Who knew
- Thread starter MikeGTW
- Start date
migalyto
Well-Known Member
Kind of sad isn't it?
rgeiter
Conrail Quality
Now do a comparative of vehicle ownership. Then it’ll make sense. Americans like their cars. I know I do.
Then there are the Nimbys. They rather have rail trails than railroads.
santafewillie
Same Ol' Buzzard
We can thank Amtrak for that. Government run businesses in the US are not known for their efficiency. Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, USPS, and Amtrak to name a few.
Selector
Well-Known Member
None of the rails ever made a dime running passenger services. It was a loss to their bottom line, but the various levels of government that gave grants to new rail corporations required the rails to provide the service, sometimes in perpetuity. Locally, the Canadian Pacific went to the Supreme Court of Canada three times over about a 50 year period to attempt to be formally relieved of the requirement to run passenger services on Vancouver Island. Only on the third time did the SCOC relent, having seen the arguments against running near-empty trains up and down the Island on the four hour one way trip, and then back again.
So, when governments step in to nationalize passenger services, as they eventually do 'bout everywhere, it's just added to the deficits each year. Same with city transit services. Nobody would take a city bus costing $5 to go 20 blocks. Fares are heavily subsidized.
However, those two maps don't reflect the way it was during passenger train heyday. Between 1900 and 1945, the N. American map would have looked largely the same, albeit with larger spaces and runs.
So, when governments step in to nationalize passenger services, as they eventually do 'bout everywhere, it's just added to the deficits each year. Same with city transit services. Nobody would take a city bus costing $5 to go 20 blocks. Fares are heavily subsidized.
However, those two maps don't reflect the way it was during passenger train heyday. Between 1900 and 1945, the N. American map would have looked largely the same, albeit with larger spaces and runs.
santafewillie
Same Ol' Buzzard
I don't disagree. Though many made money by carrying mail and REA stuff on their passenger trains.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
Overlay a population map. The US west is way to sparse to support major rail transit.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
Hmmm, I don't know about that. Watch old movies and everyone talked about taking the train. Totally socially acceptable and even prestigious over "the bus". I think it is more like 2 days to get from Denver to New York vs 4 hours. We would need 300mph trains to compete with air travel.
DakotaLove39
Always Improvising
Kind of related, one of my favorite arguments to see in the modern day is "High speed passenger rail won't work."
Yeah, It's going to cost a lot, but it was a thing we USED TO HAVE. We HAD IT! The Hiawatha was doing 90mph+ between Chicago and the Twin Cities on a daily basis, times two! Then there's the 400, the Zephyr, and all the others that were doing the same thing back in the day.
Just like I once saw someone saying "Electrified freight trains through our mountain ranges wouldn't work"
Guy. MILW did 90 car transcon trains through the mountains behind electric locomotives, and it was actually spinning the meter backwards for them. It can totally work, just that no one wants to pony up and do it.
Tell you what, give me millions of dollars and I'll rebuild the MILW pacific extension.
kjd
Go make something!
Europe has 50 more people per square mile than the US, 143 and 94 respectively or 153%.
Also, the map doesn't show multiple trains per day in some corridors. The PNW between Vancouver, BC and Eugene, OR, has 10 Amtrak trains per day, for example. Also, several more Sounder trains in the Seattle metro area.
So it is an interesting comparison but not exactly apples to apples.
Also, the map doesn't show multiple trains per day in some corridors. The PNW between Vancouver, BC and Eugene, OR, has 10 Amtrak trains per day, for example. Also, several more Sounder trains in the Seattle metro area.
So it is an interesting comparison but not exactly apples to apples.
Jaz avalley
Station cat
Lol UK cancelled trains, late trains, train stuck because passenger door won’t shut properly, train halted because there is an autumn leaf on the racks, faints. I have been on
1. A train that failed to stop ayt a London last stop station it mounted the platform I was third carriage and unhurt.
2. On a train that did an emergency stop going into London, stopped because some idiot sent a train from the other direction down the same track, coming round the bend luckily both drivers saw the other trains and managed to stop before collision
3. On the last carriage when train pulled up to my station but my carriage did not reach the short platform and by the time I had run down to a carriage that I could have got off the train had set off again so I had to go past to a station where I could catch a train back to mine, 2 hours later…
4. Yep been at the station where the train driver would not / could not leave because the catch on the old passenger carriage was not shutting, we took one look got back in the car and drove further along, got to a different station where we caught a train and where people were saying about going through the station on the wrong side because of the stationary train.
there are plenty of others not running on time, full etc, but trains are essential here because the areas are so dense traffic jams larking paying for parking is so much worse, lesser of w evils,
RIGuyUK
Well-Known Member
Trains are essential where I live in the UK, I am 14 miles from the biggest city in Scotland (Glasgow), I live in a large town (44k people) that has direct links by train to Glasgow and Edinburgh, 1 mile from my house is the main freeway in Scotland, the M8 motorway, which links Glasgow and Edinburgh yet I am unable to get a direct bus to Glasgow! In fact I am unable to get a direct bus to the next town, of 36k inhabitants, which is only 3 miles away to the east. I'd have to go south 4 miles to a smaller town, then get another bus. Total journey time would be almost 75 mins. Train does it in 5 mins.
Driving into Glasgow or Edinburgh at the moment is a nightmare as the roads are full of lane restrictions or what seems like permanent roadworks, and parking costs are astronomical. This year a Low Emission Zone is coming into effect in Glasgow which the local government cannot make up their mind what the emission level will be - as it stands my car, a hybrid, has emissions which are too high!!!
So, yes, as Jaz says, trains are essential here in the UK, though unlike Jaz, I've only ever experienced 1 cancelled train in 30+ years of commuting, and very few late runners.
I spent the month of January this year in the USA, at my sisters in Salt Lake City and took the Frontrunner to Ogden from South Jordan and back a few times, thoroughly enjoyed the journeys, on a couple of them, I reckon I was the only person on the train, whilst the freeways were full of cars.
Don't blame Amtrak for US passenger service, the railroads that were operating it prior to Amtrak would have completely killed intercity rail transportation if they could have, it doesn't make money and costs way more than it could ever earn. Amtrak saved the last vestiges of long distance passenger rail service in the US, without Amtrak it would have died out.
The big difference between rail and air transport (other than the speed) is that air tranport has done a much better job of supporting the first and last mile of trips. Lots of limos, cabs, car rentals, parking, etc. Rail stations rarely have the same depth of infrastructure so are much less attractive.
90 mph isn't "high speed rail", that's speeds over 125 mph or so. Even the NEC can't really achieve that because the curves are too sharp. You won't get "high speed rail" on the freight railroads is because the alignment doesn't support it. For true high speed rail teh alignment has to be engineered to support the speeds.
The big problem with electrified railroads is that they aren't "coast to coast", the electric operation only covers part of teh route, so you still need diesels on either end, making them much more expensive. With diesels I can put a set of power on a train at LA and run it all the way to New York (and back again) without having to change engines.
One of my former Superintendents was the last superintendent on the Milwaukee electrified operation. According to him, what really killed it was the Milwaukee used wooden poles for the overhead and basically the pole line went bad, rotting poles and termites killed the Milwaukee electrified. It would have been prohibitively expensive to replace the pole line. On the other hand, the PRR used steel catenary supports and it's still in service today.
The big difference between rail and air transport (other than the speed) is that air tranport has done a much better job of supporting the first and last mile of trips. Lots of limos, cabs, car rentals, parking, etc. Rail stations rarely have the same depth of infrastructure so are much less attractive.
90 mph isn't "high speed rail", that's speeds over 125 mph or so. Even the NEC can't really achieve that because the curves are too sharp. You won't get "high speed rail" on the freight railroads is because the alignment doesn't support it. For true high speed rail teh alignment has to be engineered to support the speeds.
The big problem with electrified railroads is that they aren't "coast to coast", the electric operation only covers part of teh route, so you still need diesels on either end, making them much more expensive. With diesels I can put a set of power on a train at LA and run it all the way to New York (and back again) without having to change engines.
One of my former Superintendents was the last superintendent on the Milwaukee electrified operation. According to him, what really killed it was the Milwaukee used wooden poles for the overhead and basically the pole line went bad, rotting poles and termites killed the Milwaukee electrified. It would have been prohibitively expensive to replace the pole line. On the other hand, the PRR used steel catenary supports and it's still in service today.
Jaz avalley
Station cat
Always good to have insight one the one to one scale,
short sightedness saving pennies so often leads to major fails,
Hutch
Well-Known Member
I just wish I could get around on trains. They built a beautiful enclosed walkway that went from the airport, over the road to the station. You can't get anywhere from the station and the Ascela just flies by it. What a waste of money. Of course I live in the most corrupt state and things like this "train station" was just a way to line some pockets. I have to drive 20 miles to take a train to Boston or PA as opposed to only 4 to the useless station.
DakotaLove39
Always Improvising
Uh.. huh.. but everyone else's wooden poles were somehow termite proof? I'm not sure I buy that explanation. What about the regular phone line poles right next to em?
What I do buy into is the explanation I read, which the locos were worn out or wearing out and there were no good replacements on the market. EMD had a couple things in the works, but they couldn't match or beat the old GE's. All the MILW guys who knew the system had retired or were about to, and the same could be said of their counterparts at GE.
santafewillie
Same Ol' Buzzard
Maybe. The electric company that services our area claims that wooden poles last between 45 and 50 years before they need replacing. That's why they are replacing the ones along our road. They were installed when the first houses were built here in the boonies back in the mid-70's. Termites though, have nothing to do with it, at least here.
Iron Horseman
Well-Known Member
I understood it was the price of copper and the executives couldn't wait to get the millions of dollars of copper "just hanging" over the track down and off to the metal recycle people.
