5 ms·

The reasons why we wont have a high-speed train network any time soon, in priority order (my opinion): 1. Eminent domain and generally-high construction costs

by pradn 5y ago

The reasons why we wont have a high-speed train network any time soon, in priority order (my opinion): 1. Eminent domain and generally-high construction costs make the initial time and money outlays exorbitantly high, resulting in projects never getting off the ground or having to compensate with much-too-expensive tickets 2. Even if you get to the middle of another city, having to rent a car to get to where you need is a pain. It's easier to drive from Dallas to Houston in a car, because you have a car at the end of the trip. Only some cities have fast public transport; the rest are so big it's hard not rent a car or Uber everywhere, both options are expensive and time-consuming. 3. Trains likely take more time than flights for the mid-to-long distance journeys planes are good for. 4. A cultural lack of interest in passenger rail. It's just not a part of the culture, and is seen as weird/enthusiast thing to do, unlike in Europe, India, or China.

dnautics 5y ago
3 is underappreciated and incredibly important (it should be #1) for the simple reason than labor cost. You have to pay flight attendants/rail attendants and that starts adding up. Moreover a rail attendant/engineer for a long haul trip cannot be back at home to family at the end of the day, for a transcontinental flight attendant or pilot it's possible, so the labor pool is meaningfully different, and supply and demand is a thing.
- Xylakant 5y ago
  > Moreover a rail attendant/engineer for a long haul trip cannot be back at home to family at the end of the day, That would be problematic for some long distance train connections in germany as well (north-south connections), but they just schedule around that: attendants change mid-journey as needed.
- bluGill 5y ago
  That is all false. You don't need attendants on rail at all - what is there for them to do? For flight you need them to oversee preparing for a crash trains should get this failure mode should be designed out - which does imply doing the regular maintenance and using good safety systems. Just give a small discount to anyone with current first aid/CPR and you can be sure there are more than enough regular riders to take care of the remaining issues. Even if you do decide you want attendants for some reason, train should stop not less than once an hour, which means the crews can get off the train after 4 hours and staff the one back home. (I don't believe freight rail shouldn't do the same, but they have different operations from passenger rail such that more than an hour between stops might be reasonable) Note that if the train really is going through the middle of nowhere at one hour you just pick a random dot on the map and grant it a station just to get your stops. The cost to stopping a train is less than 5 minutes for the full trip (this adds up if you stop every few km, but when it is once an hour it isn't a big deal)
  - andrewzah 5y ago
    > You don't need attendants on rail at all - what is there for them to do? * Check passenger tickets * Observe the cars & make sure people aren't breaking rules, etc * Serve food/drink if applicable (e.g. for business class) And so forth. This is how the KTX and Shinkansen work, and they know what they're doing.
    - bluGill 5y ago
      All things that are not needed. Checking tickets can be done by not allowing anyone on the platform. Or world best practice is random checks and large fines if you are caught without a ticket. Breaking rules is tricky. There is some need for that, though there are options, though in the end I will grant you this. Trains should never serve food or drink. Passengers can get off the train at a station when they need that, and get on the next train. Space used for the food and drink is space that could be used for more seats. There is a reason all railroads have been trying to do away with food and drink service. It is considered bad practice everywhere.
      - vladTheInhaler 5y ago
        > All things that are not needed. > There is some need for that. I see. > Trains should never serve food or drink. Passengers can get off the train at a station. There aren't going to be stations all across Nebraska or what have you. And even if there were, stopping repeatedly would defeat the purpose of high-speed rail. All that time speeding up and slowing down starts to add up very quickly.
        cguess 5y ago
        Don't forget it would massively extend every stop. At least an hour+ at each station if you expect every passenger to detrain (with their luggage, because they're not leaving it on the train), wait in line, probably dawdle and then reboard.
        5y ago

by pradn 5y ago

dnautics 5y ago

3 is underappreciated and incredibly important (it should be #1) for the simple reason than labor cost. You have to pay flight attendants/rail attendants and that starts adding up. Moreover a rail attendant/engineer for a long haul trip cannot be back at home to family at the end of the day, for a transcontinental flight attendant or pilot it's possible, so the labor pool is meaningfully different, and supply and demand is a thing.

Xylakant 5y ago
> Moreover a rail attendant/engineer for a long haul trip cannot be back at home to family at the end of the day, That would be problematic for some long distance train connections in germany as well (north-south connections), but they just schedule around that: attendants change mid-journey as needed.
bluGill 5y ago
That is all false. You don't need attendants on rail at all - what is there for them to do? For flight you need them to oversee preparing for a crash trains should get this failure mode should be designed out - which does imply doing the regular maintenance and using good safety systems. Just give a small discount to anyone with current first aid/CPR and you can be sure there are more than enough regular riders to take care of the remaining issues. Even if you do decide you want attendants for some reason, train should stop not less than once an hour, which means the crews can get off the train after 4 hours and staff the one back home. (I don't believe freight rail shouldn't do the same, but they have different operations from passenger rail such that more than an hour between stops might be reasonable) Note that if the train really is going through the middle of nowhere at one hour you just pick a random dot on the map and grant it a station just to get your stops. The cost to stopping a train is less than 5 minutes for the full trip (this adds up if you stop every few km, but when it is once an hour it isn't a big deal)
- andrewzah 5y ago
  > You don't need attendants on rail at all - what is there for them to do? * Check passenger tickets * Observe the cars & make sure people aren't breaking rules, etc * Serve food/drink if applicable (e.g. for business class) And so forth. This is how the KTX and Shinkansen work, and they know what they're doing.
  - bluGill 5y ago
    All things that are not needed. Checking tickets can be done by not allowing anyone on the platform. Or world best practice is random checks and large fines if you are caught without a ticket. Breaking rules is tricky. There is some need for that, though there are options, though in the end I will grant you this. Trains should never serve food or drink. Passengers can get off the train at a station when they need that, and get on the next train. Space used for the food and drink is space that could be used for more seats. There is a reason all railroads have been trying to do away with food and drink service. It is considered bad practice everywhere.
    - vladTheInhaler 5y ago
      > All things that are not needed. > There is some need for that. I see. > Trains should never serve food or drink. Passengers can get off the train at a station. There aren't going to be stations all across Nebraska or what have you. And even if there were, stopping repeatedly would defeat the purpose of high-speed rail. All that time speeding up and slowing down starts to add up very quickly.
      - cguess 5y ago
        Don't forget it would massively extend every stop. At least an hour+ at each station if you expect every passenger to detrain (with their luggage, because they're not leaving it on the train), wait in line, probably dawdle and then reboard.
        5y ago