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.
Just so you know historically since deregulation the airline industry as a whole has only had brief intervals of profitability. Otherwise things were quite different. You see this in that there are only a handful of domestic carriers left in the USA and very few of the "legacy" carriers.
Low fuel prices, lack of competition on many routes, and the fact airlines have found ways to squeeze more revenue out of passengers has helped many carriers bottom lines recently. This can change and is by no means permanent.
Just so you also know nearly everywhere in Europe or Asia where HSR was rolled out air travel along same routes declined.
Passenger rail transport will never replace long haul flights. However on short haul it is a different ball game all together.
As to the balance of your post, am sorry but much of it just is not true.
On the NEC Amtrak is bursting at the seams with passengers. Indeed it is one of if not the only part of that RR which is largely profitable and could be self sufficient.
Private companies/individuals aren't jumping in to start new airlines either. If airlines are so profitable and so forth you'd think another "People's Express" or other start-up would appear.
If you look at other countries who are currently investing in High Speed Rail you get an insight in to how much this is going to cost.
For instance the UK spent £6 Billion on building a high speed connection to the Channel Tunnel as part of High Speed 1, the next stage is High Speed 2, which will take high speed train to the Midlands and North of England, the current projected cost £55.7 Billion ($75 Billion) and that's for a relatively small country, and the cost at the end of the project might far exceed original estimates.
The UK seems to be on a rail spending spree at the moment with Crossrail, a rail system running under Central London set to open next year at a cost of £15 Billion whilst Thameslink will also be completed next year at a cost of £6.5 Billion, and Crossrail 2 is about to be given the go ahead at a cost of £31 Billion.
Then you have the proposed Northern Powerhouse rail or HS3 as it is sometimes known, which will link Northern cities via a high speed network, at a cost of at least £7 Billion.
On top of this there has been a massive refurbishment of the London Underground and other local systems, with new signalling and stock running in to tems of billions, whilst the new East West route linking together Oxford and Cambridge and other areas of what is a technology and research hub, is also a major project.
In terms of the US linking some economically viable routes is sensible, however to suddenly decide to emark on a national coat to coast high speed rail network would simple not be economically viable. Linking Silicon Valley, the East Coast cities and places such as Dallas and Houston seems to be the most sensible option.
Last edited by Brave New World; 09-21-2017 at 05:06 AM..
I absolutely love traveling by rail. But I do agree that once it became more common in this country, the TSA would step in and make it miserable, just like plane travel. Plus, to increase revenue, they'd probably start making the seats as small as they are in airlines. It would eventually be like taking a plane, but on the ground. Too bad, because I love HSR; it's a very good way to travel and you can see the sights while you're traveling. Europe or Japan didn't mess HSR up, but this country would.
A massive freeway expansion has just finished up on SR-91 in Corona, CA to try to relieve the congestion from Riverside County to LA and Orange County. Now traffic has only gotten worse on the northbound I-15 to the SR-91 junction. It's a domino effect. Fixing a freeway here makes it worse there.
The only true solution is a personal one. Situate yourself so that your distance from home to work is as short as possible.
On Long Island there was a huge fight to get approvals to build a second track along a stretch of already existing track to increase efficiency. Imagine trying to get through those hoops all over the country. Imagine the vulnerability to terrorist attacks, since ISIS is already threatening to do just that to trains in Europe. Sooner or later, the same security measures will be forced upon rail travelers as the air travelers get. And since the US is vast, how many cities and towns could possibly be interconnected by rail? Air travel is still easier.
If you look at other countries who are currently investing in High Speed Rail you get an insight in to how much this is going to cost.
For instance the UK spent £6 Billion on building a high speed connection to the Channel Tunnel as part of High Speed 1, the next stage is High Speed 2, which will take high speed train to the Midlands and North of England, the current projected cost £55.7 Billion ($75 Billion) and that's for a relatively small country, and the cost at the end of the project might far exceed original estimates.
The UK seems to be on a rail spending spree at the moment with Crossrail, a rail system running under Central London set to open next year at a cost of £15 Billion whilst Thameslink will also be completed next year at a cost of £6.5 Billion, and Crossrail 2 is about to be given the go ahead at a cost of £31 Billion.
Then you have the proposed Northern Powerhouse rail or HS3 as it is sometimes known, which will link Northern cities via a high speed network, at a cost of at least £7 Billion.
On top of this there has been a massive refurbishment of the London Underground and other local systems, with new signalling and stock running in to tems of billions, whilst the new East West route linking together Oxford and Cambridge and other areas of what is a technology and research hub, is also a major project.
In terms of the US linking some economically viable routes is sensible, however to suddenly decide to emark on a national coat to coast high speed rail network would simple not be economically viable. Linking Silicon Valley, the East Coast cities and places such as Dallas and Houston seems to be the most sensible option.
Again, no one who is sane and rational is proposing a cross country HSR for USA. It just is not possible fiscally nor would bring any benefit.
What can and should be done is HSR and or at least faster short haul train service between urban areas.
Case in point; the famous New York Central "Niagara" steam locomotives could haul the crack 20th Century Limited between Croton Harmon, New York to Chicago or vice versa (928 miles) in 16 hours. That was not some made up number on a time table, but what happened baring unforeseen circumstances such as weather. Best times Amtrak can manage over a slightly longer variation of the "Water Level Route" is over 17 hours and that is rare as things are often delayed.
Dividing 928 miles by 16 hours gives you an average speed of about 60 MPH. To get that down to half or close to would require average speeds of about 115mph. That is *NOT* out of the realm of possibilities with just good diesel power. No need for stringing wires or whatever for true HSR.
What would have to happen is a vast investment in infrastructure/ROW and seeing to it that all ducks were in a row so that the train was not delayed by long dwell times at (limited) stations, crew changes, and maybe eliminating some grade crossings.
Now to balance out the equation just how large is the potential market for NYC to Chicago *fast* train service to even warrant such a fiscal investment?
Using the following site you can see there are quite a few major urban areas 400 miles or less from NYC that would make good candidates for HSR or just faster train service. NYC to Montreal, Toronto or even Quebec has been tossed around.
Again, no one who is sane and rational is proposing a cross country HSR for USA. It just is not possible fiscally nor would bring any benefit.
What can and should be done is HSR and or at least faster short haul train service between urban areas.
Case in point; the famous New York Central "Niagara" steam locomotives could haul the crack 20th Century Limited between Croton Harmon, New York to Chicago or vice versa (928 miles) in 16 hours. That was not some made up number on a time table, but what happened baring unforeseen circumstances such as weather. Best times Amtrak can manage over a slightly longer variation of the "Water Level Route" is over 17 hours and that is rare as things are often delayed.
Dividing 928 miles by 16 hours gives you an average speed of about 60 MPH. To get that down to half or close to would require average speeds of about 115mph. That is *NOT* out of the realm of possibilities with just good diesel power. No need for stringing wires or whatever for true HSR.
What would have to happen is a vast investment in infrastructure/ROW and seeing to it that all ducks were in a row so that the train was not delayed by long dwell times at (limited) stations, crew changes, and maybe eliminating some grade crossings.
Now to balance out the equation just how large is the potential market for NYC to Chicago *fast* train service to even warrant such a fiscal investment?
A little further discussion of history and operating practices might be in order here.
The New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads were the only serious competitors for New York-Chicago passenger service, and the Central held most of the high cards; the Pennsy's route via Philadelphia and Pittsburgh was about the same distance as the Central's via Albany and Buffalo, but the Pennsy had mountain grades between Altoona and Pittsburgh and that necessitated the use of helper(pusher) locos, the coupling and uncoupling of which disturbed Pullman passengers; the Central billed itself as "The Water Level Route (where) you can sleep".
The glory years of these operations ran from the Twenties through the collapse of the "Main Street" economy (as opposed to the stock market alone) which set in late in 1931. During those years the Central's 20th Century Limited could run as up to seven separate, but identical trains (sections), one following another. Christmas Day was reportedly the only day when a single section sufficed. And if a passenger had sufficient "clout" (and paid an extra fare), (s)he could board the last section at a relatively minor station like Utica, NY -- and be hustled on as quickly (and almost as roughly) as extra last-minute baggage.
The Pennsy, on the other hand, reportedly never operated its flagship Broadway Limited in multiple sections. Special events might generate a surge in passengers, and fairly often, but these were usually assigned to one of the other four New York-Chicago overnight schedules -- spread over a "window" of several hours. The Central also offered several New York-Chicago "secondary" trains.
The coming of the Central's more-powerful "super Hudson" passenger locomotives after 1927, and the Niagaras almost twenty years later, alleviated most of the need for extra sections, but they could still be encountered well into the Fifties, The Erie and Baltimore and Ohio were never more than minor players, with three daily "maids of all work" in each direction, plus occasional extras.
Even if sufficient interest to revive such a service could be found today, it couldn't be done without rehabilitating the four-main-track (two for passenger, two for freight) lines that once served the Central east of Cleveland, and the Pennsy east of Pittsburgh.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 09-21-2017 at 09:27 PM..
A little further discussion of history and operating practices might be in order here.
The New York Central and Pennsylvania Railroads were the only serious competitors for New York-Chicago passenger service, and the Central held most of the high cards; the Pennsy's route via Philadelphia and Pittsburgh was about the same distance as the Central's via Albany and Buffalo, but the Pennsy had mountain grades between Altoona and Pittsburgh and that necessitated the use of helper(pusher) locos, the coupling and uncoupling of which disturbed Pullman passengers; the Central billed itself as "The Water Level Route (where) you can sleep".
The glory years of these operations ran from the Twenties through the collapse of the "Main Street" economy (as opposed to the stock market alone) which set in late in 1931. During those years the Central's 20th Century Limited could run as up to seven separate, but identical trains (sections), one following another. Christmas Day was reportedly the only day when a single section sufficed. And if a passenger had sufficient "clout" (and paid an extra fare), (s)he could board the last section at a relatively minor station like Utica, NY -- and be hustled on as quickly (and almost as roughly) as extra last-minute baggage.
The Pennsy, on the other hand, reportedly never operated its flagship Broadway Limited in multiple sections. Special events might generate a surge in passengers, and fairly often, but these were usually assigned to one of the other four New York-Chicago overnight schedules -- spread over a "window" of several hours. The Central also offered several New York-Chicago "secondary" trains.
The coming of the Central's more-powerful "super Hudson" passenger locomotives after 1927, and the Niagaras almost twenty years later, alleviated most of the need for extra sections, but they could still be encountered well into the Fifties, The Erie and Baltimore and Ohio were never more than minor players, with three daily "maids of all work" in each direction, plus occasional extras.
Even if sufficient interest to revive such a service could be found today, it couldn't be done without rehabilitating the four-main-track (two for passenger, two for freight) lines that once served the Central east of Cleveland, and the Pennsy east of Pittsburgh.
Thank you for that great post. Wanted to say more in mine, but tend to go on as it tis. *LOL*
Other than between Croton Harmon and Grand Central Terminal (and even then only because of NYC laws regarding steam locomotives) New York Central largely avoided electrifying their ROW. But you wonder what could have been if NYC had put their ROW from Croton Harmon to Chicago under the wires.
Of course NYC would never have been able to afford such a move, but still is an interesting thing to ponder. Still New York Central's main line "Water Level Route" was hardly a place for kerb crawling locomotives.
The other major railroad that did electrify besides PRR was the New York, New Haven and Hartford RR; which makes up the NEC going east out of NYC to Boston.
Again, no one who is sane and rational is proposing a cross country HSR for USA. It just is not possible fiscally nor would bring any benefit.
What can and should be done is HSR and or at least faster short haul train service between urban areas.
Case in point; the famous New York Central "Niagara" steam locomotives could haul the crack 20th Century Limited between Croton Harmon, New York to Chicago or vice versa (928 miles) in 16 hours. That was not some made up number on a time table, but what happened baring unforeseen circumstances such as weather. Best times Amtrak can manage over a slightly longer variation of the "Water Level Route" is over 17 hours and that is rare as things are often delayed.
Dividing 928 miles by 16 hours gives you an average speed of about 60 MPH. To get that down to half or close to would require average speeds of about 115mph. That is *NOT* out of the realm of possibilities with just good diesel power. No need for stringing wires or whatever for true HSR.
What would have to happen is a vast investment in infrastructure/ROW and seeing to it that all ducks were in a row so that the train was not delayed by long dwell times at (limited) stations, crew changes, and maybe eliminating some grade crossings.
Now to balance out the equation just how large is the potential market for NYC to Chicago *fast* train service to even warrant such a fiscal investment?
Using the following site you can see there are quite a few major urban areas 400 miles or less from NYC that would make good candidates for HSR or just faster train service. NYC to Montreal, Toronto or even Quebec has been tossed around.
The Acela Express is Amtrak's flagship service along the Northeast Corridor, however any upgrade to high speed rail would cost a significant amount, possible over $100 Billion.
The real issue being where do you spend the money, at a time when Amtrak is under severe financial pressure, whilst at the samt time the NYC Subway was declared in a state of emergency earlier this year. The US needs to spend on it's basic rail and subway infrastructure first.
In terms of high speed rail, the Los Angeles to San Francisco and Dallas to Houston routes both look viable, abd other routes will no doubt follow, but it's going to be a slow process in relation to high speed rail in the US, especially at a time when Amtrak is under severe financial pressure.
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.
