High Speed Trains In The USA?

sparky15 said:
John, the investments were made years ago. I live in Indiana where we have hundreds of miles of existing abandoned rail lines being ripped out. A small push in shortlines by the state using existing idled equipment would have been the giant leap to lay the foundation for high speed rail. Every little town here was built around a rail line.*
Sure, I can drive 40 miles to catch the old South Shore for the last 50 miles or so into Chicago. Why bother, pay parking fees, etc. when I'm already half way there.
Politicians and pie in the sky voters want shiny new trains. How many billions did we waste converting those old rail lines into paved bike trails? Seems to me that money could have been used upgrading those lines, buying used existing equipment and laying the basic infrastructure to make the shiny new high speed line more attractive. It might also breathe life into idled grain silos and small factories around here while getting semis off our main roads.
Click to expand...

Very well said, Sparky. Sadly, NIMBYs would rather have a bike trail then train service. Don't get me going on this sore subject!

The sad part is people today also do not want the stations in their downtowns and would rather stick them as far away as possible. Where I live up in the Boston area, there is the new Anderson Transportation Center in Woburn. This bus/train station is nowhere near the downtown. Residents, including those from surrounding towns, have to travel on the crowded I-95 and I-93 to get there, and then they're not even close. The station is located in the very far corner of an industrial park that his its own traffic issues! Now doesn't this defeat the purpose of energy savings? At one point there was a loop branch that went through Woburn Center as well as two smaller branches to surrounding towns. These off-main branches are now bike trails because the NIMBYs fought and screamed loudly about the noisy trains that used to run on them.

John
 
JCitron said:
Very well said, Sparky. Sadly, NIMBYs would rather have a bike trail then train service. Don't get me going on this sore subject!

The sad part is people today also do not want the stations in their downtowns and would rather stick them as far away as possible. Where I live up in the Boston area, there is the new Anderson Transportation Center in Woburn. This bus/train station is nowhere near the downtown. Residents, including those from surrounding towns, have to travel on the crowded I-95 and I-93 to get there, and then they're not even close. The station is located in the very far corner of an industrial park that his its own traffic issues! Now doesn't this defeat the purpose of energy savings? At one point there was a loop branch that went through Woburn Center as well as two smaller branches to surrounding towns. These off-main branches are now bike trails because the NIMBYs fought and screamed loudly about the noisy trains that used to run on them.

John
Click to expand...

That's a whole 'nother subject that boils my blood too. I keep telling folks Rails to Trails is a terrible, terrible idea.
 
It would only work if only high speed trains used a dedicated right of way, with no freight trains ahead. Commuter trains that make frequent stops would have to use their own separate dedicated right of way, or make station stops on siding tracks (much like the 4 tracked NEC does today). But may thousands of bridges would need replacement, not just a quick lick and a polish, jury rigged, patch up job.
 
Rail travel doesn't need to be high speed. Just more convenient and economical than driving is all it would take. I'll take an extra 30 minutes in my commute if I can kick back, drink a cup of coffee and read the paper for half the cost of driving myself. I really don't see a 150mph train from point a to point z ignoring the 24 stops in the middle being worth it.
It's logistically impossible to introduce high speed rail into this country at this time. We're too spread out. But, railroads had the logistics figured out years ago before cars doomed them for conventional rail service. Get people using what we have now, add a second or third line to existing rail corridors, contract maintenance of equipment out to existing railroads, split right of way costs with them including bridge repairs or expansion, then go for high speed between major cities.*
You accomplish several goals: Let freight railroads use those expanded lines in off peak hours to make freight more attractive by rail, they can double traffic at night through populated areas when passenger service is low. Add jobs to the rail industry in about every little town up to the "big city". Utilize existing equipment sitting idle, pennies on the dollar compared to buying new. Get more interstate semis off the roads, less money repairing those roads. More importantly, you get people like me who have to use highways just to get to a rail hub off those highways.*
I'm sure existing railroads would love to split right of way maintenance and expansion costs. The jobs created everywhere would benefit the tax man defraying the initial outlay of tax funds which is much less than starting new.

Dave..........
 
For me, rail travel would almost never be more convenient than driving, because when I drive to somewhere outside my home town, I HAVE MY CAR WHEN I GET THERE. There's ALWAYS a bunch of running around to do in whatever place I'm visiting, and the people I'm visiting usually either don't have cars of their own or don't have enough room in their cars. And that's not even considering that even when the RR is having its super duper 50% off seat sale, it's still cheaper for me to drive my full-size vehicle than to take the train ...
 
64Warhorse said:
For me, rail travel would almost never be more convenient than driving, because when I drive to somewhere outside my home town, I HAVE MY CAR WHEN I GET THERE. There's ALWAYS a bunch of running around to do in whatever place I'm visiting, and the people I'm visiting usually either don't have cars of their own or don't have enough room in their cars. And that's not even considering that even when the RR is having its super duper 50% off seat sale, it's still cheaper for me to drive my full-size vehicle than to take the train ...
Click to expand...

I suppose this is true if where you're going would be less expensive than driving. For me driving into Boston costs more than a round trip ticket by train plus parking at the train station.

Going into the city will cost me 1/2 tank of gas, which is about $25.00 for my Jeep.
Parking is at a minimum $5.00 at the "T" station. Worse case is $35.00
"T" costs are $2.25 each way on the trolley, subway, etc.

Taking the Train in costs me $12.00 round trip.
Parking is $2.00 at the train station
The "T" costs are the same.

The only disadvantage I have is the schedule because I live so far out of the city that I swear the locals pick up the tracks, roads, buildings, put them in a box, and pack them up for the next day once it gets dark outside.

John
 
Until you show a demand, public transportation at your destination will not be implemented. Catch 22. I took the train here, now what?*
Use existing rail, then use the money you saved by not reinventing the wheel to boost public transportation at the destination. Let the two grow together as opposed to dropping billions to just get you there. It won't happen over night.
You also get the benefit of boosting jobs all along the route. The rail line going in, someone has to drive and maintain public transportation at the destination and residents of that destination don't need to maintain a vehicle if their finances are that tight. More money for them to stimulate the economy in the area.

Dave.......
 
Last edited:
You know all of this is well and good..But people in the fly over zone should have the same chance to ride the train just as well as you guys..Is it just we don't deserve this??
 
The fly over thing is a joke. Just media and politicians assigning priority according to popularity and population. Nothing more. The one place they are building high speed rail wants a revote to kill it over costs and ridership after voting for it. Haven't laid the tracks yet.*
Each state should assess their needs. The feds have no clue.
 
Dave:

This is off topic, but what do the asterisks I often see in your posts (your above post being an example) mean?

Thanks,

Zachary.
 
No idea. They just pop up from time to time on this forum, Zachary.*
I'm an a Mac and they just happen from time to time.*
I did notice I get an auto save when posting. Maybe that is it.

Dave........
 
Honestly this country is not ready for high speed rail, we have so thoroughly destroyed our public transit infrastructure that we have to start from the ground up. Many cities have no rail at all, some have one pair of trains a day. That system needs to be expanded before we can even talk about HSR, the solutions already exist in Europe, I'm still amazed at the aversion there has been to DMU's here, in Germany most secondary nonelectric lines are covered by tilting DMU's that can reduce times without track modifications. It would be so easy to take lightly used lines, upgrade them to 50 mph standards and start services with DMU's or even traditional trains, people would ride them even at that speed, that would be a much better use of money then building a few miles of HSR.
 
I can sympathise with your feelings there BobCass but unfortunately there is a differnet mind set over there as here in Gt Britian on passenger rail and that the idea of susidising it in America causes more of a controversy. Equally, nikos1 has a very good contribution there of the picture. Being a passnger rail enthusiasts as well as a fortunate to have come across trainz (!), I am glad i live here. I used to look art a handbook once given to me printed in the 1950's of the US Assoc of RR Companies and boy was it thick. Until there is a change in the mindset that sees everything as motor car and planes for example after decades of rail decline and disappearance taking rail out of the avereage mind it will be sad. I know all about long dstances but even here with 400 mile plus routes you have a whole timetable of trains ot one or maybe two if lucky.
Over the years in a monthly magazine, I have also noticed the return of trams, oak, okay steet cars, trollies, light rail but you know what I mean (!) across the USA. These obviously provide something and it is only a pity that kind of thinking isn't on wider rail outlooks. High speed rail is a thing to look on with binoculars but a rail service like other progressive nations would be something else.
 
Why adopt such an apparently instant angry tone there Superfudd? Is the thread that contentious. Surely the contributions are a reasonable discussion? Ben an education that the word "progressive" is near to being a bad word! :D
 
rjhowie said:
Why adopt such an apparently instant angry tone there Superfudd? Is the thread that contentious. Surely the contributions are a reasonable discussion? Ben an education that the word "progressive" is near to being a bad word! :D
Click to expand...

"Progressive", when used within the context of U.S. politics, is pretty well synonymous with "socialism" as well as with "fascism." In other words, "We know what's good for you, so hand over the money and your civil liberties."
 
When is Ready??When would be the time HSR??I was just reading an article about the state of Iowa, having almost $800 Million Dollar surplus for the Legislators to fiquire out how to spend..The Gov. of that State has said before, He doesn't want to spend $20 Million Dollars to match Amtrak..So Iowa could have Amtrak to serve the big cities in the state..PROGRESSIVE??What is your Interpration of this word??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
Missing KUIDs for a CHN route + High Speed Routes
Replies
4
Views
592
avensis
A
J
Tightness of turns vs train speed: my standard.
Replies
7
Views
846
JonMyrlennBailey
J
J
Can you imagine high-speed trains running all across America?
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
ricomon35
R
A
Good passenger car truck sounds?
Replies
2
Views
474
bnsffan757
B
F
TGV and/or SNCF trains/routes?
Replies
1
Views
647
MichelLmbrt
M
Back
Top