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.
Private passenger rail won't be profitable until the government stops pouring billions of our tax dollars into road construction and maintenance.
passenger rail is NOT profitable at all....especially government......65% of the DOT budget is to Amtrak...and it loses money every year.....that's why "government freight" (ConRail) went broke
HSR will not work: not at least the way most people THINK it will work
1. ""high speed"' HAS to be between far distances with NO inbetween stops....otherwise it will never be high speed.....in other words you could have a boston to NYC....but you would HAVE to leave the people of CT in the dust..... or a NYC to WASHDC....leaving the people of NJ and del and Maryland in the dust
2. government rail doesn't work....Amtrak has lost money every year since its creation in the 1970's.....
2a. tyr taking an amtrak from NYC to NC.....time..... 25 hrs...so many stops....meanwhile its a 10 hr drive......now think about all the stops...most people forget about the stops when they '''dream''' of HSR
3. for the west coast..you would need to have Tijuana to seatle, for it to be feasible as a HIGHSPEED rail
46 years of losses
not once in 46 years has Amtrak had a profit or broke even
That's plain silly. The Car companies ripped up electric trolleys all over the USA 100+ years ago - and said we should instead use these new devices they would build called "busses".
The push to replace streetcars emerged simultaneously with the rise of the auto-oriented suburb; streetcar systems were limited by the fixed (and expensive) nature of rail construction and maintenance -- not to mention the "umbilical cord" of electrical catenary and/or the public's unease over outdoor third rail. Buses, in contrast, could go anywhere and adapt inexpensively as housing patterns changed.
In addition, the operating loss of the streetcar system could be deducted against the revenues of the bus system, possibly reducing taxes (though, given the poor economic prospects of all public transit, I doubt this was ever much of a factor).
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-15-2017 at 10:34 PM..
passenger rail is NOT profitable at all....especially government......65% of the DOT budget is to Amtrak...and it loses money every year.....that's why "government freight" (ConRail) went broke
HSR will not work: not at least the way most people THINK it will work
1. ""high speed"' HAS to be between far distances with NO inbetween stops....otherwise it will never be high speed.....in other words you could have a boston to NYC....but you would HAVE to leave the people of CT in the dust..... or a NYC to WASHDC....leaving the people of NJ and del and Maryland in the dust
2. government rail doesn't work....Amtrak has lost money every year since its creation in the 1970's.....
2a. tyr taking an amtrak from NYC to NC.....time..... 25 hrs...so many stops....meanwhile its a 10 hr drive......now think about all the stops...most people forget about the stops when they '''dream''' of HSR
3. for the west coast..you would need to have Tijuana to seatle, for it to be feasible as a HIGHSPEED rail
46 years of losses
not once in 46 years has Amtrak had a profit or broke even
Have said this before and am doing so again; passenger rail on its own largely has *NEVER* been profitable for any railroad, private or government owned.
Back in the day yes, all Tier 1 railroads had passenger service, some of it was rather luxurious (Twentieth Century Limited for instance), but it was freight be it on the same train or part of the RR that paid the bills.
Once freight began to leave railroads in large numbers, they were left with often money losing passenger service, and worse federal government rules/laws/regulations well into really the 1980's forced them to do so. It wouldn't be until the Staggers Act that the federal government largely deregulated the industry, but by that time the damage was already done. Great railroads such as the PRR, New York Central, Lackawanna and so forth were all gone. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Staggers_Rail_Act
HSR is best for distances of around 515 kilometers (give or take) & can have one or more stops in between. The optimum is 15-35 kilometers between stops. What matters more is the ability of train to accelerate and brake rapidly. The European and Japanese high speed trains can reach speeds of 200km/hr. in under one minute.
That kind of speed means electric power, and the United States has very little railroad ROW "under the wires". What there is of it can be found mostly on the NEC and few other places. United States railroads largely depend upon diesel locomotives which top out at around 125mph max speed in service.
Electrification is one of the biggest obstacles to HSR in the United States. In Europe or elsewhere such as Japan where pretty much all trains including freight run on electricity it creates the density necessary to justify running lines. To build out several hundred km of centenary just for a few trains per day just does not make sense.
Another obstacle is the mandated train design in USA versus say Europe or Japan. American passenger trains are required to have structural strength to protect passengers in case of a crash. This leads to locomotives and cars that are rather heavy; and the more weight there is the more power it takes to get a train going and stop it. In Europe and elsewhere the focus is on crash avoidance, that is using technology such as in cab signaling and positive train control. Two technologies by the way that were invented by American railroads back in the day.
As we've seen from recent train crashes in USA despite government mandates much of the ROW in USA still lacks positive train control and or in cab signaling. Without both you cannot run trains above a certain speed and you certainly cannot have HSR.
I am all for it if its built by private companies and not subsidized by taxpayers.
Only private railroads left in this country are nearly all freight, and they by and large want nothing to do with passenger service to any great extent.
Just to clear the record airports and highways are not largely operated by "private companies" and or receive direct or indirect federal/local government subsidies. So why should passenger rail be forced to go it alone?
It was the pouring of vast sums into road and air transportation post WWII while also keeping railroads under the government boot that was largely responsible for many going under in first place.
True some would have done so anyway as markets were changing, but still...
It took almost 40 years to complete the interstate highway, right?
Not exactly. The Pennsylvania Turnpike was the first long-distance limited-access "superhighway", developed in the late Thirties; about the same time as the German autobahn. The first, and most challenging section, through the Allegheny Mountains, was built largely upon the broad curves, and lower mountain grades of the South Penn Railroad, a stillborn project of the late Nineteenth Century. The Pennsylvania Turnpike opened in 1940.
The demands of World War II put a temporary end to superhighway construction but a rebirth began in the early Fifties, and by 1956, New York, New Jersey, Ohio and Indiana all had major highways under construction. It was at this time that President Eisenhower, who was a master of logistics (moving troops and supplies to the battle) rather than a combat soldier, proposed a nationwide system of Interstate and Defense Highways, to be Federally funded. By this time, perhaps 1500-2000 miles of "interstate grade" highway had been built.
The last major segment of Interstate Highway to be completed (in my memory, somewhat biased since I worked as a motor fleet dispatcher at the time) was Interstate 80 across Northern New Jersey, opened in the winter of 1972-73. So I think 15-20 years is a more realistic assessment of the lead time involved.
I favor a national rail system...a better network and better schedule. I don't care that much whether it is all high speed rail. Some of it can be but mostly in designated metro corridors. Air travel is awful from start to finish and getting worse. The nation's highway system and bridges are in bad shape. The common notion that people don't like train travel is hogwash because the system is designed to fail and compete poorly with other modes of transportation. The idea that you have to go from El Paso to Chicago or LA in order to get to Denver or Albuquerque is insane. With a good rail network and reasonable schedules there would be a major increase in passengers. Trains are full or nearly full now, contrary to what people think. I'll never fly if I can take the train based on my experiences over the past few years.
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.
