train down there or to Chicago for the weekend, I would never drive again.  You would have to account for stops on the way at other locations, but at that speed, even 700-800 miles could still be covered in 6 hours (compared with 14 for driving.)
If train use were more common in the United States with more destination options and faster trains, I think we would have plenty of people that would be willing to use them.  Look at how reliable they are in China and Europe.  They aren't perfect, I realize, but then again neither are planes.

But then of course we get into the question of how much the train costs.  These superfast trains cpbell describes don't run on old-fashioned freight rail, so we'd need to spend untold billions to lay new rail lines.  The new rail would also need to be better protected – because a derailment at 250mph is a very, very bad thing – which means the whole length would require durable, frequently-inspected fencing and every crossing would need to be elevated.  How many roads cross any given rail line over 1000 miles in the U.S.?  Hundreds of elevated road crossings would need to be constructed, at a cost of several million dollars each. 

[Author]

Posts