Are American trains slow by modern world standards?

[JonMyrlennBailey]

Is it true that European and Asian freight trains and intercity passenger trains tend to travel at higher speeds than those in America? How do Australian trains compare in speed to the rest of the world? How about Latin America and Canada?

I don't think America takes rail transportation serious anymore. Trucks, planes and automobiles seem to dominate here.

 

[skittlekicks]

Trains are more efficient than planes, and trucks. They can haul a lot more goods, can travel farther distances, and in many location trains can travel at 70 mph (possibly 80 mph). Don't forget the US is a vast land mass (if you re in the dead center of Texas and travel 8 hours in any direction you will still be in Texas) compared to Europe, Japan, and Australia and our cities for the most part are not as compressed together. We do have short run light rail in many parts of the US, but again they are not priority over freight. And we do have the pretty useless AMTRAK passenger train.

Yes we have a lot of issues with our train infrastructure. Remember US rail is NOT owned by our government (like Europe, Japan etc. are) it is privately controlled, and in the olden days rail wars were fought because sharing was not an option.

AMTRAK is part government and private; however it's lost billions since it was conceived in the 1970s. They also have to share track with freight. Tax payers do NOT want to spend billions (plus over runs) on rail. Why? because that's not our style. We prefer driving.

So is the rest of the world higher speed for freight and passenger? Probably. Again they do NOT have the large distances to travel as is in the US, and train travel has not really been a money maker for our nation.

 

[BlackDiamond1964]

In other countries Train transport is more popular, there for it's more profitable. No need for train travel in America when just about everybody has their own form of transportation.

 

[johnwhelan]

Is it true that European and Asian freight trains and intercity passenger trains tend to travel at higher speeds than those in America? How do Australian trains compare in speed to the rest of the world? How about Latin America and Canada?

I don't think America takes rail transportation serious anymore. Trucks, planes and automobiles seem to dominate here.

It's all down to profit. In the US basically the freight lines own the track. So a long train travelling at 30 mph (50 km/h) gets the job done and needs less track maintenance. In Europe often passenger services and freight share the line so the track is maintained to a higher standard and both passenger and freight can travel faster.

Cheerio John

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

Traveling through American mountains is very slow due to tight curves on standard gauge track. Taking the California Zephyr from Salt Lake City to Denver is cumbersome. Much of American track was laid during steam locomotive days. If American mountains were tunneled through extensively in straight lines, as in the Moffett Tunnel in Colorado, trains could zoom much faster. Neither passenger nor freight train can snap around tight mountain turns safely or comfortably. Tracks get straighter and train speeds open up across American deserts, valleys and plains.

 

[dangavel]

Trains are more efficient than planes, and trucks. They can haul a lot more goods, can travel farther distances, and in many location trains can travel at 70 mph (possibly 80 mph). Don't forget the US is a vast land mass (if you re in the dead center of Texas and travel 8 hours in any direction you will still be in Texas) compared to Europe, Japan, and Australia and our cities for the most part are not as compressed together. We do have short run light rail in many parts of the US, but again they are not priority over freight. And we do have the pretty useless AMTRAK passenger train.

Yes we have a lot of issues with our train infrastructure. Remember US rail is NOT owned by our government (like Europe, Japan etc. are) it is privately controlled, and in the olden days rail wars were fought because sharing was not an option.

AMTRAK is part government and private; however it's lost billions since it was conceived in the 1970s. They also have to share track with freight. Tax payers do NOT want to spend billions (plus over runs) on rail. Why? because that's not our style. We prefer driving.

So is the rest of the world higher speed for freight and passenger? Probably. Again they do NOT have the large distances to travel as is in the US, and train travel has not really been a money maker for our nation.

You obviously know very little about Australia, the average distance between cities here is probably a thousand kilometres , we are 27% smaller than the USA, but we are still a huge country, with only around 27 million people in total as so much of the country is pretty uninhabitable. Sadly our rail system is probably slower and worse than yours is. Trucks rule , which given the size of the country is saddening , but our national rail system wasn't even the same gauge until the 1990s, even now most of Queensland's rail system is narrow gauge . You would be pressed to find a passenger rail service that averages over 70mph , we simply do not have enough people to afford to build high speed rail , topography is also against us as the great dividing range and mount lofty ranges divide the coast from the interior in much of the country.

 

[pware]

One theory I have, based on little more than a knowledge of geography and some rudimentary history, is that those countries whose rail networks were substantially destroyed in WWII seem to have taken advantage of that destruction to build a more a modern (i.e. faster) network. They also tend to have higher population densities with cities located closer together which brings down the costs and increases the returns. The higher population also spreads the costs, via taxes.

Those countries that won WWII and largely escaped the destruction find themselves still saddled with 19th century railways. Those countries who also have lower population densities (e.g. USA, Australia) with their population centres spread much further apart (USA east coast being an exception), find themselves lacking any serious high speed networks. I did ride Amtraks "high speed" line from Boston to Washington (which was only high speed in one section) several years ago and found it "sadly lacking" in comparison to Japan's much older bullet train (which I have also traveled on).

In the case of the UK the population density and intercity distances are probably well suited to high speed rail but the cost of replacing the existing 19th century rail network is a major drag on progress. I have been following the progress of the UK's HS2 project - it started with much promise and building activity but it now seems to have fallen into "disrepair". Australia's proposed High Speed Rail linking just three main east coast cities - Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane - over a distance that would link at least a dozen European capitals has never progressed beyond its many expensive "feasibility Studies".

I note with interest (and approval) that France has banned all "short haul" passenger flights between cities that already have a high speed rail link.

My thoughts.

 

[johnwhelan]

I think one problem in the UK is the hills and tunnels which restrict the loading gauge and make it difficult to electrify. Also many of the lines are not exactly straight. Then you get the planning problems. For HS2 each section that ran through a town or village needed planning permission at that level. The locals would see no benefit so the temptation was to demand tunnels to keep it out of sight. Wild life protection was interesting, one section has bat protection at a cost of roughly 300,000 quid per bat.

John

 

[dangavel]

One theory I have, based on little more than a knowledge of geography and some rudimentary history, is that those countries whose rail networks were substantially destroyed in WWII seem to have taken advantage of that destruction to build a more a modern (i.e. faster) network. They also tend to have higher population densities with cities located closer together which brings down the costs and increases the returns. The higher population also spreads the costs, via taxes.

Those countries that won WWII and largely escaped the destruction find themselves still saddled with 19th century railways. Those countries who also have lower population densities (e.g. USA, Australia) with their population centres spread much further apart (USA east coast being an exception), find themselves lacking any serious high speed networks. I did ride Amtraks "high speed" line from Boston to Washington (which was only high speed in one section) several years ago and found it "sadly lacking" in comparison to Japan's much older bullet train (which I have also traveled on).

In the case of the UK the population density and intercity distances are probably well suited to high speed rail but the cost of replacing the existing 19th century rail network is a major drag on progress. I have been following the progress of the UK's HS2 project - it started with much promise and building activity but it now seems to have fallen into "disrepair". Australia's proposed High Speed Rail linking just three main east coast cities - Melbourne, Sydney and Brisbane - over a distance that would link at least a dozen European capitals has never progressed beyond its many expensive "feasibility Studies".

I note with interest (and approval) that France has banned all "short haul" passenger flights between cities that already have a high speed rail link.

My thoughts.

Apparently that east coast line needs major works to update infrastructure thats very old and inadequate

 

[pware]

Apparently that east coast line needs major works to update infrastructure thats very old and inadequate

The Amtrak East Coast High Speed line was built largely on existing track right of way and shares the line with slower freight services. Contrast this with the high speed lines in other countries which are built on new right of way and do not share track with freight services.

 

[dangavel]

The Amtrak East Coast High Speed line was built largely on existing track right of way and shares the line with slower freight services. Contrast this with the high speed lines in other countries which are built on new right of way and do not share track with freight services.

Yep they simply haven't spent what they needed to do in order to keep up, rail is mostly freight based both in the US and here in oz, but US public infrastructure has been sorely neglected the past forty years or so. A lot of these railroad structures were built a very long time ago when railroads were highly profitable and the main form of transport, but once air and road transport was improved the writing was on the wall . The road lobby pushed Eisenhower to build freeways , then they bought up the old light rail lines , ran them into the ground . Public transport suffered greatly, nowadays only the poor catch buses and most train passengers take the long distance Amtrak either because they don't like flying, driving or they want to see the country and do not have to be there fast.

When we were in the US over a decade ago i noticed just how much of the place seemed to be very old fashioned, most notably public spaces and utilities like bus stations and airports, yet right next to these essentials , there were Gucci stores that were like gilded places of sin and often a few hundred yards away there were people showering in fountains and hanging out their washing to dry on the grass. Very weird contrast.

Sadly we here in Australia seem to have caught up on that front, in NSW I saw today they have been removing homeless women from the central station , where they have been sleeping rough as they feel safer there .
We have some weird priorities. Its sad how inequity has increased exponentially worldwide in the past decade, from what I can see, its just going to get a lot worse. :-(

 

[norfolksouthern37]

Freight trains here in the US haul more freight by ton mile than anywhere in the world including more than the entire EU combined. Some 1.7 billion tons of raw materials and almost 30% of our total freight are moved by rail a year. It is not required that it travels fast, but that it travels efficiently over the distance it needs to cover. There is nowhere else in the world with a more efficient freight-moving network.

Passenger? we had a great network, but our oil companies more or less conspired to destroy it (along with other small factors) and Amtrak is and has always been surviving off of that old shell.

 

[c44d9w]

more efficient freight-moving network

That depends on how you look at it. Specifically regarding speed, they are not great. Even priority intermodal trains have longer transit times than a few decades ago.

Here is some average freight train speed data from 2005 (Progressive Railroading):

Union Pacific: 21.2 mph
BNSF: 24.1 mph
CSX: 19.5 mph
Canadian National: 24.2 mph
Canadian Pacific: 24.4

Another important measure is the freight car yard dwell time, how much a railcar sits in switching yards. Note that this does not include wait time at the terminal. From RSI Logistics for the last 12 months:

BNSF: 23 - 30 hours
UP: 21 - 23 hours
NS: 23 - 29 hours
CSX: 21 - 33 hours
CN: 15 - 23 hours
CP: 20 - 31 hours

Update: It may be challenging to compare these metrics with European railways, where train distances are much shorter.

 

[norfolksouthern37]

It doesn't really depend on how you look at it though. Even with it's shortcomings it is factually the most efficient in the world moving this much freight for this many people. I see what you are saying but that wasn't merely an opinion.

 

[pware]

Where rail freight has its greatest advantages over road freight are in bulk transport (e.g. coal, minerals, steel products, containers) and in long distance haulage.

Road transport has the advantage of being able to run directly from the supplier or manufacturer to the customers front door - not all customers will have their own rail siding or a delivery quantity that would require an entire wagon or truck load.

The USA, Canada and Australia have the geography and distances to make long haul (e.g. coast to coast) rail transport an economic and efficient proposition. This is not the case in many other parts of the world, including Europe.