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.
New Mexico has a rail service. There are about 6-8 trains a day, and cover the 100 miles from Belen through Albuquerque to Santa Fe in about 2.5 hours, for a same-day round trip fare of $8 or less, depending on distance. Commuters can get an annual two-zone pass for $500, which can be about 20 miles each way.
In Canada, there are 6 trains a day, Montreal to Toronto, about 5.5 hours. Round trip is $133, including all taxes. Why would anyone fly, and endure the trips to and from the airport and the security checkins? Expedia showed me flights from $569. Including airport shuttle and check in times, it would probably take longer than 5.5 hours to fly.
New Mexico has a rail service. There are about 6-8 trains a day, and cover the 100 miles from Belen through Albuquerque to Santa Fe in about 2.5 hours, for a same-day round trip fare of $8 or less, depending on distance. Commuters can get an annual two-zone pass for $500, which can be about 20 miles each way.
In Canada, there are 6 trains a day, Montreal to Toronto, about 5.5 hours. Round trip is $133, including all taxes. Why would anyone fly, and endure the trips to and from the airport and the security checkins? Expedia showed me flights from $569. Including airport shuttle and check in times, it would probably take longer than 5.5 hours to fly.
Airline and Oil lobby is pretty strong. If Dallas and Houston - New Orleans were connected by rail (much less high speed rail), I would NEVER drive or fly to either of these destinations.
That's an idea. The traffic through the mountains might be packed. There are a number of trains in Alaska.
Well my interest was not do to traffic but for scenic travel as there probably would be some awsome views amongst the 10,000 ft - 12,000 ft peaks in that region of the country.
Too bad there's no passenger train service all through out the rocky mountains in this country.
There are Amtrak trains through the Rockies in northern Montana and central Colorado. The northern train passes near Glacier National Park at around 6 pm westbound, and 9 am eastbound, for good views except in winter. The Colorado train passes through Glenwood at around 1 pm both ways for good views all year.
There are Amtrak trains through the Rockies in northern Montana and central Colorado. The northern train passes near Glacier National Park at around 6 pm westbound, and 9 am eastbound, for good views except in winter. The Colorado train passes through Glenwood at around 1 pm both ways for good views all year.
O.k. that's interesting to know.
A few years back i wanted to take Amtrak from Albuquerque to Billings, Montana straight up thru Colorado and Wyoming and i couldn't do that as i would have had to take the train firstly across to Los Angeles then transfer and take it up along the coast to Seattle and transfer over onto a Greyhound bus across as i obviously decided against that trip back then.
A few years back i wanted to take Amtrak from Albuquerque to Billings, Montana straight up thru Colorado and Wyoming and i couldn't do that as i would have had to take the train firstly across to Los Angeles then transfer and take it up along the coast to Seattle and transfer over onto a Greyhound bus across as i obviously decided against that trip back then.
In that respect, you are right. There is no north-south train anywhere west of Chicago, until you get to California. The train from Denver to Albuquerque goes through either Los Angeles or Chicago.
How fast would trains need to go to be an expectable trade off for planes?
Whats the fastest they can go?
The US is really the only country in the world where long-distance domestic travel is really an issue, since we have major population centers and heavy transport usage scattered all over 3,000 miles of geography.
So the answer to your questions would be, depends on the length of the journey. Getting to or from an airport and through checkin takes a minimum of an hour and a half, and there is one at each end, so three hours of your journey goes nowhere at all. On a train, at 150 mph, you are already 500 miles of so, before your plane even moves. But the plane will begin to be faster for any trip in the 1,000 mile neighborhood, and only in America do we have significant numbers of domestic trips of that length. So the problem is almost uniquely American, for us to figure out our own priorities, regardless of what the Japanese or the French do.
How fast would trains need to go to be an expectable trade off for planes?
Whats the fastest they can go?
Trade offs can involve a variety of factors. I'm actually planning on one such trade offs, picking a flight over train. The trade off is entirely based on time of arrival at the destination. This planning involves a travel between state of Goa (in India) and Bombay (Mumbai). I would have preferred a night train that reached early in the morning. There are two trains, one of them had no seats (berths) left. The other reaches a little later than I would have preferred given limited time to visit Bombay. And there is an early morning flight from Goa that reaches Bombay at 7.30 am or so. If not for this single issue, the train journey would have been favorable option. It would have also saved nearly $150 ($80 on hotel and rest on price differential between train and airfare). In fact, combining my trip spread over three weeks, I will be spending over 50 hours in trains, in Europe and in India. Flights were the last options.
As for speed, they can easily cover over 150 miles in an hour (on average). Combine that with the nuisance on baggage restrictions, security dealings etc with the airlines, it would make more sense to travel 250-500 miles on high speed trains than on airplanes. If I were to travel from London to Paris, I would not think twice about taking the Eurostar over flying.
Trains just make more sense, unless you're in a hurry and are willing to deal with the costs and the tantrums.
it seems like what we need to get so many things done is a huge amount of extra electrical capacity.
if we had that, things like the above, de-sal, hydrogen, etc... might not be such a hard thing to do.
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.
