United States Passenger Rail

[Zatnikitelman]

Rather than derail the Volcano topic any more (pun fully intended), I thought I'd open up a discussion on U.S. passenger rail.

Seriously, i had an impression the USA was the land of cars and trains, where you could always take a bus or electrain even from one coast to another.
Not so?

Cars? yes. Passenger Trains? heck no. Yes, in case of one of our volcanoes erupting, we'll have the highway network, but Europe has a highway network AND a good passenger rail network.

That image is America's current passenger rail network. Most of the red lines see one train each way per day while at least two of those lines see only 3 trains each week. The two with 3/week service is the line from New Orleans across to Los Angeles (the line East of New Orleans to Jacksonville, FL has had service "temporarily suspended" since 2005 with Hurricane Katrina) and the line from Charlottesville, VA to Chicago.

Now, there are several corridor areas that have many more trains per day such as between Washington D.C. and Boston, MA on the Northeast corridor. Chicago serves as a hub for Midwest regional trains through Illinois, Missouri, and Michigan with an extra line up to Milwaukee. California operates the Pacific Surfliner service from San Diego to San Luis Obispo through Los Angeles and the San Joaquins/Capitol Corridor trains between San Jose, Oakland, Sacramento, and Bakersfield. Oregon and Washington state operate the Cascades service between Vancouver, BC and Eugene, OR. But that's it.

In terms of motive power, Amtrak owns 351 diesels, and 74 electric locomotives of which the electrics are captive between Washington D.C. and Boston, MA with a line from Philadelphia, PA to Harrisburg, PA. Outside the Northeast Corridor, the only electrified lines are a commuter line from Chicago, several light rail lines, several subway rapid-transit lines, and Caltrain is planning to electrify between San Francisco, CA and San Jose, CA which is roughly 52 miles.

In terms of speed, the top speed outside the Northeast Corridor for passenger trains is 79 miles per hour (127 kmh) with one stretch in New Mexico/Arizona reaching 90 mph and 97 miles of track in Southwestern Michigan with speeds currently at 95 mph scheduled to reach 110mph soon. But the average speed of the fastest Long Distance train was something like 45 mph end to end (I have a spreadsheet I can show when I get home) while the Acela high speed service between Washington and Boston averages 75 mph for most of the run with two short stretches where it can reach 150 mph top speed.

President Obama has begun "work" on High Speed Rail corridors. The first of which looks to be Tampa, FL to Orlando, FL which will be electric and have a top speed of 167 mph to start. There are other corridors around the country in planning stages, the most notable being the California High Speed Rail planned to reach 220 mph (254 kmh) and the Midwest High Speed Rail proposals.

Not helping, is the convalutedness (if that's a word) of the national network. For example, to get from where I am in Atlanta, GA to Los Angeles, requires me to either day train on the Crescent to New Orleans, connect to the Sunset Limited which only runs 3 days per week, then go to LA, or overnight on the Crescent to Charlottesville or Washington to Chicago, then over 2 nights, down to LA. The options are even worse for example making a North South connection for example between Minot, ND and El Paso, TX. That would require either Minot->Chicago->San Antonio, or Minot->Portlant->Los Angeles->El Paso, and even then, the train to El Paso is the 3 days per week Sunset Limited.

[EDIT]Thought I'd throw some visual aids of typical Amtrak trains.
http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=308013&nseq=11
That picture is of the Crescent, the once-each-direction-each-day train that serves my hometown of Atlanta, GA enroute from New York to New Orleans.
Two diesels, 4 coaches, cafe car, heritage diner (built probably in the 1940s), two sleepers. Maximum capacity is around 270 people (60 coach seats in each coast, 12 2-person roomettes, 3 2-person bedrooms in each sleeper)

http://railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=306305&nseq=19
And that picture is the Southwest Chief between Chicago and Los Angeles also once per day.
Two diesels, heritage baggage (built in 1940s probably), crew-dorm, 2 sleepers, diner, cafe/lounge, 3 coaches. Capacity of around 300 people on that train.

 

[Urwumpe]

As comparison:

The red lines are served by ICE highspeed trains (at least 200 km/h), the blue ones only by Intercity/Eurocity trains (at least 150 km/h) and the gray ones are regional trains only (around 120 km/h).

This is only Germany. you can easily scale it up for Europe as whole, the density will stay the same. And then remember that Germany is just a third larger than Texas (357,114 km² vs 268,581 km²).

 

[cjp]

In some places, the density is even higher. This is a train map for the Netherlands:

And the Netherlands' surface area is only 63% of that of Florida. Not all stations are present on the map: e.g. the weird loop with the number 16 next to it (just east of Den Haag) has about 12 stations. The town of Zoetermeer has one station per 10000 citizens.

But OTOH, the Netherlands has about 17 million citizens, so you could also compare the railway map with the subway map of some metropolitan areas elsewhere in the world. It may be that railways work better in areas with a larger population density.

Another explanation I have for the absence of good railway networks in the US is that passenger railways probably can't survive without government support, and in the US people seem to be allergic to government intervention in the market. It isn't surprising that 'comrade' Obama is the first to invest in railways again.

BTW, how is the conventional road network maintained in the US? Is it done with tax money? I can't remember I've seen many toll roads there. At least not as many as in France.

 

[Urwumpe]

Ok, I did not include S-Bahn networks, like those in Berlin...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berlin_S-Bahn

These also transport up to a million people every day, I think the US metro systems are similar.

 

[cjp]

If we talk about the train as an alternative to the airplane, then I think Germany and France are among the best equipped countries, with their dense high-speed networks. There is only one high-speed railway in the Netherlands, and it is still under construction.

I'd say 'high-speed' in Europe means 200 km/h or more, and often more than 300 km/h. Conventional trains in the Netherlands often have similar speeds as cars on the highway (in the absence of traffic jams): about 120 km/h.

 

[Notebook]

Was looking for data on UK, and found this:
http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/area...ndex.php?template=3&radioindic=104&idDomain=9

Might have to spend some time deciphering it. Wonder why Finland is the reference?

N.

 

[Hielor]

For example, to get from where I am in Atlanta, GA to Los Angeles, requires me to either day train on the Crescent to New Orleans, connect to the Sunset Limited which only runs 3 days per week, then go to LA, or overnight on the Crescent to Charlottesville or Washington to Chicago, then over 2 nights, down to LA. The options are even worse for example making a North South connection for example between Minot, ND and El Paso, TX. That would require either Minot->Chicago->San Antonio, or Minot->Portlant->Los Angeles->El Paso, and even then, the train to El Paso is the 3 days per week Sunset Limited.

Or you could, you know, take a PLANE, which will get you there in a fraction of the time, and for cheaper since you don't need to overnight anywhere.

The problem is that compared to Europe, America is very spread out. High-speed rail was never a priority because we have several low-cost domestic air carriers who can get you there faster, and the infrastructure is already in place.

In Europe, where things are a lot denser and the infrastructure is already there, trains make sense, because there's a lot of overhead associated with taking a plane that you don't have when you take a train. For relatively short distances, this makes sense. For distances on the across-America scale, it doesn't.

 

[Urwumpe]

Might have to spend some time deciphering it. Wonder why Finland is the reference?

Or Sweden? Low population, many railways for transporting cargo.

 

[Notebook]

Its not a easy data source to follow! I was mostly interested in the density/nation, but I suppose metre/population is as good as anything. Just need to see what the USA figure is.

N.

 

[cjp]

Wonder why Finland is the reference?

According to the legend it isn't. Finland just always has 1000 km of railway per 1000 inhabitants. When someone is born, they add a km of railway, and when someone dies, they dismantle a km.

 

[Notebook]

Thats quite a track crew, the admin must be amazing!
Do they use the same piece of rail each time?

N.

 

[cjp]

Thats quite a track crew, the admin must be amazing!
Do they use the same piece of rail each time?

:rofl:

I am trying to imagine what it must be like...

 

[Hielor]

According to the legend it isn't. Finland just always has 1000 km of railway per 1000 inhabitants. When someone is born, they add a km of railway, and when someone dies, they dismantle a km.

Isn't that in metres per 1000 inhabitants? So each person only has a metre to themselves...

 

[vonneuman]

BTW, how is the conventional road network maintained in the US? Is it done with tax money? I can't remember I've seen many toll roads there. At least not as many as in France.

Like most public transportation in the US it is done through tax money.

The reason US is not big on trains is that there are just so few trains in the us. For me I will soon be going to a university that is 7 hours away by car. The problem that I have been trying to solve is how do I get back home with out a car. I don't want to pay the insurance on a car that will spend most of its time in a parking lot. So I was looking into trains, however that main problem with that is they are so spread out that I have to take an hour bus ride just to find the nearest train station. So that is one reason we don't like trains, they are so inconvenient. Most rail in the US is used to transport coal to power stations. Not for transporting people.

look at this:

This is a map of just the major highways in the US. There are so many smaller ones that just can't be shown on the map. However it took a lot of work just to get the government to make the interstate highway network. In fact the most important highways in the US where made for military use.
The original interstate was made so the military could move troops an supplies in the event of a massive attack on one coast.
Right now there is no need for a train network in the US.
We also use a lot of planes in the US too.

In fact there are so many it is impossible to land them all at that same time.

 

[Urwumpe]

So, do I get this right: a one hour transfer to the next airport is better, because the train station is equally far away and the train comes only about once per day?

 

[vonneuman]

The plane is faster though
Plus trains have a bad reputation in the US. The only time we hear about trains on the news is when someone has been killed by a train. Just a couple of days ago some lady was killed when she tried to beat a train and cross the tracks when that train was coming. Stories like that are so common all we think about when you think of trains it that. As children growing up we are warned about how dangerous trains are. I have several coloring books from when I was a kid that talk about how dangerous trains are and that doing any thing by the train tracks is dangerous.

 

[Urwumpe]

And because so many people died in cars, cars have a bad reputation as well?

 

[Zatnikitelman]

It is, and maybe if more people respected that, there would be less stories in the news. 1000 ton train vs 2 ton car or 0.1 ton human, train wins every time.

Planes are faster over long distances, and a proper rail network is faster over short-medium distances. I'm not advocating for the disbanding of commercial aviation, just the integration of transportation modes to strike an even balance. And to have the capability for any mode to be able to take up capacity when another mode is disrupted. Just imagine if U.S. air space was shut down due to a Volcano. Would our Highways, buses and Amtrak be able to pick up some capacity in their current states? NO! And therein lies the problem.

 

[vonneuman]

And because so many people died in cars, cars have a bad reputation as well?

That is the thing, so many people die in cars that none cares when someone is killed in a car crash. You don't see coloring books telling you that touching the road is a death sentence. Plus a train is scarier then a car. People love cars. A car is like your home, it is an extension of who you are. A train however, is a mass of steel as long as a small city. A train can't stop when it comes near you, a car an turn out of the way but a train can't.

 

[Shadow Addict]

People love cars. A car is like your home, it is an extension of who you are. A train however, is a mass of steel as long as a small city. A train can't stop when it comes near you, a car an turn out of the way but a train can't.

If we're talking about distances greater than trans-city, then I completely disagree with you. I'm not as typical in that I love sitting in a car for loads of hours at a time, just listening to music and looking outside (straight 18 hour roadtrips scare quite a few people). A car ride takes a long time, longer than the equivalent train trip over large distances, and it is slowed further by the necessities of stopping for gas, food and lodging. In addition to that, a lot of people can't do long, unbroken segments for 12+ hours at a time. A train ride is faster and more comfortable (sleeping: sleepers come with a bed, coach isn't any worse than a car. food: pretty decent food available all day long, microwaved food available until very late. bathrooms: they have them). I'd say I identify a train with my home than my car, if only because I have room to walk.

That being said, I do prefer roadtrips to train trips (mostly because I enjoy those discomforts in a way).