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.
It's all about lobbying. There's not a big passenger rail lobby because for the most part it has to be government subsidized. Conversely, the oil, trucking, and auto industries can lobby for interstate infrastructure.
It's the same reason a lot of city's trolly networks were paved over and decommissioned. At one time most cities had trollies and light rail. Lobbyists said nope.
Not quite accurate with the implications. The trucking industry is in bed with the rail roads. Most over the road trucking is disappearing due to the driver shortage. All the big trucking companies JB Hunt, FedEx, Schneider, UPS, etc. have contracts with rail yards to move there containers and regular road trailers by rail due to how much cheaper it is. Then there is the fact trucking companies can't hire enough drivers to replace all the drivers that are retiring and will be continuing to do so in the next decade since younger generation aren't interested in driving truck.
That means more and more freight is going to the rails. Which has been very profitable for everyone involved and the federal, state and local governments have been help funding expansion programs for the rail yards to get more freight off the highways onto trains. None of this is doing big oil any favors. Also the auto industry heavily relies on freight trains as well. You would be shocked how many cars are shipped by train around the country before getting to a car dealership.
The reason why passenger rail fell out of service is due to the rise of the automobile and the creation of the interstate highway system. That I will agree with you on. It hasn't come back yet because of the cost of building an entire new separate rail way system for passenger rail across the country would run into the trillions. You can make a case for increasing passenger rail but as of right now it just doesn't have the support. Freight rail is to important to replace with passenger rail due to economics and environmental impact since freight rail takes huge amounts of freight off the highways at low costs and reduces ware and tare on our highway infrastructure while reducing pollution by having less trucks on the road.
I'd rather drive my car/truck/motorcycle then ride on a train. I think most Americans value their independence rather then living in a cattle car society.
I'd rather drive my car/truck/motorcycle then ride on a train. I think most Americans value their independence rather then living in a cattle car society.
In 25 years most people won't drive their own cars, though. It's all about progressing beyond where we are now and planning for the future.
Because we live in a federal republic, which make it very difficult to get anything done between states. It's instructive that the two systems with the best chances of moving forward are entirely with single states (California and Texas).
It's also very hard to get Congress on board because HSR will never be viable in the majority of states, like Alabama or North Dakota, etc. The Senate won't want to vote for it because any system would necessarily be centered in a handful of high-population areas.
That rules out freight trains using them for hauling intermodal containers which is the largest growing business for the rail roads. So it is a rather bonehead move.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwa1984
SEPTA is unique because it is all electric unlike NYC.
I believe just about all of the trains running into NY Penn or Grand Central are electric, either overhead wires or third-rail.
All in all, electrification is a big investment, and makes little sense unless the line sees frequent daily use. On the NEC and Keystone Corridors it's right there, but most Amtrak route mileage sees more like 1-2 trains per day. I wouldn't hold my breath though on US freight roads to electrify any time soon, even on heavy-traffic corridors. With overhead wires, it's just another major piece of infrastructure to build and maintain. On passenger and commuter lines, the economics might work a little different and it's worth the trouble.
Wouldn't time be a factor in this. With the advancement in flights, travelling from California to NY would probably take 25% of the time it takes on a train. European countries are smaller. Heck... 5-6 European counties would combine just to make Texas.
Wouldn't time be a factor in this. With the advancement in flights, travelling from California to NY would probably take 25% of the time it takes on a train. European countries are smaller. Heck... 5-6 European counties would combine just to make Texas.
I think it's safe to say that such long routes will never happen. Makes no sense, either it's too slow or too expensive. Instead, regional systems somewhat similar to the Northeast Corridor with extensive local commuter rail systems might very well be a reality in several places throughout the US in the coming decades.
One line i always like to mention is the ex-Pennsylvania line that runs through from Gary via Ft. Wayne to Lima, OH. An almost arrow-straight line which i believe was double tracked, sees very light freight usage at the moment. Very likely to be a key component of as a part of a Midwest high-speed rail system running from Chicago eastward to several different metropolitan areas if one ever gets built. Needs alot of work though, and especially in the metropolitan areas there's ripped out tracks, congested terminals, busy level crossings, big price tags and plenty of headaches.
Just doing some math... It is doable. You would the need the worlds fastest train and fewer stops.
The distance is 3940 km from LA to NY, and the world's fastest train is 360 kmph (Shanghai Maglev, according to Google)! So that's a 11 hour journey! Include stops and breaks would make it 15/16 hours! Not bad!
I believe just about all of the trains running into NY Penn or Grand Central are electric, either overhead wires or third-rail.
Didn't think it was high enough...it just barely is though. Can't have that going through an intermodal terminal though due to top loading from cranes and front loaders but apparently you can have it go through areas with electrified rail on a train hauling containers.
I stand corrected on that issue. As far as NY goes that still use some diesel locomotives although there hybrids for the most part being able to switch back and forth from electric to diesel.
Quote:
All in all, electrification is a big investment, and makes little sense unless the line sees frequent daily use. On the NEC and Keystone Corridors it's right there, but most Amtrak route mileage sees more like 1-2 trains per day. I wouldn't hold my breath though on US freight roads to electrify any time soon, even on heavy-traffic corridors. With overhead wires, it's just another major piece of infrastructure to build and maintain. On passenger and commuter lines, the economics might work a little different and it's worth the trouble.
Most freight lines in the US are heavy traffic and if not are picking up in traffic if a line is not receiving any traffic that means it is no longer operational and hasn't been in a while usually needing extensive repair. However that doesn't mean a ton of people live in those areas. So yeah electrification of existing freight lines doesn't make sense. And using where I live again as an example in Harrisburg metro area we have a ton of freight traffic and we have passenger traffic on trains but they are different lines so it works out. If you tried to run everything on the same lines you would cause more delays then there are right now and right now we can have some serious delays in the area.
Didn't think it was high enough...it just barely is though. Can't have that going through an intermodal terminal though due to top loading from cranes and front loaders but apparently you can have it go through areas with electrified rail on a train hauling containers.
Usually when freight and higher volume passenger rail run together the freight separates into their own freight terminals.
Quote:
Most freight lines in the US are heavy traffic and if not are picking up in traffic if a line is not receiving any traffic that means it is no longer and hasn't been in a while needing extensive repair. However that doesn't mean a ton of people live in those areas. So yeah electrification of existing freight lines doesn't make sense.
Not all freight lines are that busy. The commuter rail lines by Boston could handle electrification fine, not all of them have lots of freight and the freight can manage.
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.
