Can you imagine high-speed trains running all across America?

[JonMyrlennBailey]

This includes the Continental Divide in the Rockies and the Sierra Nevada. Some brand-new right-of-way land might have to be acquired to even make this possible. Extensive straight-line tunneling through the bases of mountains with the world's most advanced tunneling machinery and technique would also seem in order unless this hypothetical future high-speed transcontinental route is to be laid mainly in the deserts in the southwest of the Lower 48. I think of "high speed" trains as those typical in modern Europe and Japan. I think of 200+ MPH. I think of a solid two-track line all the way through. There may be some major high-speed railway lines in North America, not just the United States of America, someday. I wonder if Alaska, Canada and Mexico would want any part of this.

 

[pware]

Can I imagine it? In a word No! But we can certainly dream.

The USA has many of the same issues that give the same No answer to high speed rail here in Australia - vast distances with low population densities. Our east coast is much the same as yours and that is where most of the population can be found but in our case the distances between those east coast population centres is much greater.

Consider the following roughly compatible train trips:-

Trip	Boston to Washington USA	Brisbane to Melbourne Australia
Rail Distance	735km	1415km
Cities on Route	Boston, New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington	Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne
Current Rail Travel Time for entire journey	6hr 30min (Amtrak Acela) on a single train	~36hr (NSW TrainLink) change trains at Sydney
Service Frequency	about 16 services between 6am and 8pm daily	2 daily services

Baring a major energy catastrophe (such as the world running out of oil - an eventual certainty) I cannot see nationwide high speed rail (electric powered) viable in both the USA and Australia.

Europe, Japan, China have the advantages of much higher population densities, many more destinations and shorter distances between those destinations. Both the USA and Australia have vast "empty" gaps between the coasts where most of the populations can be found.

My thoughts.

 

[Pendolino]

Europe, Japan, China have the advantages of much higher population densities, many more destinations and shorter distances between those destinations.

In the US, a high-speed network may make sense on the East Coast and perhaps in California, but in my opinion a coast-to-coast journey will take too much time to be attractive enough to draw passengers from air transport. Here in Europe there are many high-speed links, but travel times are usually within 2 to 4 hours, I use them quite often and even though I like very much passing Porsche and Ferrari travelling at 300 kph . I am not especially amused, however, when I travel from Milan to Paris, spending 7 hours in a TGV which is conceived for short journeys - 2 to 3 hours - from Paris to the outer French cities like Bordeaux, Marseilles, Lille...

 

[pware]

Here in Europe there are many high-speed links, but travel times are usually within 2 to 4 hours, I use them quite often ... I am not especially amused, however, when I travel from Milan to Paris, spending 7 hours in a TGV

Did not the EU recently enact a regulation banning air travel between cities that are connected by high speed rail? That, to me, makes perfect sense for the 2-4 hr train journeys but not perhaps for the longer (7 hr or more) trips, if the ban does apply to the longer trips.

Here in Australia the transport corridor from Brisbane to Melbourne is dominated by air travel and is the 5th busiest air corridor in the world. Journey time for a direct flight from Brisbane to Melbourne is about 2hrs 30min compared to 36+hrs by train and 17+hrs by road. Of course with air travel you have to factor in additional times such as check-in, luggage collection, parking, weather, etc.

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

In America, we have those much-hated TSA jerks at airports. You are not going to be checked if you are carrying a gun if you take the train. High speed rail might connect Los Angeles, Seattle or San Francisco and Denver to within 8 hours. Maybe Houston within 10 hours. Denver and Chicago within 8 hours. Chicago and Philadelphia, New York and Boston within 12 hours. Dallas-Fort Worth and Miami within 12 hours. San Francisco or LA to New York within 24 hours. Anywhere between two Lower 48 major cities in America might be reachable within a calendar day's time. In 1986, it took me 36 hours to reach Denver from Oakland via Amtrak California Zephyr and even that was because of a 5-hour delay in Salt Lake City due to a freight train derailment ahead.

<iframe width="997" height="561" src="

" title="What If The United States Had A National High Speed Rail Network?" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Pendolino]

That, to me, makes perfect sense for the 2-4 hr train journeys but not perhaps for the longer (7 hr or more) trips, if the ban does apply to the longer trips.

I agree: in fact, I am looking forward to the completion of the Turin-Lyon high-speed line, so I can reach Paris with my back still healthy .

As far as I know, there is a proposal to ban short haul flights between cities linked by high-speed railways, but so far is only being discussed. Some member countries have already adopted national bans. Usually such bans involve links with cities having a hub airport and require that the airport is served by high-speed rail services, as many short-haul flights are the first part of a journey that continues once the traveller has reached a large airport.

Even without regulations, however, the mere existence of a high-speed rail link usually leads to a vertical drop in the number of connecting flights: this happened in France in 1981 when the first LGV (Ligne Grand Vitesse, High Speed Line) was opened between Paris and Lyon. The same also happened here in Italy when the high speed link from Milan to Rome (previously, the most busy internal air connection) was completed, linking the two major cities in Italy in less than 3 hours (non-stop trains take 2h 56m to travel 478 km). Flight time between the two cities is approximately 1 hour, but the need to travel to the airport and back makes the train very competitive. As a side note, this was the main reason for the fall of Alitalia, which focused on this route even knowing what happened in France some years before (a shiny example of brilliant management ).

Going back to the original theme of the thread, the only place where I can see a high-speed railroad in the US is the North-East corridor, as distances and population densities (in other words, the number of likely passengers) are not too different from Europe or Japan. Outside this area (and in Australia) I think it would be very unlikely to succeed. Of course, this leaves aside the political will to build a fairly expensive infrastructure.

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

I agree: in fact, I am looking forward to the completion of the Turin-Lyon high-speed line, so I can reach Paris with my back still healthy .

As far as I know, there is a proposal to ban short haul flights between cities linked by high-speed railways, but so far is only being discussed. Some member countries have already adopted national bans. Usually such bans involve links with cities having a hub airport and require that the airport is served by high-speed rail services, as many short-haul flights are the first part of a journey that continues once the traveller has reached a large airport.

Even without regulations, however, the mere existence of a high-speed rail link usually leads to a vertical drop in the number of connecting flights: this happened in France in 1981 when the first LGV (Ligne Grand Vitesse, High Speed Line) was opened between Paris and Lyon. The same also happened here in Italy when the high speed link from Milan to Rome (previously, the most busy internal air connection) was completed, linking the two major cities in Italy in less than 3 hours (non-stop trains take 2h 56m to travel 478 km). Flight time between the two cities is approximately 1 hour, but the need to travel to the airport and back makes the train very competitive. As a side note, this was the main reason for the fall of Alitalia, which focused on this route even knowing what happened in France some years before (a shiny example of brilliant management ).

Going back to the original theme of the thread, the only place where I can see a high-speed railroad in the US is the North-East corridor, as distances and population densities (in other words, the number of likely passengers) are not too different from Europe or Japan. Outside this area (and in Australia) I think it would be very unlikely to succeed. Of course, this leaves aside the political will to build a fairly expensive infrastructure.

With increasing world digital connectivity, the need to physically travel for business has been progressively diminishing. I will avoid taking commercial airplanes at all costs. I don't like all this poking and frisking and waiting. If I were to travel from Des Moines, Iowa to Denver, Colorado, or even to the state of New Hampshire, it would likely by in my own personal automobile.

 

[pware]

If I were to travel from Des Moines, Iowa to Denver, Colorado, or even to the state of New Hampshire, it would likely by in my own personal automobile.

There lies the main problem. I suspect that people in both USA and AUS are far too "wedded" to their automobiles to make such a major shift to rail likely. Although here in Sydney the recent opening of the Metro line extension from the northern suburbs through the CBD and on towards the southern suburbs has been a huge success in encouraging people to leave their cars and other crowded heavy rail services to shift to the newer (and faster) Metro. The line is now being extended another 15km to the south western suburbs and that section will open late next year. It will be interesting to see the effect of that.

 

[Forester1]

Yeah, I always thought it might be more popular if I could load my car onto the train and take it with me. I think they do that some places, but I am not sure how it works. Then when I reached my destination I would have my own vehicle available.

 

[pware]

if I could load my car onto the train and take it with me. I think they do that some places, but I am not sure how it works.

It was once common here on diesel loco hauled long distance overnight passenger trains. A double deck car carrying wagon (sometimes two) would be shunted into a loading dock near the passenger platform and your vehicle would be driven onto the carrier by railway staff a few hours before departure. The wagons would then be attached to the train for the journey. The reverse occurred on arrival at the destination. It was a terminus to terminus service only - you could not load/unload your vehicle at an intermediate stop unless it had the facilities and there was a long stopover time.

The Indian-Pacific (Sydney-Adelaide-Perth) and The Ghan (Adelaide-Darwin) long distance luxury trains were the only ones left providing this facility in recent years but it is no longer advertised as an option and I have not seen these trains with the car wagons attached for a few years now.

I believe the cost was about $AU120 per vehicle (back then). Cheaper than getting a rental car at the destination.

 

[wreeder]

Yeah, I always thought it might be more popular if I could load my car onto the train and take it with me. I think they do that some places, but I am not sure how it works. Then when I reached my destination I would have my own vehicle available.

Google the Amtrak Autotrain

 

[Forester1]

Nice! But wrong coast for me. It would be nice if they brought that west or even transcontinental.

 

[wreeder]

Nice! But wrong coast for me. It would be nice if they brought that west or even transcontinental.

I'm shocked it is still running myself. It started in the 70s. If you can find pictures of the car carriers it would be cool. As I remember, they loaded from the end and had two levels.

 

[ricomon35]

From Forbes magazine, April 2, 2024

High Speed Rail Timeline from The Federal Railroad Administration.

High-Speed Rail Timeline


July 9, 2024 article on Smartcitiesdrive.com >>> US high-speed rail projects: The latest news


Online resources congregator for High Speed Rail in the U.S. >>> High Speed Rail Alliance

Current HSR network plan map, in phases

Above map info and further resources site >>> HSR Vision Map

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

Amtrak is way overpriced and the service stinks. I hate TSA and the high baggage fees on airlines....UHHHHGGG!

Frank sang it right long before the days of TSA and baggage fees: it was still so much nicer to come home even back then:

 

[Forester1]

Unfortunately, overpriced and they still need subsidies. ANd they have to make way for freights because the freights are too long for the sidings.

 

[pware]

High speed passenger rail works where it does not have to share the track with slower speed services, especially freights, and where the distances are not huge (unlike many of those shown in the map in post #14 above). These conditions make transcontinental high speed passenger routes extremely expensive to build, and ultimately non-viable, and very unattractive compared to air travel.

 

[JonMyrlennBailey]

There is

High speed passenger rail works where it does not have to share the track with slower speed services, especially freights, and where the distances are not huge (unlike many of those shown in the map in post #14 above). These conditions make transcontinental high speed passenger routes extremely expensive to build, and ultimately non-viable, and very unattractive compared to air travel.

Attractive to fly? There is nothing ATTRACTIVE about long waits at airports and TSA thugs poking at people and every little knick-knack in a briefcase. Paying $80 bucks for an extra bag is even uglier. Now, it's true, PSA in California had some of the cutest little stewardesses in the 1970's. Air travel started to look ugly to me even way back in 1993 when a not-so-cute dame on the airplane tried to charge me $5 then for a throw-away headset to watch the movie. I was in the army then. Better to read a good book going from California to Germany while in the service. There is still nothing more attractive to me than my own automobile for all the car's slowness. If I, on the other hand, had to go to dreadful New York City to pick up the five million dollars check in person my dead rich uncle willed me in a big hurry, well, then I just MIGHT put up with all the airline crap in that case, but until then........

I miss airplanes when stewardesses were young and cute, headsets, peanuts, fruit punch, sandwiches, blankets and pillows were still complementary and there were no TSA thugs. I miss the days when airlines used terms like WIDE BODY, JUMBO JET, LOCKHEED L-1011, NON-STOP and BOEING 747 in their TV commercials. I miss the days when Western Airlines advertised "THREE FEET FOR YOUR TWO LEGS" and Wally, the talking bird, sat on the top of the plane against the tail fin and a complementary pillow. I miss the days BEFORE the notion of thugs' knocking down tall buildings on American soil with jetliners was even dreamed of.

<iframe width="760" height="570" src="

" title="Western Airlines -- The only way to fly" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[pware]

Attractive to fly? There is nothing ATTRACTIVE about long waits at airports and TSA thugs poking at people and every little knick-knack in a briefcase.

Personal experiences may differ. Like you I find airports stressful experiences and that stress is increased when you have to go through customs, immigration and security. The baggage check-in and retrieval process also adds to the "experience".

My best experiences of customs, immigration and security were in Europe (and UK before Brexit). My worst were in the USA, so I agree with you there.

My most amusing was getting off the Amtrak Maple Leaf service from Toronto at Niagara Falls (Canadian side) where the "international border" was a red rope strung between metal bollards on the platform. I accidentally "crossed" into the USA without realising it and without setting off any alarms. I was leaving the train at Niagara Falls and not continuing on so I did not have to endure the customs and immigration process that the other passengers had to go through in the station waiting room.

I did experience the TSA at various airports in the USA and it was not always a pleasant experience. My most embarrassing was having to remove my trouser belt and stand in a glass cylinder with my hands on the wall while being remotely scanned and while my pants were slowly slipping down.

Unfortunately, given the nature of the world in which we live, this level of security and inconvenience is the price we often have to pay for safe travel. Bringing down a commercial airliner packed with passengers will get a terrorist group the notoriety and attention it craves.

Despite all this, the "attractiveness" of air travel, particularly long distance travel, is its speed over alternative methods. Traveling between two major cities, Brisbane and Melbourne, on the east coast of Australia for example. Direct air travel takes 2hrs 30mins. Driving via the most direct route takes at least 17hrs. Train travel (not high speed) takes 36hrs with a day or overnight stopover in Sydney. No customs and immigration is involved on this trip but the overwhelming majority of travelers prefer to put up with the baggage and check-in issues and walking through a security arch to fly to their destination many hours (or even a day) faster than ground travel.

 

[JCitron]

For about 9 years, I did some annual flying to and from the Midwest for my severe storm chasing trips with Silver Lining Tours. I will say that if you're pleasant with the TSA staff, things go pretty well. On one trip, I got to speed check in after a baggage scan which saved me the trouble of losing my pants due to me pulling my belt off. ;-)

The trip between Boston and Chicago, being the first leg of most of my trips, is only 2-1/2 hours, but the inconvenience of being at the airport 3 hours prior is annoying. The second part of the trip means a long slog through O'Hare because Boston flights come into Gate A or B, and flights to Oklahoma City are almost always out of Gate W or X! Because of this, I had to literally run the between the terminals due to Boston always coming in a bit late for some reason as my luck had it.

Flying in general is not my favorite to begin with due to a miserable nauseous feeling and painful sinuses during flight. I never eat the food and bring with me some peanut butter and cracker pack because I'm not going to pay $8.00 for a Luncheable! Seriously, 8 bucks for crackers, cheese, and salami in a plastic tray.

As a rail enthusiast, I would have preferred to take a train between Boston and Chicago but the Late Shore Limited, yes, its on-time performance is pretty poor as that train has garnered that reputation, proved to be a non-starter right off the bat. The connecting train to Oklahoma City is not a direct connection. The only way to get to OKC is to take the Texas Eagle to Fort Worth and then take the Prairie Flyer to OKC. To add insult to injury, there's not a lot of these trains and the LSL would guarantee a miss, and to make matters worse, the train comes in to OKC at 0430.

For those that don't know, that's a down passed Oklahoma City and then back, or 4-hours down and then 2-1/2 hours or more back. We thought AI drivers are bad!

While I would love to see HSR across the country, I don't think it'll ever happen. Like Australia, our distances between major metropolitan areas are huge. The HSR route in California may be a long one but in reality, it's a regional one between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. This would be similar to a route between Chicago and Dallas, TX, or New York City and Boston and even these cities aren't that far apart, at 4 to 6 hours between them.

Outside of the coasts and the top and bottom of the country, there's not much in the middle except for corn, soybeans, wheat, and cows and lots of small towns. These areas do not have the population to make a worthwhile effort to introduce the service.

In the end, airlines win for the long distances and passenger rail has proven to be successful in the regional services such as New York City to Boston, or Boston to Washington, and more recently New Brunswick, Maine to Boston.

The highspeed route to Montreal proved to be too expensive and there was little support for it. That route, by the way shown on your map in yellow, is no longer viable thanks to the state of New Hampshire turning the route into a "recreational trail".

Shortly after the route was marked for the highspeed rail study, NIMBYs came out and protested, along with New Hampshire state legislators saying no money for it, and a rail-to-trail group lobbied the state legislators to turn the route into a trail, thus ending any chance of a route between Concord, NH and White River Jct. VT being a possibility. Even trying to get commuter rail back to Concord has been impossible because New Hampshire is one of the most anti-rail states in the country and puts nearly zero into rail infrastructure and everything into highways. Even the Downeaster between New Brunswick Maine and Boston is funded by Maine and Massachusetts due to New Hampshire not paying a dime for it.