Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The US is a BIG country. Rail is not the most efficient system for travelers. It's easier to fly point to point or make one stop than take a 2/3 day train trip. Trains make too many stops to be practical.
For example, they have been talking about restoring - not expanding, just restoring - passenger service west of Norristown toward Pottstown and Reading. I know funding is an issue but the two-track system is considered "busy" but freight trains pass less than one per hour. Even if freight service triples in 20-30 years which is NS's claim how would 1-2 freight trains an hour and 1-2 passenger trains an hour be problematic, especially on a two-track line? I know logistics are involved and things aren't that simple in real life but it certainly doesn't seem impossible - or even that difficult - with modern dispatching (except for electrifying the tunnel).
That line is a huge and underutilized asset. Also note that it was built by the Reading Railroad and used by both freight and passenger service for decades, at a time when trains ran more frequently than they do now, though at that time some sections had four tracks.
As Mr. cwa has tried to point out, freight and passenger railroading, while possible to combine when the disparities in speed are not too great, are very different with regard to operating and dispatching constraints. Passenger trains can accelerate and decelerate more rapidly because they have more horsepower per ton of weight; passenger moves also usually start and stop more frequently. Once a freight train of 5-10,000 tons is on the move, dispatchers don't want to sidetrack it unless absolutely necessary.
A century ago, passenger train speeds topped out at 60 MPH, freights seldom went faster than 15-20 MPH. Overtaking slower moves required extra sidings, and eventually, double-track. Where traffic became extremely heavy on the main lines of some Eastern trunk lines, four tracks, one for passenger and one for freight in each direction, was the eventual answer.
And for reasons I'll elaborate upon if asked, running "against the current" (westbound on a track designated for eastbound moves) was risky, and allowed only by written order. This problem gradually eased as the disparity between freight and passenger speeds diminished, so the handful of four-track main lines were eventually cut back to two, to reduce property taxes and maintenance-of-way costs.
Restoring passenger service from Harrisburg to New York via Reading and Allentown (Harrisburg-Philadelphia service is already offered via Lancaster, and the signal system allows for a top speed of 110 MPH!) seems like a no-brainer, but the line already sees about 15 freight moves per day in each direction, and you can add on at least 10 more when the Philadelphia freight line traffic is added in west of Reading. Local service to industries along the line further complicates matters.
There is one alternative; the Pennsylvania used to run freight service from Harrisburg to Morrisville, PA (in Bucks County, opposite Trenton, NJ) via Columbia and a bypass around Philadelphia. This line, known as the Trenton Cutoff, remains intact for local service and could be revived for the freight traffic, but it is a shadow of its former self, and the cost would be substantial.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 01-31-2015 at 06:11 PM..
Why don't you take a look at the people you southerners send to our national govt.
You realize she was born in Canada and moved to the South right? So your stereotypical southern view (all your views are stereotypes for that matter) doesn't work towards newdixiegirl.
Good post. Yep, I discovered the same thing when I wanted to take the train from Nashville to Michigan. No can do. Unbelievable. It's crazy that a city like Nashville has no train service, let alone the fact that larger metro areas in the US don't, either.
For the record, Nashville had passenger service under the original Amtrak network -- one train each way daily, part of a Chicago-Florida service. Unfortunately, this particular route seemed to epitomize all the handicaps and obstacles facing Amtrak; it was impossible to serve all the possible intermediate points -- Indianapolis, Louisville, Nashville, (and either Chattanooga-Atlanta or Birmingham-Montgomery, but not both) without laving some of the contenders out in the cold, or having that one daily train pass in the middle of the night. Furthermore, the service ran largely through rural areas -- people living under those limitations usually have a "fall-back" plan, like local bus service or a relative, when they absolutely have to get somewhere.
Amtrak tried just about everything it could to preserve this service (with the possible exception of adding a separate feeder originating from Detroit via Cincinnati -- which could not have served all the "slighted" cities without linking up with the original route as far south as Georgia). It also tried adding its popular Auto-Train service -- all to no avail.
America's tastes in travel, and the options offered, have changed considerably since Amtrak was originally conceived as a temporary support for elderly Americans who had never learned to drive and weren't reconciled to flying. That generation is long gone, but the "cruise ship" known as Amtrak long -distance continues to delight railroad buffs at the expense of its budget.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 02-01-2015 at 05:21 PM..
Rail makes since in dense areas of the US: California, Northeast, and larger metro areas. Taking a train from NYC to Boston would be fun and quicker than driving or maybe flying (to avoid airport hassle and traffic).
It doesn't make since in more rural, spread out areas like the Midwest or Southeast. Taking a train from Denver to Chicago wouldn't be very efficient. It would be quicker and easier to fly.
Trains in Europe are great because most countries are the size of states.
Good post. Yep, I discovered the same thing when I wanted to take the train from Nashville to Michigan. No can do. Unbelievable. It's crazy that a city like Nashville has no train service, let alone the fact that larger metro areas in the US don't, either.
You would think with amount of small cities Tennessee has, they connect them much efficiently with rail to get to the city centers fast
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mandalorian
The US is a BIG country.
Precisely why we need invest more in our passenger rail system. To connect the country. this is the reason why they made the transcontinental railroad after the civil war. To reunite the nation. Planes need fuel to fly. I don't want to be at the mercy of middle east and send our military to die for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by attrapereves
Taking a train from Denver to Chicago wouldn't be very efficient.
If you have ever visited denver, you'd be surprised how progressive their rail system is. They expanding their regional commuter rail and they building a train to the plane. I was actually quite impressed.
You would think with amount of small cities Tennessee has, they connect them much efficiently with rail to get to the city centers fast
Precisely why we need invest more in our passenger rail system. To connect the country. this is the reason why they made the transcontinental railroad after the civil war. To reunite the nation. Planes need fuel to fly. I don't want to be at the mercy of middle east and send our military to die for it.
If you have ever visited denver, you'd be surprised how progressive their rail system is. They expanding their regional commuter rail and they building a train to the plane. I was actually quite impressed.
The reason they built the Transcontinental Railroad was strictly money. It was there to be made and the railroads made plenty.
Amtrak runs mostly on other's rails, and they must stay on exact schedule, when the freight Railroad plan them on to the tracks, Amtrak is late, they lose there slot time on the rails, and the next train that is due there is on the rails, Freight is not going to hold up its train waiting around for Amtrak train to show up, so they have clear run. The Freight operation center/dispatch, know how late the Amtrak train will be if more then a few minutes late, they are going to clear there train down the line.
A train need to have have hundreds of passengers to make it worth running, it may only run one or few times a day between cities. A airplane can move many times a day with just 50-150 people per trip.
So funny you mention that on the NORTHEAST CORRIDOR Freight runs through but i think during mostly overnight and late nights....but when AMTRAK is late ...AMTRAK gets top priority making the other trains (SEPTA, NJTRANSIT ) wait and be late. It cracks me up and irritated at times. We will already be on schedule and AMTRAK is late and needs to clear the signal and track.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
