Quite a difference - GB and US

[rjhowie]

Well our 2 countries have much historically to link us but what a rail difference! I well now there are all sorts of reasons for the decline of American passenger rail since the 1950's and being a rail fan basically think it is a sad thing. I came across an Amtrak plug recently for their services where they claimed that for everyone takinga plane there are 3 taking the train. Sounds good although again obviously cars and coach travel is a stiff competition to cope with! From memory I think Amtrak had just over half a billion passengers then I discovered that here in GB in 2012 we passed one and a half billion. Years ago I visited America and on my first visit travelled between NYC and DC (the Metroliner actually passed us!) and the second visit I did Philly. Enjoyed both trips but there were reminders of ast glory days when we approached Philadelphia and seen a main station with a row of empty platforms. On another site, I have seen a reference to Ls Vegas and suggestions of re-introducing a service from California to there but that a prospective train set was sitting for two years doing nothing??

Even though we lost a big chunk back in the 1960's we are fortunate to have even with passing moans a wide train service and even on long routes several trains a day. So I did enjoy my Amtrak experiences but glad as a great passenger train lover that I live here in GB!

ps. Just some harmless and passing musing.

 

[frogpipe]

It's true, at least from my perspective here in the US, that we have a shameful state of affairs when it comes to rail travel. I often shake my head at the money being spent now to reinstall (albeit with some improvements) the rail lines that were removed 50-60 years ago.

 

[cascaderailroad]

Remember Dwight D Eisenhower ? It was his plan to dismantle trolley lines, and passenger trains, with the help of his cronies in Congress, along with oil, gas barrons, especially GM, Ford ... etc ...

Who lobbied Congressmen, and paid millions to have thousands of electric cars destroyed ? ... Guess who ?

That's why ... the way ... we are !

 

[opus722]

It's quite amazing sometimes really. Amtrak is saying it will take something like three decades just to bring the NEC to true high speed status. The Transcontinental Railroad was constructed from the Missouri River to Sacramento in just 6 years. Most of that was financed through government loans though which would be next to impossible today since the US, or at least its more backward citizens that are overrepresented thanks to your friendly neighborhood gerrymander, up and decided that any government spending of any kind is socialism and must be stopped at all costs even if it means cutting your own leg off.

It is rather worrying for the future since the US committed itself to air and highway travel, at the cost of destroying passenger rail infrastructure, but even those are underfunded.

 

[kws4000]

It's quite amazing sometimes really. Amtrak is saying it will take something like three decades just to bring the NEC to true high speed status. The Transcontinental Railroad was constructed from the Missouri River to Sacramento in just 6 years. Most of that was financed through government loans though which would be next to impossible today since the US, or at least its more backward citizens that are overrepresented thanks to your friendly neighborhood gerrymander, up and decided that any government spending of any kind is socialism and must be stopped at all costs even if it means cutting your own leg off.

It is rather worrying for the future since the US committed itself to air and highway travel, at the cost of destroying passenger rail infrastructure, but even those are underfunded.

Trans-con was built quickly because it was thought there was only money in the construction, and not in the operation, of the railroad. Durant and the Big Four skimmed millions in some way or another, and they did it quickly. Government oversight was limited, if any. OSHA, EPA, DNR, and the alphabet soup did not exist. All we had was the Army, Navy, the Courts, Congress, and POTUS. But to everyone, please remember the Laffer Curve. It works, and politics is done here.

 

[frogpipe]

Tis true, the Transcon cost a lot of lives...

 

[nikos1]

The transcontinental RR is a bad benchmark, most of the track was so shoddy that it had to be entirely rebuilt before regular operations could begin.

 

[AJ_Fox]

Having lived in Europe, it is a totally different situation there. Europe has an excellent rail network with connections everywhere. The US passenger rail rail system disappeared in the mid 1970's. Bearing in mind, I was born in the seventies, so I didn't experience much then, but now the system does exist in the Northeast and California. In fact, California is in the process of delving into high speed rail. Don't get me wrong, most large cities in the US have rail service as California such as BART, Caltrains, Altamont Commuter Express (ACE) and local light rail systems. Others exist in many US cities. Hopefully, Rail America will find it's place soon.

Cheers

AJ

 

[rjhowie]

Too true there. I once had a chat with an American visitor here and he was surprised at the depth of rail and travel here in Gt Britain and Europe. As a young man, I got into a conversation with man on a bench who had in his younger days had been the driver of President Truman's train. His recollections of rail in America before it's tragic decline were of great interest. A whie back here on the Forums I commented that the difference in our two nations was well reflected here on Trainz. By that I meant that the vast majority of uncle Sam's do freight and the john bulls, passenger. What I really need to do is get up into my loft and find the National Assoc of American Railroads book from the 1950's. It was truly fascinating as it listed an awful lot more rail companies than today from small companies of a few miles to the giants. The content also had Cuba in the days before it's revolution, Mexico and Canada. It would be a humdinger for any American of today and is a really thick volume of yesteryear.

 

[johnwhelan]

I seem to recall that the underground and commuter rail in London in the UK carries more traffic than the rest of the UK per day. Have we counted all the commuter rail in North America or just looked at Amtrak?

Thanks John

 

[wholbr]

HI rjhowie, John and everybody.

I seem to recall that the underground and commuter rail in London in the UK carries more traffic than the rest of the UK per day. Have we counted all the commuter rail in North America or just looked at Amtrak?
Thanks John

John, you are perfectly right in stating that commuter rail in and around south-east England carries more passengers than the rest of the national rail network put together. However, the London Underground passenger figures are counted separately to the national rail figures as London Underground is operated by the London council (city of London Corporation) which is totally separate to network rail. That said, the passenger figures for the London Underground are staggering to say the least. In the year 2010 to 2011, 1.1 7 billion journeys were made through the underground system, and doubtless the figures will be again higher for subsequent year (s).

With regard to network rail which covers all the rest of the United Kingdom including the south-east region, then 1.8 million journeys were made across the system with 65% of these being in the south-east region. However, passenger numbers are increasing rapidly right across the whole network with journey numbers rising by over 10% per year for the last five years. In the areas surrounding large cities such as Manchester, Birmingham, Cardiff and Bristol then passenger numbers have increased in some cases by up to 15% year-on-year. The foregoing figures has the whole system “creaking at the seams” with overcrowding being a daily bugbear on many routes, which I can vouch for as I often make two or three HST long-distance journeys per week.

I feel the big difference between Britain/ Europe and America is that the love affair with the car in Britain and Europe is most definitely over, whereas in America from what I read that is far from the case at present, but that is a different discussion as to the reasons why.

Bill

 

[johnwhelan]

I feel the big difference between Britain/ Europe and America is that the love affair with the car in Britain and Europe is most definitely over, whereas in America from what I read that is far from the case at present, but that is a different discussion as to the reasons why.

Bill

When aged parent visited from the UK his greatest kick was driving somewhere then parking outside. He couldn't get over the fact that practically everywhere had free parking except for down town. I took him through the worse of the morning rush hour, the traffic slows to 80 kms per hour between 8 am and 8:15, he lived ten miles out of the centre of London. There were two gas stations having a price war so he brought gas at 25 cents per litre. I think that was ten years ago these days the traffic is worse, it slows to maybe 50 kms per hour between 7:30 to 8:15 and we have fewer gas price wars. You now have to pay for a bit more parking but most is free, and the locals complain about the price of gas, its cheaper in the US since they don't have HST or VAT as you call it. We now have our own commuter rail, single track, 3 car sets that goes as one person put it from nowhere to nowhere, except through one of the local University campuses but we're planning to go electric real soon now.

I can't think of any reasons why the UK takes more rail trips.

Cheerio John

 

[cascaderailroad]

After England was bombed to smitherines in WWII, the US helped rebuild, and continually helped fund the rebuilding of England, Germany, and other European countries, including Japans infrastructure ... so it is no wonder European countries infrastructure are so much better than the US ... as in the US, we let our own infrastructure decay, and just tore things down, and scrapped everything dear to us.

 

[rjhowie]

A passing and important correction and detailed correction is needed. You are appreciated for acknowledging we were badly done on by the Luftwaffe (although managed to stun them all by ourselves) but "England" should have been Britain. Glasgow was a target here in the northern part of the Kingdom. Belfast was cruelly done in too.Just over the Glasgow boundary the yards at Clydebank and the big Singer factory making armanents were targets and over 90% of the town flattened and only a few houses left complete.

Yes we did get money from America but that is not the proper and full story. unlike Europe we did NOT get a handout it was a masive loan with interest on top of that so the states got a profit and we had to take longer than Europe. In fact it was only during the government before the present one that it was finally paid off so big money with all that decades of interest. So no handouts here! Think it is only right to say that. Unfortunately for all it's modernising ethos the US started to regard rail as a thing of a past time unlike us and the rest of the advancing world. Sadly even countries which were once easy to shove into the 3rd World category are now ahead on that one. As said, I enjoyed my US rail trips on the two visits but was being a rail fan glad to get back to where passenger trains are the big everyday thing and not a case of "Was that a passenger train? Wow!!"

 

[Paulsw2]

....as London Underground is operated by the London council (city of London Corporation) which is totally separate to network rail. ...

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but London Underground is part of Transport for London which is one of the subsidiary bodies of the Greater London Authority, the strategic level local authority for the whole of Greater London for which the executive is the Mayor of London (yes, Boris!) Not to be confused with the Corporation of London which is the local authority for the square mile of the City of London (otherwise known as the biggest casino outside Las Vegas). The Corporation is Britain's last 'rotten borough' - the only place in the country which maintains a property qualification for the vote (ie. business ratepayers have the vote and actually outnumber residential voters for elections to the Corporation). It's also the only local authority which retains Aldermen - councillors who are elected by other councillors rather than by voters.

Ironically, one of the reasons that underground railways started in London was that the City Corporation - Lord Mayor, Aldermen and all - absolutely refused to countenance any major (overground) railway station within the City boundaries during the 19th Century. So the great railway termini were built outside the City, greatly contributing to traffic congestion. The Metropolitan Railway was built to connect Paddington, Euston, Kings Cross with Farringdon, which is as close as the City fathers were prepared to permit at the time.

Paul

 

[Blutorse4792]

Extensive passenger rail isn't necessary in the United States, and the size/density of our country doesn't really permit it. While there is some value in maintaining commuter systems (in cities like New York or Chicago where they are already in place) and busy corridors like the northeast, the U.S. just aren't meant for passenger rail. The only reason we ever had it in the first place was that railroads could offset the cost thanks to government subsidies for the Railway Post Office system. That was cancelled in 1967, and Amtrak was formed 4 years later.

We do arguably have the best freight network, though, and it's more extensive than Russia and China (the next two) combined.

 

[pfx]

Interesting you should bring that up Paul. Look up Rememberancer, the unelected representative of the City of London who sits in the House of Commons. All very suspicious.

 

[rjhowie]

I would fully agree Blutorse4792 that you have a well organised railway freight situation and no doubt greater than the countries you mention too. at the same time I have to say that for the rest of the world the main railway leaning is passenger hence all these new fast systems between cities and that unfortunately the US loses out. My mentioning of how this effects Trainz and that US fans tend to be more freight inclines to reflect the practicality whereas here it is the passenger. Kind of natural I reckon for those across the pond of a younger generation especially have grown up with seeing loads of freight trains so influences them naturally when building in Trainz. I ,like most folk here grew up with passenger trains hogging the rails so a complete contrast. Both have their places of course.

 

[Paulsw2]

Extensive passenger rail isn't necessary in the United States, and the size/density of our country doesn't really permit it. While there is some value in maintaining commuter systems (in cities like New York or Chicago where they are already in place) and busy corridors like the northeast, the U.S. just aren't meant for passenger rail. .....

I'll stand corrected if I've got the numbers wrong, but doesn't the north east of the US have population densities and distances that compare with Europe or Japan? If so, why should it be any more problematic technically to develop mass and high speed passenger rail there than it was in the latter two places? The difference is surely political rather than anything to do with demographics or geography?

Paul

EDIT: just done a little bit of checking. High speed rail is the preferred mass transport option for sub-400 mile distances in Europe and Japan. Approx. 80 million people live within 400 miles radius of New York City and the major conurbations of Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, Montreal and (almost) Toronto are all within that distance. So there's no railway related reason why high speed passenger rail is not the preferred transport option for these cities.

 

[wholbr]

Hi John,rjhowie, Paul and everybody

Sorry to be a bit pedantic, but London Underground is part of Transport for London which is one of the subsidiary bodies of the Greater London Authority, the strategic level local authority for the whole of Greater London for which the executive is the Mayor of London (yes, Boris!)
Paul

I humbly stand corrected their Paul in stating in my earlier posting the words Council and Corporation. Actually, I felt that the statements were not correct but could not remember what the names of the London authority bodies where. It’s probably just that at the age of 69 and still working you find that the brain begins to crumble. I must retire before I turn into an old dithering, blithering idiot. Although, I think there are many who already believe I am that now.

~snip~ I can't think of any reasons why the UK takes more rail trips.
~snip~ Cheerio John

John, there is a simple reason why the British are turning to rail for their transport, that being punctuality and productivity. We are a nation of over 60 million people which may not sound that many to the larger geographic nations of the world. However, those 60 million people are somewhat crowded onto these comparatively small islands, which makes much of Britain rank among the most densely populated places in the world.

The foregoing therefore has turned Britain’s road network (especially its motorways) into a proverbial nightmare to travel on through congestion. If you take one of my regular journeys as an example, I often have to travel to London which is approximately 135 miles from my home town in Somerset. If I decide to travel by car, I would have to leave home at the latest by 5:30am in the morning for a 10am appointment, and with a good run get as far as Reading by 7am. With about 40 miles to go you would think there would be no problem.

NOT SO, even at that time in the morning congestion makes it a stop-go journey all the way to the junction with the M25, then clockwise around that and onto the M40/A40 all in the rush-hour as I would normally park at Perivale Underground station. There is extremely limited parking in central London and it can be up to £50 for all day parking, plus a congestion charge. So, Perivale is the best option or stations like it for me and hundreds of thousands of others daily unless you are a millionaire. You can then join the London Underground system which is often the quickest part of the journey, but by then it can be in the “lap of the gods” whether you will be on time for your 10 AM appointment/meeting.

Doing the same journey by rail, I can catch the 6:40am HST from my local station which gets me into London Paddington at 8:45am. From the platform it’s down the escalator and into the London Underground system. Then district line to Notting Hill gate, then Central Line to the Heart of central London which is where I normally need to attend, and usually guaranteeing my arrival by approximately 9:15am.

Commuting by road into the centre of any large British town or city is fraught with the same identical problems as the above in my experience. People can also work while travelling by rail and with most HST services now having Wi-Fi on-board business commuters can transfer documents to and from their office base. In my own above case travelling by rail can produce up to five hours of productive work as against over nine hours of un-productive downtime when travelling by road as you cannot do anything while driving with the exception of getting very frustrated, late, tired and fed up.

Hope this clarifies to our American, Canadian and Australian Trainzing colleagues why the British and European populations are so rapidly turning once again to rail travel as the premier source of transport for commuting and longer distance travel.

Bill