So what's the difference between railways in the UK and USA?

[wholbr]

Hi everybody.
First of all can I thank everybody especially John Citroen for responding to my enquiry regarding railroad passenger development in the United States. I first of all found it amazing that similar attitudes and problems exist both sides of the pond where as I would have expected very different attitudes to commuting in the United States given the greater distances regarding interstate travel. However, it would seem that the same problems exist in road transport with regard to congestion, weather problems and major road blockages of which commuters get “sick to death of” on both sides of the Atlantic. Therefore: -

John, you advise that there is no great demand within the commuting population for the development of a HST system and yet I would have felt that at least an InterCity type system running at a maximum 130 mph which would be similar to what we have here in the United Kingdom would be very much in demand?

One of the biggest advantages of rail commuting is the flexibility of travel. As an example 3 weeks ago I was due to travel up to Manchester from North Somerset for an afternoon meeting the following day. I had booked to travel on the morning of the meeting but then decided it would be easier bring forward the meeting time and to travel up the evening before. I therefore changed my train booking online and immediately went to the station and started my journey within 15 minutes of arrival. In the foregoing way many European business travellers very much appreciate the flexibility of the railway and use it as I have described.

It would seem from the thread postings that American travellers would seem not to appreciate that flexibility even though it has many benefits over air travel in not least having to check-in two hours prior to travel. Is it felt that those attitudes will change given time or will the “apparent” speed of air travel continue to dominate even though it may not actually be the case.

I have a very busy few days in front of me which will very much involve using our rail network. However, I will try to respond to any postings in return of the above so thanks in advance it will give me something to read on the trains if I am not typing up reports etc. Thinking about That, it would not be half bad reading the trainz forum and getting paid for it (lol)

By the who won the Ryder cup as i have not heard. Perhaps some American forum member could advise me.:hehe:
Bill

 

[SuperSpeedMaglev]

Wow I did not expect this to keep going O.e

I'm sure by posting this I've decided it's fate.

 

[nicky9499]

One of the biggest advantages of rail commuting is the flexibility of travel. As an example 3 weeks ago I was due to travel up to Manchester from North Somerset for an afternoon meeting the following day. I had booked to travel on the morning of the meeting but then decided it would be easier bring forward the meeting time and to travel up the evening before. I therefore changed my train booking online and immediately went to the station and started my journey within 15 minutes of arrival. In the foregoing way many European business travellers very much appreciate the flexibility of the railway and use it as I have described.

It would seem from the thread postings that American travellers would seem not to appreciate that flexibility even though it has many benefits over air travel in not least having to check-in two hours prior to travel. Is it felt that those attitudes will change given time or will the “apparent” speed of air travel continue to dominate even though it may not actually be the case.

Bill, keep in mind that the USA is over 40 times larger than Great Britain, and rail infrastructure outside of the NEC is very basic as compared to the UK. Most places don't have the luxury of 4-track mainlines with dedicated tracks for express and local pax/freight. On this congested infrastructure, priority is given to freight trains, and Amtrak delays of many hours happen very often. It's not that American travellers don't appreciate the flexibility a rail system can bring, just that for most parts of America, it simply isn't there. If I wanted to travel across the country by rail, I can't hop on a train 15 minutes earlier because there's only 1 departure a day.

For longer distances rail cannot compete with speed either, as the fastest you'll typically go is 79mph, save for very few stretches in Michigan and again of course, the NEC. Once you leave the cities, you're going to average 30 to 50mph.

 

[johnwhelan]

For longer distances rail cannot compete with speed either, as the fastest you'll typically go is 79mph, save for very few stretches in Michigan and again of course, the NEC. Once you leave the cities, you're going to average 30 to 50mph.

Which means of course that greyhounds or coaches are often much faster.

Cheerio John

 

[kws4000]

Which means of course that greyhounds or coaches are often much faster.

Cheerio John

OH REALLY?
What larks, one bus I was on had to stop for fuel. Driver shut engine off, as is custom. AND IT WOULDN"T RESTART! Waited 4 hours for technician to get out there to restart it (basically middle of nowhere).
Another time, a bus I was on lost its transmission, so it couldn't shift gears, but it could still go. So it had to stop outside of a hilly town and make the patrons walk to their stop.
Further, if you don't have a place to buy tickets, there are no kiosks at stops to do it at.

Amtrak might have problems with their hours of service, but such ridiculousness I have not seen nor heard of.

 

[JCitron]

OH REALLY?
What larks, one bus I was on had to stop for fuel. Driver shut engine off, as is custom. AND IT WOULDN"T RESTART! Waited 4 hours for technician to get out there to restart it (basically middle of nowhere).
Another time, a bus I was on lost its transmission, so it couldn't shift gears, but it could still go. So it had to stop outside of a hilly town and make the patrons walk to their stop.
Further, if you don't have a place to buy tickets, there are no kiosks at stops to do it at.

Amtrak might have problems with their hours of service, but such ridiculousness I have not seen nor heard of.​

I ran into a situation like this during a commute to work one day. I missed the commuter train by 20 seconds - I actually saw the train pulling away as I approached the platform, and rather than wait for a later train, I opted for the bus which runs during the off peak hours. The thing started because I slipped and fell on some ice on my way down the train in the first place. Anyway, the morning was shot and in an attempt to recover, the bus was an option and this sounded great in theory... The bus broke down halfway into Boston! I wasn't near enough to any train station to catch another train on another line so there we sat along the interstate waiting for the replacement bus to show up. Now mind you, this is in the days before mobile phones so I had no way of contacting my manager to let him know I was stuck in limbo. Eventually I made it to work long after I would if I had caught the off peak commuter train which is always on time. To add insult to injury my supervisor yelled at me for not contacting him. Doh, this is before there were mobile phones! Our manager was a bit more sympathetic when I explained what happened and showed him my ripped up knee.

The point is the trains are always more reliable. Sadly as has been said, our Amtrak trains are run as extras, meaning they are not given the priority over the rest of the traffic. This sadly forces the trains to be late and it penalizes the passengers with the poor service. A couple of years ago, I looked into taking Amtrak to Oklahoma City. There were three legs of the trip - Boston to Chicago, Chicago to Fort Worth, then a local train to OKC. The trip would have taken close to five days due to poor running times, and there was no guarantee of connections. The Boston to Chicago, The Lakeshore Limited, is un-affectionately known as the "Lateshore Limited" due to its 90% chance of being late due to freight traffic.

John​

 

[wholbr]

Hi everybody
I believe that many British rail users would be very surprised as i am that in the the United States rail freight traffic takes presidence over passenger services. Surely it must be virtually impossible to run any passenger schedule service with such a rule/regulation in place.

In the United Kingdom the development of commuter rail services has relied on trains running on schedule and i believe that passengares can reclaim the cost of their fare if the services they travel on arrives more than fifteen minutes late at their destination. Network rail calculates its arrival statistics based on trains running no more than five minutes late, beyond whitch they are marked down as a late running service.

As stated strict timetable running is judged as essential by commuter passengers and the train operating companies, even so the rail forums in the UK are always full of complaints regarding trains being fifteen minutes or so late twice in one week many advising that such inefficiencies are simply indefensible.

With the above in mind i would feel that many will fail to see how American rail passenger services can develop in any meaningful way while freight movement takes president over passenger scheduling.

After all, for commuters getting to work or meetings etc on time is essential and if that cannot be reasonably guaranteed people simply will not take up using rail transport and development growth will not be forthcoming.

Bill

 

[JCitron]

Hi everybody
I believe that many British rail users would be very surprised as i am that in the the United States rail freight traffic takes presidence over passenger services. Surely it must be virtually impossible to run any passenger schedule service with such a rule/regulation in place.

In the United Kingdom the development of commuter rail services has relied on trains running on schedule and i believe that passengares can reclaim the cost of their fare if the services they travel on arrives more than fifteen minutes late at their destination. Network rail calculates its arrival statistics based on trains running no more than five minutes late, beyond whitch they are marked down as a late running service.

As stated strict timetable running is judged as essential by commuter passengers and the train operating companies, even so the rail forums in the UK are always full of complaints regarding trains being fifteen minutes or so late twice in one week many advising that such inefficiencies are simply indefensible.

With the above in mind i would feel that many will fail to see how American rail passenger services can develop in any meaningful way while freight movement takes president over passenger scheduling.

After all, for commuters getting to work or meetings etc on time is essential and if that cannot be reasonably guaranteed people simply will not take up using rail transport and development growth will not be forthcoming.

Bill

Bill,

I agree wholly on this. Our state-owned, taxpayer funded, and community-funded, commuter operator the MBTA, is held to the grid-iron in this regard as well. Our commuter trains are generally on-time and when they are not the passengers are given a refund for their missed schedule.

The bus I mentioned was a private operator who received a state-funds to perform the in between schedule bus schedule. The operator has since gone out of business, for obvious reasons, and a new one has taken over the operation. How well they do I don't know since I haven't taken the bus since then. All I know is the traffic is pretty awful and can't see how they can keep to an accurate schedule!

The long-distance rail operations, outside of the Northeast Corridor, are the ones that suffer from delays. This is very much apparent now due to both an increase in rail use by passengers, and the increase in freight operations. We also need better inter-connecting long distance rail. To get to OKC, there is no direct connection as there was 40 years ago. Today there is a train, however, it is a local operation sponsored by Texas and Oklahoma and this runs on an off schedule with a run time of 4 hours in each direction. In this case, I could have opted for a bus connection from Kansas City, but the bus would have been a 5 or 6 hour bus ride that dropped me off in OKC at some ghastly hour when no one should be out unless they're returning from an all-night party! Once the train arrived, I would then have to opt for a hotel pick-up to get me to the pre-picked hotel. With the non-guaranteed arrivals and connections, I opted sadly for a plane flight which was not fun to say the least.

 

[johnwhelan]

Hi everybody
I believe that many British rail users would be very surprised as i am that in the the United States rail freight traffic takes presidence over passenger services. Surely it must be virtually impossible to run any passenger schedule service with such a rule/regulation in place.

In the United Kingdom the development of commuter rail services has relied on trains running on schedule and i believe that passengares can reclaim the cost of their fare if the services they travel on arrives more than fifteen minutes late at their destination. Network rail calculates its arrival statistics based on trains running no more than five minutes late, beyond whitch they are marked down as a late running service.

As stated strict timetable running is judged as essential by commuter passengers and the train operating companies, even so the rail forums in the UK are always full of complaints regarding trains being fifteen minutes or so late twice in one week many advising that such inefficiencies are simply indefensible.

With the above in mind i would feel that many will fail to see how American rail passenger services can develop in any meaningful way while freight movement takes president over passenger scheduling.

After all, for commuters getting to work or meetings etc on time is essential and if that cannot be reasonably guaranteed people simply will not take up using rail transport and development growth will not be forthcoming.

Bill

Each bit of the "country" is different, in some areas freight takes presidence and on some lines / areas it doesn't. My niece was in New York for a time and decided to visit so naturally thought of rail. The average speed was just over 30 mph and that included some much higher speed in Canada, Greyhound was less than half the time.

I think the other major difference is in how people vote. In the UK people tend to vote, in the US companies essentially pay politicians campaign funds so money talks. The advertising is much more aggressive, gerrymandering certainly in the states is accepted as acceptable. Restricting or imposing complicated rules on who can vote also means that what the population would like is quite divorced from what the politicians vote through.

In Europe there is an element of noblesse oblige, or perhaps for the common good, the US regularly has politicians being found guilty of corruption. The political system is designed so that the three different parts have to agree, whilst in the UK if the government of the day says let's build Crossrail it will get done. Also there is a general acceptance that rules such as compensation for late trains are good. There is very little acceptance of the idea this side of the pond.

The states also have a role to play, seven states have populations of less than a million and to be honest you need a million people at least to have reach the population density you need for rail. You also need all 50 odd states to agree that rail is a good thing. Otherwise you do it state by state. So California has a reasonable population and has its own rail system and its not all Amtrak.

I'm not saying whether not the political system in the US is good or bad but it is stacked against cooperative solutions such as rail that don't reflect a particular commercial lobby group. Now freight on the other hand has done well in the states, flat land with few tunnels means the loading gauge can be quite big. So double stacked containers, two level coaches and those long freight trains with one crew looking after maybe three big locos mean costs per mile are much lower than in the UK.

Cheerio John

 

[robd]

Problems may be solved for the US but it will cost many dollars:

http://home.bt.com/techgadgets/futuretech/the-trains-of-tomorrow-revealed-11363935468116