Thread: OT: New Rail Speed Record

Everywhere the trains are frequent, comfortable, and fast, there is a dirty little secret- The Government PAYS!.

Freight can be profitable, but commuter, and even high speed passenger, is heavily subsidised everywhere in the world.
If we want decent train service, we have to pay for it- and since nobody wants to pay $500 a ticket, that means government subsidies or outright government railroads, one or the other.

This is a decision a country as a whole makes- and we have made a decision not to pay for trains.

Some of this makes sense, of course- in places like Montana or North Dakota, commuter trains every half hour would be silly, and cars and trucks are often a better choice.
But in dense urban areas, like LA, which is the densest city in the country, it makes sense to subsidise trains- less pollution, less accidents, less time spent commuting, and urban planning around train lines can channel growth.
Portland Oregon has been successful in this, rezoning neighborhoods along its new light rail line, and seeing residential and business neighborhoods grow.

I just know that in countries that have good train service, its easier and quicker than driving, most of the time. Not that you wouldnt want a car too, you just wouldnt need to drive it much.

In japan,you buy a ticket that tells you where to stand on the platform, down to the minute, and, at that minute, a door opens up right in front of your painted number, and you get on, and your reserved seat is right there.

In europe, there are several grades of trains, some fast, some slow, but all pretty usauble- I have made lots of trips by train in europe that would be impossible here. Here, trains take twice as long as driving- there, its quicker, and, considering they have 6 dollar a gallon gas, usually cheaper.

Again, though- this is because of economy wide government decisions on taxes, subsidies, and planning.
We make those decisions as well, we just decide not to put our money in trains. Instead, we build roads, or airports, or keep our gas taxes low. We bail out Chrysler, they bail out the train company.

Everywhere the trains are frequent, comfortable, and fast, there is a dirty little secret- The Government PAYS!.

Freight can be profitable, but commuter, and even high speed passenger, is heavily subsidised everywhere in the world.
If we want decent train service, we have to pay for it- and since nobody wants to pay $500 a ticket, that means government subsidies or outright government railroads, one or the other.

This is a decision a country as a whole makes- and we have made a decision not to pay for trains.

Some of this makes sense, of course- in places like Montana or North Dakota, commuter trains every half hour would be silly, and cars and trucks are often a better choice.
But in dense urban areas, like LA, which is the densest city in the country, it makes sense to subsidise trains- less pollution, less accidents, less time spent commuting, and urban planning around train lines can channel growth.
Portland Oregon has been successful in this, rezoning neighborhoods along its new light rail line, and seeing residential and business neighborhoods grow.

I just know that in countries that have good train service, its easier and quicker than driving, most of the time. Not that you wouldnt want a car too, you just wouldnt need to drive it much.

In japan,you buy a ticket that tells you where to stand on the platform, down to the minute, and, at that minute, a door opens up right in front of your painted number, and you get on, and your reserved seat is right there.

In europe, there are several grades of trains, some fast, some slow, but all pretty usauble- I have made lots of trips by train in europe that would be impossible here. Here, trains take twice as long as driving- there, its quicker, and, considering they have 6 dollar a gallon gas, usually cheaper.

Again, though- this is because of economy wide government decisions on taxes, subsidies, and planning.
We make those decisions as well, we just decide not to put our money in trains. Instead, we build roads, or airports, or keep our gas taxes low. We bail out Chrysler, they bail out the train company.

Studies indicate the optimum lenght for rail service is about 400 miles, max.
Very few people are interested in L.A. to N.Y. by train.
The Northeast Corrider does well, same with Ca. The Capitols from the Bay Area to Sac. Valley Commuter from Stockton to San Jose.
The heavily subsidized rail services have almost bankrupt some countries, resulting in double or triple fare increases.
But, more mass transit is needed, especially for commuters.

Studies indicate the optimum lenght for rail service is about 400 miles, max.
Very few people are interested in L.A. to N.Y. by train.
The Northeast Corrider does well, same with Ca. The Capitols from the Bay Area to Sac. Valley Commuter from Stockton to San Jose.
The heavily subsidized rail services have almost bankrupt some countries, resulting in double or triple fare increases.
But, more mass transit is needed, especially for commuters.

Studies indicate the optimum lenght for rail service is about 400 miles, max.
Very few people are interested in L.A. to N.Y. by train.
The Northeast Corrider does well, same with Ca. The Capitols from the Bay Area to Sac. Valley Commuter from Stockton to San Jose.
The heavily subsidized rail services have almost bankrupt some countries, resulting in double or triple fare increases.
But, more mass transit is needed, especially for commuters.

Studies indicate the optimum lenght for rail service is about 400 miles, max.
Very few people are interested in L.A. to N.Y. by train.
The Northeast Corrider does well, same with Ca. The Capitols from the Bay Area to Sac. Valley Commuter from Stockton to San Jose.
The heavily subsidized rail services have almost bankrupt some countries, resulting in double or triple fare increases.
But, more mass transit is needed, especially for commuters.
I notice during all the politicians doing their lip-flapping about energy, Mass Transit is never mentioned.

Studies indicate the optimum lenght for rail service is about 400 miles, max.
Very few people are interested in L.A. to N.Y. by train.
The Northeast Corrider does well, same with Ca. The Capitols from the Bay Area to Sac. Valley Commuter from Stockton to San Jose.
The heavily subsidized rail services have almost bankrupt some countries, resulting in double or triple fare increases.
But, more mass transit is needed, especially for commuters.
I notice during all the politicians doing their lip-flapping about energy, Mass Transit is never mentioned.

Studies indicate the optimum lenght for rail service is about 400 miles, max.
Very few people are interested in L.A. to N.Y. by train.
The Northeast Corrider does well, same with Ca. The Capitols from the Bay Area to Sac. Valley Commuter from Stockton to San Jose.
The heavily subsidized rail services have almost bankrupt some countries, resulting in double or triple fare increases.
But, more mass transit is needed, especially for commuters.
I notice during all the politicians doing their lip-flapping about energy, Mass Transit is never mentioned.

America should be the ideal country for rail travel.Lots of people spread out in a large country.

That is exactly why trains are NOT so good here.

You have to realize how SMALL Europe really is.

Trains DEPEND on being able to move bulk goods or people from one place to another. They are HORRIBLE at small lot moving of stuff.

First, they only go where tracks are.

Second, they carry a LOT of "stuff" per "unit" (one train).

Then also, shunting cars around to get one car from here to some other place is expensive in time and effort, and stuff in consequence takes longer to move.

Finally, any time you have to shift your "stuff" from one mode to another, it costs time and money. Containers only work because they are a given due to sea shipment.

The ideal is the roll-on-roll-off trailer train concept, where you put on trailers and get them somewhere in bulk. But even that isn't perfect.

They all need to be going that place.

You need to not have a shipping deadline that is close, or its better to just trailer the whole way on the highway.

For people, its the same. If you can move lots of people from one bulk shipment point to another, like from airport to downtown, its good.

For dispersed people, there are too many stops, and stations are so sparse that people have to drive to them.... so they drive the whole way. Buses are OK, but then it ends up taking all day to wait for bus, get to the station via bus, wait for train, get to your destination via a bus you wait for, and repeat to get back.

In many a german city, you can get to the U-bahn (subway) or streetcar, etc, in 500 meters or so walking.

But they are vertical and densely populated.

America should be the ideal country for rail travel.Lots of people spread out in a large country.

That is exactly why trains are NOT so good here.

You have to realize how SMALL Europe really is.

Trains DEPEND on being able to move bulk goods or people from one place to another. They are HORRIBLE at small lot moving of stuff.

First, they only go where tracks are.

Second, they carry a LOT of "stuff" per "unit" (one train).

Then also, shunting cars around to get one car from here to some other place is expensive in time and effort, and stuff in consequence takes longer to move.

Finally, any time you have to shift your "stuff" from one mode to another, it costs time and money. Containers only work because they are a given due to sea shipment.

The ideal is the roll-on-roll-off trailer train concept, where you put on trailers and get them somewhere in bulk. But even that isn't perfect.

They all need to be going that place.

You need to not have a shipping deadline that is close, or its better to just trailer the whole way on the highway.

For people, its the same. If you can move lots of people from one bulk shipment point to another, like from airport to downtown, its good.

For dispersed people, there are too many stops, and stations are so sparse that people have to drive to them.... so they drive the whole way. Buses are OK, but then it ends up taking all day to wait for bus, get to the station via bus, wait for train, get to your destination via a bus you wait for, and repeat to get back.

In many a german city, you can get to the U-bahn (subway) or streetcar, etc, in 500 meters or so walking.

But they are vertical and densely populated.

America should be the ideal country for rail travel.Lots of people spread out in a large country.

That is exactly why trains are NOT so good here.

You have to realize how SMALL Europe really is.

Trains DEPEND on being able to move bulk goods or people from one place to another. They are HORRIBLE at small lot moving of stuff.

First, they only go where tracks are.

Second, they carry a LOT of "stuff" per "unit" (one train).

Then also, shunting cars around to get one car from here to some other place is expensive in time and effort, and stuff in consequence takes longer to move.

Finally, any time you have to shift your "stuff" from one mode to another, it costs time and money. Containers only work because they are a given due to sea shipment.

The ideal is the roll-on-roll-off trailer train concept, where you put on trailers and get them somewhere in bulk. But even that isn't perfect.

They all need to be going that place.

You need to not have a shipping deadline that is close, or its better to just trailer the whole way on the highway.

For people, its the same. If you can move lots of people from one bulk shipment point to another, like from airport to downtown, its good.

For dispersed people, there are too many stops, and stations are so sparse that people have to drive to them.... so they drive the whole way. Buses are OK, but then it ends up taking all day to wait for bus, get to the station via bus, wait for train, get to your destination via a bus you wait for, and repeat to get back.

In many a german city, you can get to the U-bahn (subway) or streetcar, etc, in 500 meters or so walking.

But they are vertical and densely populated.

J Tiers is spot on - people gush about the train system in Germany (and all of Europe for that matter) and I readily admit is a great system. But Germany has only 82 million people crammed into small number of cities serviced by a rail system that wouldn't cover the state of Montana (population less than a million).

To scale this up to the continental United States would be unworkable.

Regional transit makes sense for big cities . . . I would like to see the difference in cost / time required to move people hundreds of miles via. plane vs train.

J Tiers is spot on - people gush about the train system in Germany (and all of Europe for that matter) and I readily admit is a great system. But Germany has only 82 million people crammed into small number of cities serviced by a rail system that wouldn't cover the state of Montana (population less than a million).

To scale this up to the continental United States would be unworkable.

Regional transit makes sense for big cities . . . I would like to see the difference in cost / time required to move people hundreds of miles via. plane vs train.

J Tiers is spot on - people gush about the train system in Germany (and all of Europe for that matter) and I readily admit is a great system. But Germany has only 82 million people crammed into small number of cities serviced by a rail system that wouldn't cover the state of Montana (population less than a million).

To scale this up to the continental United States would be unworkable.

Regional transit makes sense for big cities . . . I would like to see the difference in cost / time required to move people hundreds of miles via. plane vs train.

But..
it wouldn't be small lot moving. Trains here could move large number of people from mid-west to the coasts and up-down along the coast.

and what about car trains....
There must be a lot of folks who want thier own vehicle at thier destination point. Too expensive to fly to destination & ship vehicle via truck and or inconvienent time frame.

But..
it wouldn't be small lot moving. Trains here could move large number of people from mid-west to the coasts and up-down along the coast.

and what about car trains....
There must be a lot of folks who want thier own vehicle at thier destination point. Too expensive to fly to destination & ship vehicle via truck and or inconvienent time frame.

But..
it wouldn't be small lot moving. Trains here could move large number of people from mid-west to the coasts and up-down along the coast.

and what about car trains....
There must be a lot of folks who want thier own vehicle at thier destination point. Too expensive to fly to destination & ship vehicle via truck and or inconvienent time frame.

The density per square mile in Paris, where they have a subway, and commuter rail, is 52,000 people per square mile.

Seattle, an average american city, is 4000 people per square mile.
New York is about 25,000 per sq mile- half that of Paris, 2/3 that of Tokyo. (yep, Paris is denser than Tokyo).

I am dubious that planes are cheaper per passenger mile, though, especially if you factor in the cost of the airports, air traffic control system, and so on.
More convenient, sure- although, on a train, you can take a walk, and go have a sit down dinner, or a drink in the bar car, at least in civilised countries.

Here in the USA, it would seem trains make sense in denser areas, Vancouver/Seattle/Portland , or SF/LA, or the eastern seaboard, but less so in the great empty middle.

The density per square mile in Paris, where they have a subway, and commuter rail, is 52,000 people per square mile.

Seattle, an average american city, is 4000 people per square mile.
New York is about 25,000 per sq mile- half that of Paris, 2/3 that of Tokyo. (yep, Paris is denser than Tokyo).

I am dubious that planes are cheaper per passenger mile, though, especially if you factor in the cost of the airports, air traffic control system, and so on.
More convenient, sure- although, on a train, you can take a walk, and go have a sit down dinner, or a drink in the bar car, at least in civilised countries.

Here in the USA, it would seem trains make sense in denser areas, Vancouver/Seattle/Portland , or SF/LA, or the eastern seaboard, but less so in the great empty middle.

The density per square mile in Paris, where they have a subway, and commuter rail, is 52,000 people per square mile.

Seattle, an average american city, is 4000 people per square mile.
New York is about 25,000 per sq mile- half that of Paris, 2/3 that of Tokyo. (yep, Paris is denser than Tokyo).

I am dubious that planes are cheaper per passenger mile, though, especially if you factor in the cost of the airports, air traffic control system, and so on.
More convenient, sure- although, on a train, you can take a walk, and go have a sit down dinner, or a drink in the bar car, at least in civilised countries.

Here in the USA, it would seem trains make sense in denser areas, Vancouver/Seattle/Portland , or SF/LA, or the eastern seaboard, but less so in the great empty middle.