7 ms·
My dad was an industrial engineer for BN and designed natural gas powered locomotive systems (not just just the engine, but the tender, the gas pipelines and fi
by killjoywashere 7y ago
My dad was an industrial engineer for BN and designed natural gas powered locomotive systems (not just just the engine, but the tender, the gas pipelines and filling stations, etc). He was a railroad fanatic. A quarter of the basement was dedicated to model railroading. I have eaten on one of Burlington Northern's executive dining cars. A phenomenal experience, far nicer than anything I've ever seen in any airplane's first class cabin. Wood paneling, brass, sauteed salmon and glass windows so clean you forgot they were there. He went to the Soviet Union during Glasnost and had his own KGB agent. The Russians came to the US to negotiate technology transfer. I grew up in awe of the railroads. Our neighbor worked for Union Pacific. In my world, men worked in rail. I learned research was hard, and development was even harder but the national scale of the endeavor is what made it worthwhile.
I never understood why we never went anywhere on the trains. I went to Tokyo and was floored by the immensity of the passenger rail system. Even in San Diego I would ride my bike 17 miles down to the nearest station and take the Coaster into National City to go to work. And then, I was in DC for a month and I took the overnight Acela Amtrak Express from DC to Boston and back. Gritty, dirty. Like a noir film type ... gritty. For another $50 I could have taken a 1 hour flight after dinner and been in bed at a decent hour. As a citizen, I'm a fan of the idea of passenger rail. As a customer, I'm not a huge fan of Amtrak, at least under current management.
- endymi0n 7y agoIn the end, the mechanisms at fault here are core to American identity: individualism and blind trust in the free market, even where these fail — so I don‘t think this decline can be changed. Free market, because first, rail leads itself to monopolies. Rail infrastructure is expensive, and you need significant area coverage until you can get enough customers. So if you built one, you as a rail provider will go at extracting the most possible value, since you don‘t have competition. Classic free market failure. The solution here would be to have at least four (proven number to avoid oligopolies) private train providers competing on public infrastructure. Since Americans shudder already at the word „public“, that‘s a significant hurdle. Individualism because in the US, people have a propensity to not share rides with others. Same fear of „public“ IMHO, as long as public transportation is thought of existing solely for poor people until they can afford a car, nothing is going to change.
- Reason077 7y ago> "Free market, because first, rail leads itself to monopolies." There's no reason why train operators should also own the fixed infrastructure. Truck companies don't own the interstate highway system, and airlines don't own all the airports. Why not have private train operators (passenger & freight) bid for routes / slots / capacity on a publicly-owned rail network? Lucrative routes between major cities will return significant profits, while regional routes will require support/subsidy. But in either case, competition between operators promotes cost efficiency, innovation, and a focus on service quality.
- japanoise 7y agoWe have that in the UK, and unfortunately it doesn't work very well. Obviously the UK is different to the States in a number of ways, but you might want to watch Shaun's video on the subject: https://youtu.be/nP95Frc0v4k https://youtu.be/nP95Frc0v4k
- Reason077 7y agoYes, the UK model isn't perfect. For the most part, it doesn't result in true competition because train operating companies are awarded monopolies over regions and routes rather than actually competing against other. The few routes that really do have competition between operators (like London-Birmingham) are also the routes that have the most competitive fares! One solution would be to auction off packages of "slots" on the most profitable, and capacity constrained, routes (eg: east & west coast main lines) rather than franchise them as single monolithic entities. As for "not working very well", those who remember the days of government-owned-and-operated British Rail will attest that the current system is a significant improvement!
- jen20 7y agoItaly has the concept of competition on the same route - at least on long distance routes, Italo compete with TrenItalia. The result is cheap, pleasant long distance service. It's a much nicer model than the UK has, certainly.
- chiph 7y agoI don't understand why they won't run a platform car on the back of the trains and sell tickets as a super-premium class. It'd be the most profitable seats on the train because of what you'd charge for the experience, much like how the few 1st class seats on an jet earns the airline more than the entire economy class. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BzB5xtGGsTc Sure, the product is basically the same - a ride from Point A to Point B. But if you offer a private dining room, an observation lounge, a steward who attends to just you and 3 other cabins, you can charge way more than an economy seat. By only focusing on the "Point A to Point B" aspects, they're entering a downward financial spiral.
- klez 7y agoIn Italy we have a business class which also has small (4 people) private rooms so you can have meetings while traveling. Not exactly what you had in mind, but still an extra over the "point a to point b" aspect.
- chiph 7y agoI specifically didn't mention a business class ticket, because except for the Northeast US, there won't be any business travelers because the trip takes too long -- they'll fly. But in the Northeast, offering a small private office so that some colleagues can work during the otherwise non-productive 4 hour trip from Boston to New York makes a lot of sense.
- klez 7y agoI'm not familiar with travel times in the US at all, but aren't there any trips outside of the North-East area (I don't know, North to South California?) that would make sense by train and that are long enough that this small meeting room concept would make sense?
- therealcamino 7y agoThere are cities within distances where it would make sense in several regions, but the speeds would be terrible because infrastructure is not up to the task (example: 300 miles in 7 hours 45 minutes). The rails don't support high speed service, there is no electrification, and the rails themselves are owned by freight companies. If the time was productive, you might get some small number of people to take it, but the excruciating slowness wouldn't appeal to many people.
- protomyth 7y agoI never understood why we never went anywhere on the trains. Cargo makes more money than people transport and most people preferred air; and short range rail is very expensive due to all the legal barriers. We have an amazing rail system in the USA, it's just not about people transport. It, along with barge and truck, make the modern US possible.
- wool_gather 7y agoYes; the tracks are owned (or maybe just operated) in a lot of places by the freight rail companies. This is a bit of a tangent, but one of the most frustrating things about riding the passenger rail (I've experienced this most going through upstate New York) is being slightly behind schedule, and then falling far, far behind schedule by having to wait for a freight train using the same stretch of track to pass. As I understand it, passenger trains are always supposed to be given priority. But in practice it never seems to work out that way. The dispatcher or whoever's making the decision often prioritizes the freight.
- protomyth 7y agoBecause, depending on what the schedule the freight is on and the terms, it can cost a lot of cash if the train is late. There are a lot of moving parts with freight, so passengers are no where near the priority.