Today, I have a job coming up actually for tomorrow morning. From Chicago IL to Lincoln, NE. So, here's the drill as far as transportation goes (remember that I'm carrying a large, heavy crate tomorrow so for me there is only one option-- this is for the sake of people who are getting themselves and maybe family from one place to the other). This information comes from Google Maps.
By airplane--- not counting the nonsense at each terminal where minutes become hours-- it's about an hour and a half flying time.
By car--- it's a little over 7.5 hours not counting stopping for fuel, eating, using the facilities and whatnot. Add another 2 hours just to be safe, so let's say 9.5 hours.
By Amtrak passenger train-- it's almost 15 hours. I kid you not. Only riding a bicycle would be slower. (But, after riding a bike for more than 500 miles you'd sure be buff.)
I really don't expect trains to catch on unless they can do something about that time.
Sorry, RJH--- maybe someday they'll come up with high-speed rail here. Until then, planes for any distance over 400 miles, cars for any distance under that except in the cities, where commuter rail has definite advantages over the car.
Amtrak stops have diminished over the years. Part of that time prob involves a bus ride. Where used to Nashville had Amtrak trains coming to it, now if I wanted to leave from Nastyville there'd be a bus ride to Memphis, Atlanta or North Carolina first.
(I was planning to take the boy on a train ride to the capital at one time... Just driving there seemed to be the best option tho.)
High speed trains are what we need.
By airplane--- not counting the nonsense at each terminal where minutes become hours-- it's about an hour and a half flying time.
By car--- it's a little over 7.5 hours not counting stopping for fuel, eating, using the facilities and whatnot. Add another 2 hours just to be safe, so let's say 9.5 hours.
By Amtrak passenger train-- it's almost 15 hours. I kid you not. Only riding a bicycle would be slower. (But, after riding a bike for more than 500 miles you'd sure be buff.)
I suppose that's because you don't have anymore cowboy's outlaw gangs assaulting trains. If so, trains would go faster than horses...
Clearly the ninetheen century was your golden age and still is. After Billy The Kid, nothing, just an empty vacuum.
Trains aren't "profitable", simple as that.
High velocity trains even less.
The US train system is basically a freight transport network. Not that efficient, but very extensive and can ship large amounts of goods long distance for low cost. Amtrack shifts a few people very slowly for high cost, and there's not a big market for that. The US has grown to European densities along many corridors, wirh its consequences, a generation ago Europeans became like the Americans and the European left-wing hated that. Now you look set to become like us and I imagine the US right wing will hate that.
Therein the rub..First you need to solve the last mile problem, a practical cost-effective means to get from where you are to the station and from the station to where you want to go. That's not particularly hard, public transport, taxi, car rentals, parking. Then you should have several routes that make sense from an engineering and economic view, but they are not going to happen successfully due to culture wars, tribal politics, and special interest. They will conspire to make any project massively delayed, massively over budget, and no longer along a route and under conditions that would make sense or money.
500 miles should be around a 3 1/2 to 4 hours train ride at price-optimal speed. The crate can be shipped separately at slower speed, though the cost may be too high.
The US train system is basically a freight transport network. Not that efficient, but very extensive and can ship large amounts of goods long distance for low cost. Amtrack shifts a few people very slowly for high cost, and there's not a big market for that. The US has grown to European densities along many corridors, wirh its consequences, a generation ago Europeans became like the Americans and the European left-wing hated that. Now you look set to become like us and I imagine the US right wing will hate that.
Therein the rub..First you need to solve the last mile problem, a practical cost-effective means to get from where you are to the station and from the station to where you want to go. That's not particularly hard, public transport, taxi, car rentals, parking. Then you should have several routes that make sense from an engineering and economic view, but they are not going to happen successfully due to culture wars, tribal politics, and special interest. They will conspire to make any project massively delayed, massively over budget, and no longer along a route and under conditions that would make sense or money.
500 miles should be around a 3 1/2 to 4 hours train ride at price-optimal speed. The crate can be shipped separately at slower speed, though the cost may be too high.
Taking the bolded--- I sometimes wonder about things like this. Not that I'm complaining, mind--- 525 miles at $1.03 a mile isn't to be turned down. Still--- this crate comes from Japan, by air, to O'Hare airport in Chicago. I pick it up from cargo on the South side of the field, and drive it to the factory it's going to in Lincoln, Nebraska. One wonders why they didn't transfer the thing to a puddle-jumper plane at O'Hare for the final miles. Coulda had it in less than half the time it's gonna take me to do it, even at the best time I can make.
But, hey--- lack of planning on their part is why I have a job, so I ain't complaining. Just wondering about it.
While we're thinking on it--- seems freight speed varies quite a bit depending on what is being hauled and where. I cross the Mississippi tomorrow. They have barge-trains there that can be awesome to look at. 30 barges or more, hauling bulk freight up or down the river with a couple of big towboats to push the thing. They promote this by telling you how many trains it would take to haul all that freight, and how many trucks they "take off the road" with a big barge-train. Note that one barge can hold as much as half a dozen big trucks-- it gives you some idea of the scale.
The motor car industry a long number of decades ag did a neat job of diminisng passenger rail in the USA. I know, o know the old standard additional point is distance however there ar other big places and one which is bigger where passenger trains are still up there. The other night I watched a well know tv man who is doing aseries on rail all over the owlrd. His hour length documentary on Japan was brilliant. Russian the biggest nation has a great service too - and look at the Chinese advances. Unfortunately America is way behind on the matter of rail. Jax is well right on the degree of goods traffic in the States it really a freight system and the passenegr side is sadly a joke. Once you lose something that was once better used it is hard to get it back. That incident mjsmsprt40 is shocking.
In general modern progressive nations all tend to have excellent rail services and even those that like to moan here suitably ignore that well over 6 billion rail journeys happen a year and vastly more than the time the Government ran them for years and did not do a good job at all. Amusingly on the website of my favourite rail sim company virtually all the America members do freight with only a rare passenger and in Gt Britain it almost all passenger which neatly reflects the actual.
On both my trips to the ex-colonies I did some train travel on the East Coast and was enjoyable for a rail fan like me but when you came into Philly from the north all the empty and unused platforms was a sad view of what once was. Here although a much smaller country even on longer trips of 400 or 00 miles you will see more than one train a day and I noted that on Amtrak you might get one and in places a not even daily. Sp whatever techy advances there have been passenger rail is not anything great across the water and does not look like improving. Meanwhile other nations are into bullet trains and always faster times.
I have a National Assoc of American Railroads date back to the 1950's someone gave to me. It covered the US, Canada, Mexico and even Cuba before the revolution. It is over 2 inches thick. Today you would fit the same in a pocket. Sad.
Is rail dead in the US? Nope. Our highspeed rail between Las Vegas and Los Angeles is back on track, even having failed to secure a 5.5 billion dollar loan from the Federal Government :) (http://www.gizmag.com/xpresswest-high-speed-railway-los-angeles-las-vegas/39504/)
There are important considerations in choice of travel. If I want to visit my daughter in San Diego, there's no way that I would choose a train or a bus. Likewise, a business man wants to get to a distant destination quickly. Sightseeing is another matter. A car might make a great deal of sense. A guided bus tour might also make sense, but if I wanted to visit the Grand Canyon via a bus tour, it would cost me more than a flight.
It's a big country. Size matters.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.goseewrite.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2013%2F02%2Ftexas-europe-map.jpeg&hash=e9cfb72dcc0effa00aa4dc272b8f87ee" rel="cached" data-hash="e9cfb72dcc0effa00aa4dc272b8f87ee" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.goseewrite.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/texas-europe-map.jpeg)
Size matters indeed. As I entered Nebraska on Interstate 80 yesterday, the milepost showed some 445 miles to the other end of the state. Most of that, once you're past Lincoln, is wide open plains with nothing to break the persistent wind.
The speed limit in Nebraska, once outside city limits, is 75 mph. Actual speeds probably faster.
Size matters less than density, as long as the travel distance is within the competitive range. In the low end it competes with cars and buses, high end airplanes. For a speed range of 80-250 mph that is a range from 50-1000 miles where trains may compete.
In dense areas commute trains can compete on volume. No other means of transport can move as many as fast, a road network would only lead to gridlock.
That trains can compete doesn't mean they will. Foremost they depend on traffic. The cost per additional passenger can be low, but the investments are huge. The US is getting denser, there are many routes that should be profitable if done right.
Scotland doesn't fit into Texas. :sherlock:
:devil: Neither does RjHowie, but in a different sense. :devil:
Scotland doesn't fit into Texas. :sherlock:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/index.php?action=reporttm;topic=1588.11;msg=48361)
Curiously I don't think that Texas fits anywhere in Europe. Neither Texas nor any of those "states".
It is kind of unfortunate in a way that the Texas outline does not have what the background does have and that is an impressive number of passenger services. Even in countries across the world which are very big and catching up on cars have railways far more impressive than the USA has. When you consider in the wider look at things that modern and wide train services are the part of countries what is left in the States is a remnant of what once was. Very progressive in many things but way behind other modern countries when it comes to trains.
RJ--- passenger service could hardly be made profitable here. That outline of Texas over Europe doesn't take into account the fact that in that space in Europe you have a number of major cities. In Texas---- you've got miles and miles of zilch. The cities are few and far between, and it would take a miracle of God to make the train pay for itself. How many people go from Houston to Lubbock? How much do you suppose they'd be willing to pay for the privilege of doing so on a train? (Houston to Dallas--- maybe. Problem: Both of these cities have airports, and a puddle-jumper plane can get you from one to the other in maybe an hour. A train would take--- fergit it.)
Trains don't work well here because of the distances, and more to the point because there isn't the density of population centers that you have in Europe.
The greatest historical event in transportation on the continent occurred at Promontory, Utah, on May 10, 1869, as the Union Pacific tracks joined those of the Central Pacific Railroad.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FOGYaCk3.jpg&hash=e3e73858a6345693cbca142281f64eb1" rel="cached" data-hash="e3e73858a6345693cbca142281f64eb1" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/OGYaCk3.jpg)
So much trouble for nothing...
Trains don't work well here because of the distances, and more to the point because there isn't the density of population centers that you have in Europe.
Last century they thought they had the required population density worth to cover the continent with a network of trains, but now...
Problem: Both of these cities have airports, and a puddle-jumper plane can get you from one to the other in maybe an hour.
That might've been true in the 1980s, but even in such optimal circumstances that time's deceptive. It wouldn't realistically have taken any less than two hours even back then. Now it'll easily be three hours. Suddenly your two-hour train ride doesn't seem so uncompetitive in matters besides price.* If time's your primary concern I'd say a 3-hour car ride is still in the race against that one-hour flight.
* Admittedly, those two hours are as deceptive as the one hour mentioned for the flight. So you might say that makes it three hours, but at a significantly greater level of comfort and at a lower cost and environmental impact.
Trains don't work well here because of the distances, and more to the point because there isn't the density of population centers that you have in Europe.
Last century they thought they had the required population density worth to cover the continent with a network of trains, but now...
In the 1880s they didn't have planes and automobiles. A steam-powered train could travel at 25 mph and keep doing it for several miles, having to stop only for coal and water and oiling the moving parts. It wasn't that hard to outrun the Wells-Fargo wagon on the open prairie.
Call it progress: There was a time when, if you wanted to move passengers and goods over long distances, you chose steamboats and barges. Then the trains came and took that business away from the river steamers, which could not compete with the trains. Then, around the time the 1800s were giving way to the 1900s, some folk came up with ideas about planes and automobiles. It took awhile, but eventually the superhighway and the jet plane settled the issue for long-distance passenger rail in the same way rail had done to the steamboat.
It took awhile, but eventually the superhighway and the jet plane settled the issue for long-distance passenger rail
Until now. The XpressWest will be competitive with taking the plane to LA in terms of actual travel time. As Frenzi said, the one hour time in the air is very deceptive. You're liable to spend spend two hours at the first airport and an hour getting out of the second. If this venture proves successful (especially in light of the difficult mountain and desert terrain the train will need to cross), it wouldn't be at all to see a renaissance of train travel in the US, with real travel times rivaling jet travel. If you're going from say Chicago to Miami, a jet would be the better option (the longer the distance to greater the airline's advantage) , but going from LA to LV, the hassle of the air travel seems nonsensical.
Hy mjsmsprt40. I can partly go along with what you say about distances but wonder how indepth that one is. Russia is even bigger and China with it's bullet trains another large country. Even if smaller and heavily populated, Japan when I watched the documentary of the reporter doing the bullet train service in a great length of the county to the north a road journey on the motorway was not the fastest. The bullet train took 4 hours whereas a car took 8 hours! Now as I said the programme showed the centre where Japanese rail is now working on even their fastest world beating train!
There seemed to be very clever programme by the motor care industry decades ago to push in front and they certainly did that in your country. Texas is only one area anyway and when one considers in all sorts of countries rail is a modern thing and in even a bigger place points out something wider. So for whatever reason we may muse on for the sad decline of US rail travel the country is I am afraid way behind everyone else. Unfortunate but a sad fact of life that other modern places are so way ahead.
If you're going from say Chicago to Miami, a jet would be the better option (the longer the distance to greater the airline's advantage) , but going from LA to LV, the hassle of the air travel seems nonsensical.
As a rule of thumb, I'd say travel time has to exceed five hours by car or train until flight becomes attractive. But even for going to e.g. Berlin (a little less than 8 hours by train; 1.5 or so by plane) I'd at least consider the train as an option. To make matters a little more clear:
- Taking the train to Brussels takes about a half hour. This is the same regardless whether I go to Brussels Airport or Brussels North/Center/South to switch to an ICE. You can either add this time to the flight time (makes 2 hours), or deduct it from the train time (makes 7.5 hours).
- You want to aim for 2 hours early at the airport for EU travel. You need to be at the gate half an hour in advance, plus it's 15 minutes security and 15 minutes to actually get to the gate. An hour should do, but it'd be unwise. So we're at 4 hours for the flight vs 8 hours for the train.
- Add another hour to get out of the airport. That makes 5 hours for the flight; 8 for the train. The precise measurements obviously depend on where you're coming from and where you're going to.
There's still a three-hour difference to account for, but unless you pay heaps and heaps of money the comfort can easily be worth it. Worst case scenario you've been able to read a book or dream away while staring out the window in a seat where you can actually fit your legs; best case scenario you're actually able to get some serious work done. In the plane scenario you've only realistically got about half an hour to maybe even try.
PS The budget option is something like a 12-hour bus ride. With a comfort level that's unfortunately in many ways closer to an airplane. Well, that or hitchhiking. :P
It has to be over an eight hour drive before I'll even consider flying. Capitulation is usually what's landed me on a plane. I've no problem driving 10-12 hours... It'd take that long to get the slightest complaint out of me. I start bitching within an hour of stepping in an airport. After four I'm completely done with everything.
It would have to be really something to get me to fly. Just ain't agonna doit until the Second Coming if I have anything to say about it.
Been on a train a few times--- OK, RJH, all commuters of one sort or another but trains none the less. First ever was a South Shore train to the Loop, where we switched to a Green-Line train to the West Side. This was wayyyyyy back, when the Austin neighborhood was working-class white, and my uncle owned a house near Central and Lake Street. They even had a smoking-car on the South Shore train, that's how far back in time that was.
Since then--- some CTA trains in and out of the Loop--- the only times I've driven into and out of the Loop was pickup or delivery of packages, for any other purpose I'll stop in Forest Park and take the Blue-Line train every time.
I think I've been on an IC train once--- the electrified branch of the line that goes from Chicago to New Orleans, I was headed into Chicago at the time. Not sure though, I was young and the South Shore and IC run close for a few miles in the final ten miles into the city.
Anywhere else--- I'm driving.
A single train retires 300 trucks from the roads or even more.
It has to be over an eight hour drive before I'll even consider flying. Capitulation is usually what's landed me on a plane. I've no problem driving 10-12 hours... It'd take that long to get the slightest complaint out of me. I start bitching within an hour of stepping in an airport. After four I'm completely done with everything.
As much as I dislike airports (not the actual flying itself, although it
is cramped and noisy), the 12-hour drive from Antwerp to Vienna is a distance I'd probably rather fly than go by car or train. I'm not sure how a sleeper train might change the equation, but those barely exist anymore afaik.
I'm not sure how a sleeper train might change the equation, but those barely exist anymore afaik.
I've been wanting to take the Trans-Canadian railway. I've kinda figured on a one-way out west and fly back. It's on my todo list for in the next few years (hopefully). My boy is old enough to go along and enjoy it rather than be a hassle now.
I've been wanting to take the Trans-Canadian railway.
Sounds interesting. Speaking of sleeping on transit, the only time that I've been able to sleep the majority of the time on a trans-Atlantic flight was when I'd only slept for about three hours the night before. Back then I had the brilliant idea to go snowboarding in Germany, from which I got back close to 2 AM, only to have to leave for the airport around 5 something AM. :D
(And heck, it was all terribly fun and exciting and I was living my life darn it. But looking back that whole snowboarding thing right before going to America might not have been the wisest decision.)
A single train retires 300 trucks from the roads or even more.
But only on long-haul. There's still the distance from the railroad freight-yard to the shipping/receiving docks, and this is done by truck. Pulling pigs for the rails* keeps a lot of truckers in business.
* I did this for a couple of months. Trailers--- or sometimes containers-- ride piggy-back on the train, so these are "pigs". The trucker comes to the yard, gets his assigned trailer or container, then drives it to the final destination. On the flip-side, trucks pick up at the shipper and deliver the "pig" to the railroad, complete with information as to where the consignment is headed. The "Rubber link" can be anywhere from a couple of miles to a couple hundred miles, depending on the load in question.
But only on long-haul. There's still the distance from the railroad freight-yard to the shipping/receiving docks, and this is done by truck. Pulling pigs for the rails* keeps a lot of truckers in business.
No issues with the 300 number? I mean, freight trains are quite long, but I've never felt that they seemed 300 wagons long. :P
The 300 number is not to be discussed, Hollandeer. :mad:
But only on long-haul. There's still the distance from the railroad freight-yard to the shipping/receiving docks, and this is done by truck. Pulling pigs for the rails* keeps a lot of truckers in business.
No issues with the 300 number? I mean, freight trains are quite long, but I've never felt that they seemed 300 wagons long. :P
To be sure, 300 seems big. Until you take into account that containers may be stacked one on top of another, and it is possible to have 4 pup-containers on one freight car. Regular trailers may sometimes be 2 to a railcar. CN trains around here have grown to preposterous lengths, a two-mile long consist seems not uncommon. So--- I have to grant that Belfragers' number may be plausible.
Well sadly mjsmsprt40 you have little general choice over there but to drive. I notice we are drifting a wee bitty towards freight now which wasn't the original thrust and anyway rail in the US is more or less a goods system. Indeed at one time, a passenger train reference I found dating back to the 1850's and 60's, a passneger train would be put on a siding to allow a goods train through and the lateness ran into nuisance times of an hour and often longer.
Basically just using the size of a country to argue for the death of passenger rail is not a definitive stance as I pointed out other large countries where that does not happen. That the passenger decline happened is a localised thing in America apart from the motor car and I dare say the various companies had a lot to do wiot the decline. Remember too my example of distance trains in Japan compared to motorway travel.
Basically just using the size of a country to argue for the death of passenger rail is not a definitive stance as I pointed out other large countries where that does not happen.
Not to fear, Howie. He's just sleeping. :) With Xpresswest (http://www.xpresswest.com/) scheduled to begin construction soon, initially to connect Las Vegas to Los Angeles, but ultimately planned to connected to connect most of the major cities of the American Southwest and California Highspeed Rail (http://www.hsr.ca.gov/) also moving along, he's sure to rise from his slumber. :yes: But why LV? Because we host 41 million (http://www.lvcva.com/includes/content/images/media/docs/ES-YTD-2014.pdf) annually and I can see Xpress West partnering with hotels to provide inexpensive and convenient transportation, giving the high speed rail a jumpstart toward profitability and therefore success.
I can see Xpress West partnering with hotels to provide inexpensive and convenient transportation, giving the high speed rail a jumpstart toward profitability and therefore success.
Don't forget about partnering with airlines. Airlines? Yes, that's what e.g. Air France does over here because switching from a plane to a TGV or Thalys may turn out to be no worse or even more convenient than switching to another plane.
A couple of points: I can see high-speed rail coming into its own in the Northeast Corridor, and in cases like Sang mentions between LA and Lost Wages, beyond that I just don't know---- could it make sense from Minneapolis to Billings, Montana? Hard to say.
The second point: RJ, you may want to re-think pointing out Japan as a "large country". It's a string of small islands, the entire distance from one end to the other probably doesn't reach (comparatively) from Land's End to John O'Groats--- in fact, it seems to me to be probably just a little over half that. You have the advantage in that the entire distance between those points is on one island, Japan is made up of many small islands.
Don't forget about partnering with airlines. Airlines?
But for $89 dollars for the tickets, this will be a far less expensive option for the hotels to partner with. The time to LV will be an hour and half, so only half an hour longer than by plane. This doesn't mean the flying packages will cease to exist, but could mean such short flights would make less sense.
could it make sense from Minneapolis to Billings, Montana? Hard to say.
From Minneapolis to a city smaller than at least three of Las Vegas's suburbs (Henderson, North Las Vegas, and Paradise) wouldn't make sense, unless there was a track along the northern part of the US leading to either Portland or Seattle. Even than, the company operating it would need to calculate if they'll pick up enough passengers in the small city to justify the cost of building and maintaining a station there.
(Long sigh) Now there was no point mjsmsprt40 wher I said that Japan was included as a "big country." There was a poin in the discussion about the advantage of motorways for fast travel. It is well seen that you unfortunately are not too up to date about trains. Japan has an extremely modern and well serving railway running over bridges like anywhere else and the bullet trains do run over a good legth of the country whatever the geograpjy and I also informed you that the tv documentary stated that to travel from one end to the other in a roughly parallel the road expressway takes hours longer than the bullet train does. The next generation of them is now to be even faster. So you wandered off dear man and my stance is still valid.
If those fast trains in America do get under way that willl be a great step in the right direction as up till now it has I am afraid been lagging behind others. Hope they do work out.
This is the kind of trains I'm interested in.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ace7mrRFG6A[/video]
Good one!
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-qUH2sD4GWB0%2FUUn5xBphLjI%2FAAAAAAAAA2o%2FMMYWv7n8sNw%2Fs1600%2Fthumb-up-terminator%2Bpablo%2BM%2BR.jpg&hash=bf64cd39717c17f26053bea4fba903c4" rel="cached" data-hash="bf64cd39717c17f26053bea4fba903c4" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-qUH2sD4GWB0/UUn5xBphLjI/AAAAAAAAA2o/MMYWv7n8sNw/s1600/thumb-up-terminator+pablo+M+R.jpg)
Japan has an extremely modern and well serving railway
and is smaller than California.
Honshu, the island where Tokyo is located, is 88,997 mi² while California is 163,000 mi². Train service in Japan's islands doesn't exist because Japan consists of a series of islands. My guess is that extended travel in California largely consists of cross border travel.
San Diego, California, to New York city is a flight of five hours and 40 minutes. The train trip? Almost three days. In the ex-colonial power, travel is easier. Edinburgh to London four and a half hours. Hence, trains are reasonable in the ex-colonial power. For most trips here, they aren't.
Bus and train travel for business trips isn't practical, and a large percentage of trips are for business purposes.
Japan has an extremely modern and well serving railway
and is smaller than California.
Honshu, the island where Tokyo is located, is 88,997 mi² while California is 163,000 mi². Train service in Japan's islands doesn't exist because Japan consists of a series of islands. My guess is that extended travel in California largely consists of cross border travel.
Yet, China which is 3.7 million sq miles is building a pretty nice high speed train system.
Japan has an extremely modern and well serving railway
and is smaller than California.
Honshu, the island where Tokyo is located, is 88,997 mi² while California is 163,000 mi². Train service in Japan's islands doesn't exist because Japan consists of a series of islands. My guess is that extended travel in California largely consists of cross border travel.
Yet, China which is 3.7 million sq miles is building a pretty nice high speed train system.
Apples and oranges.
China is developing modern infrastructure where the US has plenty of infastructure in the form of roads. Simply a problem of, if you build it -
will they come?
In the U.S. Short answer: No
Longer answer: No
China doesn't have a lot of cars. At least outside the big metro areas. Or a lot of roads to drive them on. Or a lot of people that could afford a car. For China, buses in the metro areas and trains for going from one city to another makes sense.
China is a Socialist country trying to form its own version of a capitalist economy. That requires them to do things we've already done here (railroads in the US were in their passenger-hauling prime from the 1850s or thereabouts to almost the mid 20th century).
China doesn't have a lot of cars
Don't they? For Oct 2015, the Chinese auto market was larger than that of the US by of over 400,000. It is true that per capita they have fewer cars than the US (itself a larger marker than Western Europe, new EU countries and Russia combined.) You might say "Or a lot of people that could afford a car", owing to the country's population there well could be as many people that can afford car there as here.
A slightly interesting note on China's economy. I read an analysis that China is actually the world's first mature fascist country. The leaders are communist in name only.
That daft guff yakking at my Japanese comparison when I made a point of indicating that a modern motorway going the same distance as the super train took a lot longer than the train was neatly avoided.
Elsewhere in the world and in places like Europe trains are still the same. In a bigger place than America like the Russian Federation a wider system than America. It is not something that the US has discovered that they do not see it is just the way things have went in the States due to the power of the car industry. Fair enough for them but the rest of the world values rail and proves the USA perhaps a wee bit wrong but that is as I say up to that country. Indeed decades ago when passenger rail started it's decline in the ex-colonies standards were not all that encouraging and lateness became a semi-regular thing. in fact passenger trains would be driven on to a parallel track to allow freight to get in front so hardly encouraging for distances! The rest of us are happy with rail so good luck to us. :D
The rest of us are happy with rail so good luck to us.
Since you've never owned a car and live in a very small country.... .
While the HSR and high-rise construction in China has gotten the greatest attention, every kind of infrastructure is built at staggering and unprecedented speed and scale, electricity, water, power plants, airports, ports and waterways, subways... The highway/motorway construction is on no lesser scale than railways, rather the opposite.
Rural and remote China hardly had roads and even less vehicles, now there might be crossing viaducts of rail and road nearby, and the village road might be congested.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fpic.people.com.cn%2FNMediaFile%2F2014%2F0721%2FMAIN201407211419000002097889873.jpg&hash=d6e0ab7f38459355b5bf10536c5730ce" rel="cached" data-hash="d6e0ab7f38459355b5bf10536c5730ce" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://pic.people.com.cn/NMediaFile/2014/0721/MAIN201407211419000002097889873.jpg)
Even at current break-neck speed it will take time before China reaches parity with Europe or North America.
The day Chinese have the same car/habitant ratio than the US and all the oil from the entire world will be not enough just for them.
Pathetic jimbro.
Maybe be small compared to your train desert but still stretching from the furthest south to the equal in the north is still a neat length and may I also remind you that there is a very high rate of motor car ownerships and constantly growing. And may I also remind you that we have 32,000,000 million cars and yet and yet rail travel is still soaring so your country is way behind the modern world regarding railways and progress. For a big country you are well behind so are you falling without thinking into a corner that somehow all the other modern and progessive countries are at some odd fault? Maybe they have all ran theirs better hence your rail decline.
From Chicago IL to Lincoln, NE.
How many km?
It's really strange that by train you take the double of time than by car unless you take the "mail train" that stops for half an hour at each and every small location. Another reason would be if your travel forces you to change trains for ten times...
Express trains here (not TGV) runs around 150 - 170km per hour, yours must be around the same thing. Cars hardly can do such average and it's impossible to do it in half the time.
I dont use trains anymore while they don't finish with the stupid and abusive non smoking totalitarian law.
From Chicago IL to Lincoln, NE.
How many km?
It's really strange that by train you take the double of time than by car unless you take the "mail train" that stops for half an hour at each and every small location. Another reason would be if your travel forces you to change trains for ten times...
Express trains here (not TGV) runs around 150 - 170km per hour, yours must be around the same thing. Cars hardly can do such average and it's impossible to do it in half the time.
I dont use trains anymore while they don't finish with the stupid and abusive non smoking totalitarian law.
I just dealt with what Google Maps gave me for travel times. Amtrak is notoriously bad, and you have to link in a couple of buses into that time too. There's the matter of catching the bus from O'Hare (my start point) to Union Station downtown for example. Then, at Lincoln there has to be another bus or you have to call a friend to get you to the destination--- a factory on the outskirts of town. All of this while hauling a 1,500 lb pallet of freight with you--- so you see why that doesn't work for me.
Edit; add-on: Amtrak is considerably slower than your trains, too. We're talking 110 to maybe 120 km per hour when the train is moving. Track conditions won't allow faster times.
All of this while hauling a 1,500 lb pallet of freight with you--- so you see why that doesn't work for me.
Very funny. :)
But I would point out that, depending on the specifics, a little extra time spent traveling may not necessarily be a bad thing just the same as for the train versus airplane comparison above. If you're stuck in a traffic jam for 30-40 minutes, you can't really do anything because you still have to pay attention to traffic. Heck, the same applies if you're just driving along for 30 minutes; it's just less annoying. But if you're stuck in public for an hour, you can read, you can think, etc. Some people even sleep. (That being said, I don't really like most buses. Trams are much nicer.)
Sadly, Amtrak does suck. Even on the highly traveled and maintained NE corridor between Boston and NY.
Our kid had to go to Boston from NY. The train is scheduled for 5hr 20min, the bus for 4 hr 30 min. The cost of the bus was 1/2 the train price. Even though we like trains, he took the bus.
The bus seating was wide with WIFI support and power outlets. I don't know if you get that on Amtrak coach.
He could have taken Amtrak's acela but that would have raised the train price by 50%, triple the bus price. The Acela time is 3hr 45 minutes.
Unfortunately American passenger rail as I mentioned lost the plot a while back and shows that tradition is stlll factual. That so many other modern and progressive places have better rail shows the country is now standard-wise out of sync. Trains sitting at stations for the length of time mentioned??
Our kid had to go to Boston from NY. The train is scheduled for 5hr 20min, the bus for 4 hr 30 min. The cost of the bus was 1/2 the train price. Even though we like trains, he took the bus.
Weird. The bus is cheaper here too, but I think in part that's because it's slower. The expensive train* to Amsterdam takes a little over one hour, the regular-priced train takes a little more than two hours and the normally cheaper** bus takes almost four hours.
* It's only a little more if you book sufficiently far in advance; it's more and more expensive the closer or more popular the date.
** Train promos can change the equation, but perhaps there are also bus promos.
It seems to me that the old Wells Fargo Stage Coach would be faster than today's trains.
Not strange at all. Train companies in general have to directly or indirectly pay for their infrastructure , while buses piggyback on existing road infrastructure. Sure, they pay road taxes, but even in Europe they don't pay all the costs, and in the US the taxes are laughable. Train cars are also an order of magnitude more expensive, and though they last longer and carry more, that's a lot of upfront costs to offset. For that reason trains need a much higher volume to break even, and have to compete either on speed or volume.
Train cars are also an order of magnitude more expensive, and though they last longer and carry more, that's a lot of upfront costs to offset. For that reason trains need a much higher volume to break even, and have to compete either on speed or volume.
Those are logistic costs, I believe the real problem to be the funding model.
Public service, paid with tax money, with highly subsidized ticket prices versus a supposed to be economically viable model.
For that reason trains need a much higher volume to break even, and have to compete either on speed or volume.
I don't think that's entirely true; trains comparatively barely take any power at all to get them to move. Which is to say that for the same volume you might still be cheaper off thanks to energy costs, provided you think sufficiently long-term. And indeed, perfectly servicable trains from the 1970s are still around. A bus from the 1970s? Hah! It had better have been replaced once a decade even with proper maintenance.
At the end of it all I'd still rather have my own ride. Takes me straight to where I wanna go, passengers ride free and I get to pick who. How much time that takes is irrelevant if time isn't important. Still takes less planning than figuring out public transit time tables if it did. I can easily avg 130-145kmh (80-90mph) on the interstate anyway. That's not that fast and I still pass buses.
Well you can dismiss what passes for rail over there as a competition.
At the end of it all I'd still rather have my own ride. Takes me straight to where I wanna go, passengers ride free and I get to pick who. How much time that takes is irrelevant if time isn't important. Still takes less planning than figuring out public transit time tables if it did. I can easily avg 130-145kmh (80-90mph) on the interstate anyway. That's not that fast and I still pass buses.
You put your finger on out there, a train only takes you where you want to go if you want to go to a train station.
Perhaps a better business model would be for train companies to expand into the bus & taxi & hire & bicycle markets, so you could buy your ticket to go to your actual destination. That means enormous flexibility in scheduling, maybe a possibility with today's systems.
At the end of it all I'd still rather have my own ride. Takes me straight to where I wanna go, passengers ride free and I get to pick who. How much time that takes is irrelevant if time isn't important. Still takes less planning than figuring out public transit time tables if it did. I can easily avg 130-145kmh (80-90mph) on the interstate anyway. That's not that fast and I still pass buses.
Of course it depends on rhe specifics. Apparently the big difference between the Dutch and Americans isn't whether we drive one at all (I think we make more km actually) but that most or at least many more Dutch people use all forms of transport: car, bike and feet/public transit.
Perhaps a better business model would be for train companies to expand into the bus & taxi & hire & bicycle markets, so you could buy your ticket to go to your actual destination. That means enormous flexibility in scheduling, maybe a possibility with today's systems.
Just implement the Dutch system without the checking out idiocy and you've got it already. Except you'd need to check e.g. 9292ov.nl and make sure your thing has enough money on it manually.
Perhaps a better business model would be for train companies to expand into the bus & taxi & hire & bicycle markets, so you could buy your ticket to go to your actual destination. That means enormous flexibility in scheduling, maybe a possibility with today's systems.
There are
ticket systems in many cities that involve as many forms of public transportation as possible within defined zones/areas, but taxi & hire are excluded, as they usually go by mileage instead of zone. That would be a ticket system steered by the relevant public transportation authority, not a business model for train companies. The business decision for train companies would be whether to join the ticket system or not (provided that the companies are independent enough to make business decisions like this).
From the passenger's point of view, a unified ticket system as far as possible is a major convenience, whereas transportation authorities work diligently to find out ways to make it inconvenient. In unified zone systems, single tickets (the intuitive first choice for tourists/outsiders) tend to become relatively overpriced. And I regard pre-paid card systems, in an effort to reduce/remove cash handling, as a ludicrous idiocy. With pre-paid cards, particularly those that you flash towards sensors as you go in/out of vehicles, you never know how much your tickets cost (sometimes the sensors take double), how much money you have left on the card, and there's no easy way to cash back the leftover. But of course that's the idea - there will be more money dangling in favour of the transportation authority.
Old technology won't be maintained, except as a nostalgic impulse…
In the real world, only what consumers want or what coercive government requires will prevail: A simple choice, no? :)
You are off on an odd direction kind of "progress" string which is just fiddly and why should the rail companies here do that stretched out far too fiddly extra idea? Train travel is a massive thing and passenger levels are huge and increasing all the time so why be sidetracked by a wonky idea when they are busy enough. Pointless and complicated all round.
For less than seventy euros per month you can take any bus, metro, tram or boat, how many times you need, inside the metropolitan area of Lisbon.
Even so, every imbecile wants to own a car... I would ban cars from cities with the exception of electric taxis, distribution and emergence vehicles. Cars took our cities by assault it's time to get the city back to the people.
I /think/ you can get a month bus pass here 30 USD. The trouble is the bus system is terrible. It took me an hour and half to get to place that I could have have drove to in 15 minutes :( I have a friend at work that told me the bus drove by his stop with him there waiting and he's been late multiple times because of the bus (even got written up for it), so I had to advise him to get some kind of car.
Chicago has the same kind of problem. The CTA is atrocious for time. I have a brother who lives on the far North Side by the lake. I live in the Western Suburbs. I'd have to mark out half a day to get there from here by trains and buses, the same job can be done in an hour (I visit him on weekends) by car.
Bit sad about the public transport negatives.
Both metro and buses are faster at rush hour than cars.
I wish it was like that here. I would gladly not have a car payment, insurance plus about 90 USD each month for gas. But the only place we have decent public transportation is in the tourist areas.
There's something to think about. Areas around Nevada, Arizona, New Mexico and parts of California are all but designed by God for high-speed rail. Set up the rails, build the trains to run on them, and there's no reason you couldn't have speeds out West to rival anything in the Eurasian continent. But,,,, they won't build the thing so there's an end of it.
It's a waste of money. The LA to Vegas run seems to make sense because a lot of people make the trip to blow money, but it's not sustainable. Unlike some of the eastern corridors there's no commuter base for them out there so the first major recession ends it. That and the technology will be out of date in the coming decades. As the US reaches European population densities rails will actual be the economic benefit here that Europeans think they are. When that happens Maglevs that are being developed in Japan now show promise of providing a much better solution for the longer lines that would be needed. It has to actually make more sense than flying or driving for the money invested. Seeing how any attempt at highspeed rail will involve Japanese investment anyway it's better to just wait until they finish developing the next generation tech. Or at least wait until our investment shifts the balance of the industry.
Don't be so negative ;) It's true our tourist profits plummeted in the recession. Further, the facts remain the economies of Nevada and California got their heads handed to them in the recession. But there's so considerable reason for optimism. The LA to LV stretch is to be only the first leg of a network connecting all the metropolitan areas of the Southwest, many of which are growing rapidly. This creates not only a much larger market for the service, but more reason to use it besides tourists coming to LV to blow their money (which we happily relieve them of carrying, being ever so helpful :yes: )
Then there's the changing nature of Nevada's economy. While I'm a little ticked at Governor Sandoval of the issues with Nevada Energy (see the last few posts of the Global Warming thread), under him the economy of Nevada is finally diversifying. This expands the reason reason for travel to LV to more business travel. Also let's not forget half of Nevada has friends and relatives in California. It will be faster (and possibly cheaper) to take the high-speed rail back and forth instead of driving, which is trip that's also hard on the car since you have to traverse high mountains to find yourself in Death Valley of all places.
It will be faster (and possibly cheaper) to take the high-speed rail back and forth instead of driving […]
I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, but: If it's economically feasible and perhaps profitable — why have no entrepreneurs ventured…? :)
The word "boondoggle" comes to mind.
As with high-speed rail in California (…where the obvious route along the coast was rejected and the darned-near impossible route over the Grapevine's mountains was assumed to be a given), the political forces will milk the "political" money-cow until it's dry.
Then, the project will die.
If people wanted to ride trains from LA to LV, someone would have made lots of money providing that service…
Hey,
Sang, why don't
you float and manage the project, yourself? :)
I'm sorry to keep bringing this up, but: If it's economically feasible and perhaps profitable — why have no entrepreneurs ventured…?
They have.
The previous post of insufficient. As early as 2012, they already had 1.5 billion in private investors (http://www.cahsrblog.com/2012/09/xpresswest-has-1-5-billion-in-private-investors-and-a-strong-argument-for-victorville/) :yes: But that's obviously old news, you might say. A lot could have happened since then. I agree. A lot has happened. Federal funding has fallen through. That's a thunderstorm with a beautiful rainbow at the end because China Railway International USA CO has now partnered with XpressWest to make the project a reality. The rainbow is showing this can be done without government assistance.
If people wanted to ride trains from LA to LV, someone would have made lots of money providing that service…
An odd than it seems argument. There's always an original visionary for everything. If there was money to be made providing electric lightening before Edison, somebody would have beat him to it, no? (yes, I know there's contention if he actually invented the light bulb, but let's not derail, so speak, the conversation with that controversy)
Ensbb3 and Oakdale's skepticism is understandable, but from the looks of things, the project is a go. I'm not readily familiar with the Oakdales concern over Grapevine's mountains, but a quick wikipedia check show them to be smaller than Nevada's Spring Mountains so I'm not sure what the problem was there (there could be other issues such as the exact nature of the terrain?). But it doesn't appear to be unusual for several routes to be proposed and rejected before a final route is decided upon.
At the end of the day, close ties between LV and LA are all but inevitable, including a quick and easy train ride between the two cities. As a said before, I don't think it will be all tourists. We'll have plenty of business travellers and people with familial ties in both cities.
By the numbers LA-LV should make a lot of sense, particularly for LV. In theory it makes a lot of sense (and profit for the cities). However, there are many more ways for a project to fail than to succeed, and once again it seems LA have picked all of them. They did so with the metro, they disembowelled their own HSR, and this line from LV is not projected to go to LA, but to the desert outside LA. Not a recipe for success.
It seems that everyone that don't have a personal interest in a line's success try to make it fail, so they do. The ones benefitting contribute nothing. While I lived in Oslo they built a metro station right outside my door. That new line added speed, strength and convenience to the system, but my biggest personal benefit was that the value of my apartment grew to half again what it would have been otherwise. The real estate boost runs in the billions. I paid nothing, except some extra taxes. Sweden is trying to significantly improve their local and national infrastructure part-financed by this. We'll see how this pans out. Sweden takes planning very seriously, any results would be decades in the future. If I got the mindset right, this could work out in LV, but be an abject failure in California.
If I were rail planner in California I think the most reasonable strategy would be to give up. If that wasn't an allowed exit strategy, I would start a bus company. Buy a dozen sensible location in town, partner with local retail, office, hotel and parking barons, with long term plans to convert into rail stations. One stop check-in, tracking the passengers and their luggage so that they end up where they are supposed to, shop-while-you-wait. Buses providing a level of service comparable with trains, for work or play. This could be combined with a stack-em-high service for volume, buses are cheap, it's the stations we need to develop.
You are being trite negative ensbb3 as you country is famous for wasting billions on imperial directions. Yes there would be costs but you are so far behind the rest of the world on rail and makes you stand out and that is sad si hence the "waste" excuses.
It's not the money. California would benefit from growing a backbone, less traffic, better communication, better resilience, and not least developing the station areas and catchment. But you would want it to go between reasonably sensible places in a reasonably straight way, like from the brain to the legs.
Having it go along the coast would be the obvious, though certainly expensive, choice. More people, more valuable real estate, more traffic that wouldn't be SF-to-LA. Even the '"easier" desert route and a backbone with an extreme case of scoliosis isn't necessarily fatal, but it takes the edge off the benefits.
I wouldn't worry too much about putative new technologies, they will come and do their thing, but as long as the existing infrastructure is sensible they will coexist, each doing their thing. If the future bring us pressurised pneumatic blowing us from SF to LA, airplanes would take us to far-off tubeless destinations, we would have suburban and regional trains and cars connecting the other parts of the state. Besides it is obvious it isn't the technology that is the obstacle for new infrastructure.
Having it go along the coast would be the obvious, though certainly expensive, choice. More people, more valuable real estate, more traffic that wouldn't be SF-to-LA. Even the '"easier" desert route […]
"Certainly expensive" as opposed to
outrageously expensive. And "more traffic that wouldn't be SF-to-LA"? :) Traffic between SF and LA and Sacramento is the
only rider-base for high-speed rail in California…
The coastal route merely recognizes the realities of our geography: Trains crossing the northern valleys disembark at Bakersfield, put their riders on buses to go over the grapevine — and, usually, let them
ride into LA on the bus: There are no economical rail routes after that.
I'm sorry,
jax, but you're understanding of California geography and demography preclude your understanding our high-speed rail options…
But thanks for playing!
I suspect it's mostly a "planner" mentality that thinks reality must bow to political will and federal money…
That should teach me to fact check before bloviating. In my mental map California was more coastal than in these maps, then again my mental map is very fuzzy between San Jose and Santa Barbara.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/California_population_map.png)(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fmedia.maps.com%2Fmagellan%2FImages%2Fcapop.gif&hash=71c1525e6b94fa1251aa5f697b9ea3fa" rel="cached" data-hash="71c1525e6b94fa1251aa5f697b9ea3fa" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://media.maps.com/magellan/Images/capop.gif)
So more of you have trekked into the desert than I expected, the gravitational pull of Bay Area and LA on the other hand is normal. The upshot is that the proposed rail map (in yellow) is somewhat less insane than it was in my prejudgement.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fassets.inhabitat.com%2Fwp-content%2Fblogs.dir%2F1%2Ffiles%2F2015%2F09%2FXpressWest-California-Nevada-High-Speed-Corridors-map-537x430.jpg&hash=cba9e6f52f40d8ba85defc15f6a15c44" rel="cached" data-hash="cba9e6f52f40d8ba85defc15f6a15c44" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://assets.inhabitat.com/wp-content/blogs.dir/1/files/2015/09/XpressWest-California-Nevada-High-Speed-Corridors-map-537x430.jpg)
LA-SF and to lesser extent LA-Sacramento might provide the passenger number (by this architecture SF-Sacramento is precluded), but the greatest benefits would be more local. Real estate owners with commute distance reduced from significantly more than an hour to significantly less should be the big winners, as should the ones with an increase in business. San Jose should win from both, plus better connectivity to SFO. At the other end so should San Diego. All this assuming an actual improvement in service, let alone that the whole line will be built.
Then there's the changing nature of Nevada's economy.
Nice try. It's a casino oasis in the middle of nothing.
Country music tourism would benefit greatly from a link to, say, Atlanta. Not to mention we actually have a few large corporations based here (and there). But you won't see me trying to sell its practicality.
Expanding the rail up the coast does make the most practical sense For California. You also expand the range of the suburbs along the route going that way. Makes more economic sense for a much wealthier state.
The coastal route merely recognizes the realities of our geography: Trains crossing the northern valleys disembark at Bakersfield, put their riders on buses to go over the grapevine — and, usually, let them ride into LA on the bus: There are no economical rail routes after that.
No idea what you're on about. They have mountains in Europe too.
I'd like to have high speed rail. But i'm not convinced it's the way to go right now. That doesn't mean public transportation isn't shit on this country.
Amtrak was the attempt to increase passenger travel time using current infrastructure. And failed because commerce travel covers too vast of distances for it to impact on a national scale. That's leaving passenger trains going on routes you could easily drive with no major time difference otherwise just fly there. There's never much funding for our shit trains because no one really needs them.
I think the country is well out of sync with the general world where progress is the order of the day and they cannot all be wrong. Know all the usual stuff about distances and so on but the power of the motr car industry was something else. Even in other places where the car is taking off rail is still a big and constantly modernising thing. Unfortunately the plot has been essentially lost over there unless it is just freight traffic.
I think the country is well out of sync with the general world where progress is the order of the day and they cannot all be wrong. Know all the usual stuff about distances and so on but the power of the motr car industry was something else. Even in other places where the car is taking off rail is still a big and constantly modernising thing. Unfortunately the plot has been essentially lost over there unless it is just freight traffic.
There's the problem. Freight traffic is profitable for the rails here, so it gets priority. Long-distance passenger traffic--- not so much. The head honchos in the front office do a cost-benefit analysis and come up with the idea that it would cost fantastic amounts of money to build high-speed rail, and they're not at all sure they can recoup the investment much less make any profit.
Yeah, a freight transportation network second to none. Sounds horrible.
I read no satisfactory explanation. It seems to me much more a matter of an automobile's culture deep inside people's mentality as well as the lack of a strong national choesion willing for a equally leveled development of the country's different areas. There's simply no infraestruture backbone that unites the country, the rule appearing to be each area per itself.
In such a development model there's no place for railways.
Passenger railways. Pretty sure the US moves more freight via rail than any other country.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7kor5nHtZQ[/video]
I may have to pass too. Seems it doesn't work as well everywhere.
Yes mjsmsprt40 I was well aware of the financial freight situation over there and I did in a passing comment mentioning that even years ago a long distance passenger train would be instructed into s siding to allow freight to pass on. Not much of a practical help to passengers and they often ran very long late times.
That video ensbb3 has allowed you to catch up something know for years on such incidentally and it happens to be a local or suburban issue. Being a train fan was aware of these things many years ago! On the issue of maybe your country has the biggest freight money side is a consolation that you are way behind the world on passenger services. That other big places are away head on the passenger side makes that a handy would-be cover positive. :D
Here, the adoption of direct, short run profitable criteria only has been shutting down several small railroad ramifications therefore stop serving isolated populations and increasing the disparity between develloped areas and the rest of the country.
Each time the train doesn't arrive anymore and that's one more part of the country that dies.
Some of those train branches have been turned recently into tourist train tours as in the beautiful Douro line.
There is a very direct truth there in what you say about rail closure in rural areas and that happened her away back in the time the State was allowed to run rail for decades. More recently where a passenger route has been re-opened after years of not existing the success has been wide - especially up here in the northern part of the kingdom. Now I have bought a national rail card at a great price I will be using those re=opened lines and travel to corners of the land I have always intended to be on a train with. Buses? nah.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_NM19xu9CY[/video]
Of course train culture can leave you bias to the fact it just doesn't work everywhere.
Of course knew about that for decades as well. Indian railways are a very important factor for a country of so many people and they are well used. They can thank the BE for that.
Of course knew about that for decades as well.
Just to be clear. You say, twice now, you've known about these problems for decades.
Perhaps there's a point about the limits of that particular form of transportation infrastructure... But I just got too tickled over India thanking the British Empire. :lol:
:)
And all those dozens of former colonies wanting to be in the British Commonwealth! Nice of India to acknowledge the importance of that great railway we created for them, haha! Heavens, by inventing the railway we helped your country too! :D
travel to corners of the land I have always intended to be on a train with. Buses? nah.
You should ride a donkey,
RJ. That way, when someone points at you and says "What an ass…" :)
Ride a donkey? You could never carry me Oakdale as you would not be steady enough. There are tens of millions like you boy over there that make your country look like nutjob land. As for trains amongst the developed and advanced countries you are way, way behind. Mind you in your situation it would be good I suppose if you could reach even a bus stop never mind a railway station!
Years ago - not sure if my first or second trip to the part democracy I recall that on the Eastern Corridor going from NYC to DC we got stopped at a main city to allow a super (French looking) style train to overtake us! What a system. I did get to know several people on the train as well as entertaining the young with funny and serious Scots songs indeed I got waved when I got off at Washington DC. Mind you they were not Oakdale Yanks but normal folk. Not surprised at people who make you wonder about your education when a middle-class couple of retired journalists asked if we had colour television. However I did not groan as ignorance of the outside world is routine and they did want to see me again so two years later when I was back they invited me down to Philly for 2 days.
Anyway, before this degrades any farther.
While you can always find new innovative ways to stack cargo there's only so many people you can reasonably (India excluded) pack on to one line of traffic and only so much traffic you can put on that line before time restraints make it ineffective. Not unlike a congested highway, you simply reach the capacity of the infrastructure. Only that system of transit just takes you so far and relies heavily on there being other forms of transit infrastructure available. Buses, paths, streets, taxis, trams/trolleys and/or Uber drivers are still needed. That means it's not always the most practical for national travel. Excellent for urban travel in larger cities perhaps. But not necessarily the end solution for vast distances.
If they didn't have such big dashed families they often in practice cannot afford then overcrowding would not be a problem. Mind you the fares are so very low. Rail work is by tradition very widely a family occupation and Indians love working for it.
Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies"
India is an ex-colony where trains have caught on just fine. And trains have had its time of greatness in North America too.
I hope that the syndicate of Indians and Train Robbers to have a word to say about this...
After all, they were the ones that made America known to the world.
Got a point along with the place sticking it's nose in everywhere else instead of sorting themselves out. If they didn't ridiculously spend half the world's military bill they could solve a lot of internal problems and that includes getting from well behind other advanced nations on railways. In the not too distant future of a decade or two the country will be a financial and political disaster (signs are there!) the decline of passenger rail is only a start.
I think what RJ means to say is "I really hate it, that the United States has become the preeminent power in the geo-political world: I'm stupid and inconsequential, and I don't like that!" :)
(I threw in the smiley to appease the "censors"… Although, the some-what nation of Scotland will likely not complain!
Heck, it won't long survive…) :(
Anyway, before this degrades any farther.
Clearly too late, as can be observed.
While you can always find new innovative ways to stack cargo there's only so many people you can reasonably (India excluded) pack on to one line of traffic and only so much traffic you can put on that line before time restraints make it ineffective. Not unlike a congested highway, you simply reach the capacity of the infrastructure. Only that system of transit just takes you so far and relies heavily on there being other forms of transit infrastructure available. Buses, paths, streets, taxis, trams/trolleys and/or Uber drivers are still needed. That means it's not always the most practical for national travel. Excellent for urban travel in larger cities perhaps. But not necessarily the end solution for vast distances.
As long as you got the land and the money you can build anything. I might throw in some pictures from China to illustrate, if for no better reason that they are seriously cool.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fww4.sinaimg.cn%2Fmw690%2F78d5c541jw1eyy2tcy3g8j20zk0medj3.jpg&hash=78f0142e1b92209e0a45c029cb5e7bba" rel="cached" data-hash="78f0142e1b92209e0a45c029cb5e7bba" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://ww4.sinaimg.cn/mw690/78d5c541jw1eyy2tcy3g8j20zk0medj3.jpg)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cmhk.com%2Fn6%2Fn43%2Fc18652%2Fpart%2F51991.jpg&hash=6c4c6b71d06e993bbff56640e4374ae4" rel="cached" data-hash="6c4c6b71d06e993bbff56640e4374ae4" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://www.cmhk.com/n6/n43/c18652/part/51991.jpg)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimg226.poco.cn%2Fmypoco%2Fmyphoto%2F20140131%2F16%2F17432307720140131164629073.jpg&hash=6f10e642853d4d8cee19f7ab2f3f4900" rel="cached" data-hash="6f10e642853d4d8cee19f7ab2f3f4900" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://img226.poco.cn/mypoco/myphoto/20140131/16/17432307720140131164629073.jpg)
When it comes to throughput, the number of people transported per hour, trains, even the 20th century variety, are unrivalled. Cars are big and typically transport 1½ people (sometimes less on average), bicycles are small, but slow (for normal people), planes are fast, but can transport few and so on.
There is no reason why trains should be limited to one or two tracks. Here in Stockholm county the upgrade to four is nearing completion. The logic of four track is the same as for a motorway/highway, you don't only have higher capacity, you can have fast and slow lanes, trains on the inner tracks stop at the station, the trains on the outer tracks whizz by. You have similar for metros in major Japanese cities. The Chinese can have six or eight because, well they are Chinese. The side rode at my Beijing home, leading to the garage for the estate, is four lane, the main roads are 6+2 lanes.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2FCgDrBRm.png&hash=bd59613b6b8b4b525b55f84b26ad9714" rel="cached" data-hash="bd59613b6b8b4b525b55f84b26ad9714" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/CgDrBRm.png)
That leads us to cities and economy. The cheapest would be if everyone just stayed put. If people are living in the periphery and working in the centre, that means a twice daily strain on the system, worse the closer you come near the centre. In the US particularly there has been an alternative approach, where you work in the periphery and stay away from the centre, the edge city. This only works with cars and maybe smaller buses, but worse it leads to more traffic and longer commutes, rather than less. Some cities, and most larger cities have multiple centres. That leads to more traffic than a single-centre city, less than an edge city.
Congestion is to some extent self-regulating, more congestion leads to lower inclination to drive. Conversely throwing infrastructure leads to induced traffic, and in some cases perversely more infrastructure means more congestion.
Trains are expensive, but can be very economical if run near full capacity. Thus they are good for major transportation axes, but can be suboptimal otherwise.
The problem in India isn't the trains as such, but the general and chronic underinvestment in infrastructure.
Yeah Oakdale your country is the pre-eminent power but that does not mean it is principled, honest or democratic. Up to your ears in debt, destabilise nations and worse and cannot look after your own inside of the country due to glory hunting. Hence you are away behind everyone else when it comes to railways and we get excuses for that deficit. It is bad enough there are tens of millions of poor and money and debt racked up for military mess-ups when in the railway side that this thread is about you are as I point out incapable of keeping up ith modern rail development in other progressive countries. Another unfortunate thing about your rail is the design of them as they look generally, ugly and epitomises much.
One of the very, very few attempts at catching up is the idea plan of changing the name of one of the two main stations in New York City. It has always been called the Penn Central after the original Pennsylvania RR from years ago. I think it suggested to be the Empire State Complex?? Even that does not really amount to much more than a poor sign of progress. Here in Scotland we have been re-opening long closed passenger lines that break targets but what a shame even that a small nation like mine can put you to shame on railways. Unlike the modern world you will continue to fail and fall behind and the silly beggar mindset (like your s of course) attempts to satirically conjure up waffle. You at least try that corner Oak but like your rail that is a joke and maybe sticktoworld corruption as you are better at that than trains.! :P
The logic of four track is the same as for a motorway/highway, you don't only have higher capacity, you can have fast and slow lanes, trains on the inner tracks stop at the station, the trains on the outer tracks whizz by.
It should be the other way round, slower at the outside so people can leave stations without crossing fast non stop train lines.
It's a tradeoff. Motorways and Japanese rail IIRC have the fast lane in the middle. But Stockholm predominantly uses island platforms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_platform), which is convenient in that transfer from one train to another is easy, you just walk a couple meters across the platform.
Outside Stockholm side platforms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_platform) are more common. They have their advantage as well, particularly in towns with connecting buses. The bus platform often is integrated with the train platform so that the train side platform is simultaneously a train/bus island platform.
but what a shame even that a small nation like mine can put you to shame on railways.
Is that right?
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_the_United_Kingdom#/media/File:UK_high_speed_rail_map.png])]I'm looking zero current high-speed rail lines in Scotland. I see a couple lines planned, but we have that in Nevada. Hrm, interesting. A single small state can match, if not beat Scotland in that regard and without Federal money. Poor Scotland is having trouble competing even with a single American city, oh dear :(
island platforms
side platforms (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Side_platform)
Railroad dilemas...
The only thing that matters is multi-modal systems. So passenger flux can keep on moving across diferent system transportations.
Cars are at the bottom.
Except at the land of Ford, fu****g Ford mass production.
One bugbear that stops high-speed rail here is 19th century planning, Grade crossings might have been OK during the time when most folk either walked or traveled by horse, and a "fast train" could do maybe 25 mph. Our rail system is loaded with grade crossings where cars and trucks can meet with trains--- with tragic results.
I remember a few years back there was an accident between an Amtrak train and a truck hauling steel coils at Bradley, Illinois. The train did slow a bit, but still hit at 60 mph with predictable results.
Now imagine a high-speed train going at 175 mph and it hits that truck. Oh, man, the carnage! You'd be safer if you'd been kidnapped by ISIL.
Railway design MUST change if high-speed rail is to progress. The grade-crossing has got to go.
Quickie add-on: The driver of the truck survived, the train hit the trailer about half-way back. Turns out the driver wasn't the sharpest tack in the box, he was running for three different companies and keeping multiple log-books. He had gotten maybe 3 hours of sleep in the past 36 at the time of the accident. Thought he could beat the train. Want high-speed rail? (The line from Chicago to New Orleans could be perfect for that.) Grade crossings have got to go, they're a relic of a bygone age.
Yes, grade crossings have to go, and they are going one by one. Each have their own cost, each their own story. It doesn't apply to high-speed rail, that don't have grade crossings for obvious reasons, but everything in the world isn't high-speed. Everyone have 19th century infrastructure, the Europeans, the Americans, the Indians, the Chinese, the Japanese. The 19th centurians were a highly industrious people, we're in debt to them.
They also gave us those quaint old things nobody has figured what to do with. The oldest metro in Oslo have one, there is one in the middle of Beijing. The 20th century gave us automated gates, the 21th century gave us automated circuit breaker.
A variant of which causes great pain here in Stockholm. If anyone walks on any train track anywhere the whole system automatically shuts down, and since it is running at beyond capacity in the central bottleneck, the wasp's waist (https://sv.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sammanbindningsbanan_(järnväg)), it leads to a half hour delay to get up again. That only happens about every other day.
jax, you have once again amazed me! Circuit breakers, for rail lines…
Wouldn't the Precautionary Principle demand that rail lines be "plowed" under? :) They're too dangerous…
Wouldn't the Precautionary Principle demand that rail lines be "plowed" under? :) They're too dangerous…
You are clearly not aware of e.g. the Lille metro, where they effectively did just that. ;)
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fc2.staticflickr.com%2F6%2F5726%2F23072345939_2bb51ef426_c.jpg&hash=d56010c89b2d7796466209fbb3d4acfc" rel="cached" data-hash="d56010c89b2d7796466209fbb3d4acfc" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5726/23072345939_2bb51ef426_c.jpg)
https://www.flickr.com/photos/131693847@N05/23072345939/
The rails are inaccessible from the platforms, and when the train arrives its doors and the platform's doors line up. That being said, I figure there's probably enough wiggle room around for a child's fingers or some such…
A similar but much smaller system is in place at Detroit Wayne Airport
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c5/DTW_Tram_Station.jpg/800px-DTW_Tram_Station.jpg)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExpressTram
Those glass walls with doors are present in some Paris metro stations too. They are creepy. Creepy because suiciders are motivated to become more inventive now.
Those glass walls with doors are present in some Paris metro stations too. They are creepy. Creepy because suiciders are motivated to become more inventive now.
They weren't when I was there, admittedly already over a dozen years ago. But speaking of suicide, I understand that even what amounts to a mere 5 to 10 second slowdown because of some barrier or other diminishes the amounts of suicides by a significant percentage
without an uptake in suicide rates elsewhere. Apparently many suicides are very much a spur of the moment idea, regardless whether they consist of jumping down from a bridge or metro platform, or of shooting oneself in the head. In any case, while I'm not sure what the best method for committing suicide is, giving (train) drivers a traumatic experience doesn't seem to fit the bill. Perhaps something like Drion's pill (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drion's_pill).
Platform screen doors (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platform_screen_doors) are spreading. They are the rule in Chinese metro lines, typically only a few years old, but are getting retrofitted in European and other metro systems as well. Originally they were installed for air quality, not security, but there is a psychological effect too. When you get used to them stations without them feel old and unsafe, which they probably aren't.
Stockholm plans to gradually introduce them as well, but most stations are outdoors, and only partally under roof. That may be for cost reasons, but I suspect Swedish social engineering. With the middle part of the platform more comfortable, people avoid the more dangerous parts close to the trains. But as it is, instead of extending the roof, they are looking for PSDs that can weather snow, cold, rain, sun, heat.
Air quality? At least here in Antwerp I feel metro stations are fairly well ventilated, and if anything I'd suspect closing up the rails would make them less so. It might be nice to have some more noise insulation from the occasional screeching noises, but as far as safety goes I doubt it matters. Of course the same is true for things like street lighting. I understand actual crime statistics don't differ much, if at all, but people feel significantly safer when it's lighter out.
One reoccurring theme in Euro rails seems to be that they are State owned. That's not at all the case here. CSX, for example, is the class I railway that operates in this region. They operate their lines mostly with impunity in the region too. I remember reading a few years back about a crossing in a town being closed. Now it's a rather small town (14k pop.) but exists from the late 1800's because of a rail depot that used to be there. So naturally the tracks pass right thru the middle of it with many crossings. Anyway CSX deemed the Main st. crossing unsafe. Rather than spend money to fix it they simply closed it. This cut the century old historic district in half. Since there were other crossings the railway was unconcerned. However the town naturally protested. The results being CSX told them either they could fix it or it would remain closed. And it did for almost a year while the city sued a company that made more profit in a year than they could budget for a decade. The final result was the crossing was reopened after both parties agreed to certain liabilities. Tho I believe the only thing that changed was the traffic pattern on the street and CSX upgraded their crossing arm.
I offer as an example of how rail companies think here. Rather than sacrificing profits to be harmonious they often take an approach that benefits their bottom line and not the communities they serve. Meaning while passenger travel could make economic sense for the State/region/whatev there's no foreseeable profit feasibility for the rail companies as they exist. Only liability.
One recurring theme in Euro rails seems to be they are State owned.
The main French and German ones are; in e.g. the UK and the Netherlands they're not. And in any case the US government owns all of Amtrak's preferred stock, meaning they basically get all of the votes. Furthermore, Amtrak might well receive more subsidy than any of the state-owned railroad enterprises around here. Keep in mind that owning a majority share in something as important as infrastructure can just be a way to make sure some foreign entity can't cripple you. Think of the prototypical American hedge fund that acquires a company only to suck dry all of its operational assets.
CSX, for example, is the class I railway that operates in this region. They operate their lines mostly with impunity in the region too.
That describes a situation that isn't atypical at all in Europe. On the one hand you have Amtrak (government-controlled); on the other hand you have this CSX (private company operating in some sort of niche).
I offer as an example of how rail companies think here. Rather than sacrificing profits to be harmonious they often take an approach that benefits their bottom line and not the communities they serve. Meaning while passenger travel could make economic sense for the State/region/whatev there's no foreseeable profit feasibility for the rail companies as they exist. Only liability.
In the Netherlands, the province of North-Holland pays NS (the biggest railroad company, previously state-owned but privatized in the '80s/'90s) to keep a particular railroad track I sometimes use operational. For their taste it doesn't have enough traffic. In a slightly different spin, sometimes public transit companies are only given licenses to operate under condition that they service unprofitable further out areas as well as the profitable ones. But even so I suppose there might be something slightly less cutthroat about continental European capitalism compared to Anglo-Saxon (i.e. UK and US) type capitalism.
the UK[...] they're not.
Hmm. I read differently. My bad.
And in any case the US government owns all of Amtrak's preferred stock, meaning they basically get all of the votes.
Which is why it's still a thing and hasn't went the way of the dinosaurs. Also a poster-child for why the big railways won't do it. It bleeds money and compounds liability. The Feds 'own' it likely because who else would? Keeping in mind it operates mostly on the rails of the class I railways. Surely offering them government benefits to allow it to exist. (Tho rail right-of-way is a bit complicated and I'm not sure of the details. It is regulated by the Feds to allow rail companies to use each other's lines and prevent price gouging but idk how that translates to Amtrak's usage. Especially given it is priority traffic.)
But even so I suppose there might be something slightly less cutthroat about continental European capitalism compared to Anglo-Saxon (i.e. UK and US) type capitalism.
That seems almost assured.
One reoccurring theme in Euro rails seems to be that they are State owned.
Initially, important services like rails were State owned. The idea behind was to offer essential services at an acceptable prize that even low income people can afford. Therefore even so the services were profitable, they weren't trimmed for profit.
Than came the Anglo-Saxon (i.e. UK and US) mantra that privatization will make such services even better and even cheeper.
Parts of the most profitable services were sold out to private investors.
The new owners trimmed the services for profit...
Employees got fired en masse and areas where a decent profit was almost impossible to achieve, were simply cut off from the service. Simple as that.
In addition the new owners were less interested in investing in the infrastructure but to suck out the existing one for best profit. Neither became the service cheeper but rather dearer.
Most nefarious examples have been the privatizations of water supply.
Speaking of water supply - some friends who often have to visit the USA told me that in some hotels water smells of chlorine.
Can someone from our US residents confirm or deny it?
Initially, important services like rails were State owned. The idea behind was to offer essential services at an acceptable prize that even low income people can afford.
Makes sense. However, that's not the job of the Federal Government here. It wouldn't be unfair to say it could be the job of the State's Governments.
Anything that crosses State's borders falls into the Feds purview. Amtrak and the TVA can seem to go against the Feds not owning businesses but those are somewhat controversial and separate issues that span State's borders.
Speaking of water supply - some friends who often have to visit the USA told me that in some hotels water smells of chlorine.
Can someone from our US residents confirm or deny it?
There are 50 different standards, regulation boards, inspector departments and enforcement measures. Each water department is usually funded by the local municipality and regulated by the State in resides in not the Feds. So yea but naw. (Or - I've seen it so and not so.)
It's easy to look at the US simply as one country, perhaps like yours. Foreign policy probably makes that real easy for you. But domestically it works a lot more on a State by State basis. Each have their own ways and thank the Feds to stay out of it... Unless they wanna throw some money their way. But then how that money is spent is decided by the State often with general guidelines for receiving Federal money but not directly implemented by the Feds.
The goal is to repeat for rail the success of air travel in the EU. Thirty years ago was EU was in the thrall of national carriers, British Airways ruled Britannia, Lufthansa Germany, Air France France, and so on. Now European skies are highly competitive, possibly the most competitive in the world.
It has proved harder to get this kind of dynamism for rail. The EU has been worked hard to liberate railways in their first, second, third railway package (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Railway_Package).
third railway package (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Railway_Package).
Never heard about it... not surprisingly, since we (and the Spanish) use rail roads of a different dimension so European's (meaning Hitler's) trains could not enter the Iberian peninsula. I suppose that is being changed, an error of course.
Heck, you guys still use the Metric System… :)
Speaking of water supply - some friends who often have to visit the USA told me that in some hotels water smells of chlorine.
Can someone from our US residents confirm or deny it?
I can confirm that my experience with water in the US is that a lot of it isn't great, primarily meaning it tastes like chlorine. But it was mostly gross in France too. The best water I've had was probably in Luxembourg.
we (and the Spanish) use rail roads of a different dimension so European's (meaning Hitler's) trains could not enter the Iberian peninsula.
It's rather the horse's ass than Hitler.
Funny reading (https://www.truthorfiction.com/railwidth/) but helpful. :)
Heck, you guys still use the Metric System… :)
Ignorance is not a virtue. :)
For starters: http://www.metric4us.com/why.html
For starters: http://www.metric4us.com/why.html (http://www.metric4us.com/why.html)
All of their arguments are right, but they don't have anything to do with using metric units. You can use a centiyard and a kiloyard just the same as you can use a centimeter and a kilometer. But I think the more salient point might well be that those units are
defined as metric units. Why bother with the difficulty? ;)
(https://carolmorey.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/egyptian.gif)
Heck, you guys still use the Metric System… :)
Such an obvious attempt to derail this thread.
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fcdn3.chartsbin.com%2Fchartimages%2Fl_d12_33fb9fc29a88e150b57640019918ebf6&hash=59f516275de631781bf5b646934f210a" rel="cached" data-hash="59f516275de631781bf5b646934f210a" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://cdn3.chartsbin.com/chartimages/l_d12_33fb9fc29a88e150b57640019918ebf6)
But we can heat it up:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2F3ZidINK.png%3F1&hash=e9e7d3ad2ef993ccc3f25a284a481674" rel="cached" data-hash="e9e7d3ad2ef993ccc3f25a284a481674" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://i.imgur.com/3ZidINK.png?1)
(There might be a word to be had about map projections as well.)
All threads are derailed! It's the nature of the beast. A thread on babies would eventually end with references to Genghis Khan.
Such an obvious attempt to derail this thread.
One or both of us aren't being serious! (I take it, you couldn't resist the pun… :) )
Seriously, any system that's standardized and widely used will do. But no one system will do, for everyone everywhere. (Note: Local languages did not disappear with the introduction of Esperanto.)
Thanks for the link,
Krake. Even so, the Just So stories are fun!
What's important is that, whatever measuring system you use, everybody on the project (in this case, putting together a functional train system) gets on the same page and sticks with it.
Here, standard gauge between the rails is 4 feet 8 and a half inches. As long as that gauge is used both on the rails and on the wheel and axle sets that ride them, all is well. Let things get out of sorts because somebody thought they had a better idea and implemented that without telling anybody he did, and you can bet tragedy will result. "Oh, you thought 5 feet between rails was a better idea? OK, great. Now who is gonna clean up this mess and care for all these injured passengers, hmmm?"
mjm, who the hell ever wanted or proposed to do that?
We need a map.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1f/Rail_gauge_world.png)
As you can see, there is something the US, most of Europe, the Middle East, and China can fully agree on. Of course there are odd ones around. I highlight by random Portugal and Estonia. As always we can (in part) blame the British, virtually all ills in the world can be blamed on them with little effort. Though in this case it was primarily a consequence of late standardisation, or sometimes retrograde standardisation. The Roslagsbanan (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roslagsbanan) in Stockholm was in part standard gauge, but converted to narrow gauge for compatibility with other narrow gauge track after a merger a century ago.
Track gauge is just one necessary standardisation, as is loading gauge, and not the least (and definitely not cheapest) signalling systems. And there are curiosities like the Swedish trains driving on the left-hand side, a remnant from when Swedes like the British drove cars on the left-hand side.
And there are curiosities like the Swedish trains driving on the left-hand side, a remnant from when Swedes like the British drove cars on the left-hand side.
Off the top of my head, trains drive on the left in Belgium, France, and Italy. The metro in Rome also drives on the left. In the Netherlands, trains sometimes drive on the left as well for reasons of convenience and of course for crossing the border to Belgium.
Oh yeah, and I once went to the Brocken using this German Schmalspurbahn.
(https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/99_7247-2_Brocken%2C_2014_%2801%29.JPG/550px-99_7247-2_Brocken%2C_2014_%2801%29.JPG)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harz_Narrow_Gauge_Railways
mjm, who the hell ever wanted or proposed to do that?
Well---actually---- in the early history of American rail, they did exactly that. Seemed every railroad had its favorite gauge, and if you wanted to take train from one place to another you might have three or four different gauges between rails. Some passenger cars were built to be able to run on this, they had wheel sets designed to run on different rails systems. This didn't work as well as one would hope (no surprise there) and some notable incidents were caused when one of these "compromise cars" wandered a bit and got out of sorts. This was back in the days when cars were made of wood, and warmed by a coal-fired stove in the car--- so any accident during the cold months usually produced devastating fires into the bargain.
A few really bad accidents later, they settled on 4'8.5" for standard gauge between the rails in the US.
It was the rail founding country here that adopted the eventual four foot eight and a half gauge. One company the Great Western did have five foot for a while and eventually changed to the standard. Oddly rail in Ireland north and south has a wider gauge which is an odd one having been built when the whole island was part of GB.
Sometimes air travel can come out, if not by any means better, at least cheaper than trains in Britain as well.
A train from Sheffield to Essex cost £50… So I flew home via BERLIN to save £8 (http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/deals/deals-hunter/2016/01/26/flew-home-via-berlin-cheaper-than-train/)
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHM94Wg92T0[/video]
According to the claims flights London–Dublin–Bristol could also come out cheaper than trains London–Bristol, as would going from London via Milan to Manchester, or again via Dublin from Bristol to Newcastle.
Caveats aplenty:
- Ryanair. Flying with Ryanair can hardly be considered a pleasure. There are worse ways to travel, but not many.
- Ryanair hidden fees. You would have to be ever-vigilant not to incur any of these, and one could easily triple the cost.
- Ryanair airports. Not exactly the most popular of airports, which is why they come cheap
- Ryanair check-in. They have mastered the art of making this process particularly harrowing
- Getting to/from the airports. These are not central airports, and though the cost isn't usually higher than the major airports, the transport (and waiting) time definitely is.
- Unlike a presumably comfortable hop-on/hop-off presumably with wifi on the way presumably for free, these trips would be long and harrowing. Ryanair doesn't do connecting flights, so if the first flight is sufficiently delayed the second will be gone, and a replacement flight will be extremely costly. Thus you have to allocate the highest likely delay to avoid getting stranded. Thus you either stay at the airport (see the point about Ryanair airports) or take some bus to/from civilisation (see the point about Ryanair airport location). In other words: Long bus ride to airport, check-in and security, wait for plane to arrive, enjoy your trip with Ryanair, enjoy your extended stay at the Ryanair airport, another round of check-in and security, another wait, another Ryanair plane, another extended bus ride. Have fun.
A train from Sheffield to Essex cost £50… So I flew home via BERLIN to save £8
As a teenager the experience might be worth it.
I have never used that Ryanair lot and never will. A number of years ago he said they would not accept UK army credentials as an ID. All the hidden stuff in addition makes it a no-no for me.
As for trains I having bought a Senior Rail Card can travel everywhere for a third off and there are other offers for those slightly younger now too. Up here in the north of the Kingdom I will this summer being travelling on lines have not been on for years and others to catch up on. Will include 3 lines reopened by the Scotrail Company which were shut since the 60's and breaking records. Rail is doing constantly better and that in turn creates new challenges but I have no great interest in HS2 and would rather that down south they got lines re-opened like up here in Scotland. The part of the Borders Railway re-opened for 33 miles has broen the target for the first 6 months of 250,000 users and got 500,000. Now the towns south of the present terminus want their bit reopened.
I have never used that Ryanair lot and never will. A number of years ago he said they would not accept UK army credentials as an ID.
If they are accepted within the UK (like Dutch driver's licenses in the Netherlands) that would be against the law; however, internationally I rather doubt they would be sufficient anywhere else. ;)
I have never used that Ryanair lot and never will. A number of years ago he said they would not accept UK army credentials as an ID.
If they are accepted within the UK (like Dutch driver's licenses in the Netherlands) that would be against the law; however, internationally I rather doubt they would be sufficient anywhere else. ;)
Low cost companies contributes to tourist pollution all over the world. Hordes of analphabet tourists are invading everything.
Well mjsmsprt40 apart from suburban rail over in your country outside of that is a remnant of what once was and it is not everyone who will be as short tempered as ensb! Here even with the massive rise on cars the national railway system is soaring way up and at the highest peaks since post-WW2. In Scotland the rail company has re-opened 4 lines long closed and lifted and the longest being around 33 miles. That one even in a rural area has doubled the targetexpected and I am aware that down over the Border our English cousins do have challenging situations of over-crowding on inter-city services that are now being more closely looked at. The West Coast Line from London up here to Glasgow is amongst the busiest in Europe.
Having given the world the railway I am certainly pleased at the massive number of passengers and not just locally. Other equally modern and go-ahead countries are out there with great railways as well.
who will be as short tempered as ensb!
Hi to you too. And here I thought I'd been doing a pretty good job of remaining calm lately.
I had to scroll back a bit but my last comment about trains was rather blasé. I reciprocated a tone about public water but still.
If it is something regarding how the Federal Gov. isn't supposed to do some things that plenty of Euro Govs. take for granted then there's a point of discussion but I won't be getting upset about it.
(Of course quoting wtf you're commenting on would be too hard. You'd have to highlight AND click something.)
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into a train in the US?
Some cargo would be damaged but no people would be injured.
(Of course quoting wtf you're commenting on would be too hard. You'd have to highlight AND click something.)
Be patient... he takes a few years just to write your name correctly...
I do hope jimbro nothing happens from outer space as the natives are traditionally very excitable (ssh, don't mention the HG Welles thingy pre-WW2!). Anyway here is a really seriously interesting, fascinating item. So a very modern and futuristic well as impressive bit of news from over there.
Initial experimental work is being done at a site in America and I watched part of it on a news report. It involves large welded tubes and a passenger pod which would be propelled through it and would reach speeds of 600mph. No track obviously but never-the-less a brilliant idea getting the go-ahead for further experimental work. Well done. Neat, eh, mjsmsprt40?
experimental work is being done at a site in America and I watched part of it on a news report. It involves large welded tubes and a passenger pod which would be propelled through it and would reach speeds of 600mph.
http://inhabitat.com/how-will-elon-musks-600-mph-hyperloop-train-work/ (http://inhabitat.com/how-will-elon-musks-600-mph-hyperloop-train-work/)
China is also developing such a critter.
That would mean a one hour trip from the south of England to the north.
…much like the pneumatic tubes once used for communication in large buildings! (Telephony and radio did them in. Such technological advances, for transporting people, seem far fetched… :) )
Seems too insanely expensive to ever be built.
Musk's net worth is $13 billion. The hyperloop train is estimated at $6 billion. We'll never see it built.
The Chinese maglev train travels at a mere 260 mph.
I can't imagine the $68-billion high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and San Francisco ever happening.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html (http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html)
The Chinese maglev train travels at a mere 260 mph.
My father, working for a company called AirResearch, helped the French build their high-speed trains… (High energy stuff!) If it were a sensible project here, it would have been built: We had the technology.
There's just not a great need for people to regularly, routinely move over great distances within this country — not many, anyway. That pretty much explains why the U.S. doesn't have "high-speed" rail yet. No need…
Put the maglev in a tube and we might have something.
Put maglev in a tube and stick it ......
No need is an excuse OakdaleFTL. Mentioning a passing situation is not an answer and even basic things like how trains look over the years compared to other advanced countries tells something. High speed trains work in other places and that includes big countries so in rail that is a sector the USA does not count in so can understand excuses.
Oakdale, that more of the same silliness. Nothing ever gets built until somebody with the vision and ability does it, like we're doing here with Xpresswest
High speed trains work in other places and that includes big countries so in rail that is a sector the USA does not count in so can understand excuses.
You think you understand this country, but... . Well, just but.
China isn't the US. Russia isn't the US. England and tiny Scotland are certainly not the US.
"According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, Russia ranks number 125 out of 139 countries on the quality of its highway infrastructure. " It needs trains badly because its highways are not up to par.
There are trains here, but they are not a means of long distance travel, and certainly not for use by businesses.
There are trains here, but they are not a means of long distance travel, and certainly not for use by businesses.
Not exactly,
Jaybro: Rail is a
major mover of all kinds of goods, in other words: freight. And, world-wide, so are ships, still! (No surprise, there: most of the earth's surface is ocean.)
Not the least ship shipping costs are considerably lower. Ships ship in huge volumes with a very high level of automation, as increasingly are the ports and terminals. It's not exactly C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate, but I enjoy watching the endless motorway of cargo ships passing choice parts of the Chinese coastline. I've never been to the Straight of Malacca, but if I were I would be ship watching.
This is why China is looking for train freight alternatives East/West through the interior of Eurasia, and the recent popularity of the "Silk Road" monicker.
Not exactly, Jaybro: Rail is a major mover of all kinds of goods, in other words: freight. And, world-wide, so are ships, still! (No surprise, there: most of the earth's surface is ocean.)
I put my post badly. When I mentioned businesses, I was referring to business travelers. Rail transport for goods is enormous.
The problems faced by passenger rail -specially, high-speed rail- in the U.S. are similar to those that doomed the SST. Not enough demand to justify the costs…
…much like the pneumatic tubes once used for communication in large buildings! (Telephony and radio did them in. Such technological advances, for transporting people, seem far fetched… :) )
Pneumatic tubes are still used to get cash from a cashier to a more secure location quickly, at the very least.
Regarding jimbro's thoughts I would say that earlier the part thinking here was that it was a big country so rail didn't matter the same way. That I regarded as odd and still stand by what I said about places like China or the Russian Federation. Using a handy excuse that highways were noit up to things so it had to be rail elsewhere is too neat. Can I remind when there was a scoff her when I mentioned Japan? The snort was that it was of course not as spacious as say America. However on the subject of motorways Japan is modern in it's transport and I well pointed out a high speed line and even with a competing ultra modern motorway in competition with it the trains still got where twice as fast as the highway use. That was neatly ignored
The US does not by tradition like to think it is slow or behind in anything but it is in rail whether countries are big or small. Passenger rail was allowed to deteriorate into second place unlike other advanced nations and suitable neat excuses found for the fall back. There are train services here that run for hundreds of miles and essentially efficient and so on so nice try to jimbro but this is an area where the ex-colonies have failed. As for that idea of pumping people down a tube at 600mph that I would say to be fair will not happen!
Even on common-sense grounds, a tube-train cannot work. Of course, common sense does not matter when it comes to investment hype. And I disagree with the claim that Hyperloop is the biggest scam since Theranos. Madoff's scam was much bigger and these days we should aim to those magnitudes to call it big or biggest.
[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h6Cz4hwuEI[/video]