4 ms·

> No one needs hourly rail service between city pairs (as the article implicitly calls for) while the variability is -10 to +150 minutes. While there's always

> No one needs hourly rail service between city pairs (as the article implicitly calls for) while the variability is -10 to +150 minutes. While there's always a risk for delays (I've been stuck at Heathrow for 3 hours before thinking "If I'd have taken the train I'd be there by now"), you should be aiming for a network at 95%+ of services arriving within a few minutes of the arrival time. I understand that US passenger trains don't have priority, and thus this isn't workable. On that assumption, given the distance and size of Boston/NY/Philly/Washington, I'd expect at least a 30 minute service, taking well under 4 hours (should really be under 3) from Boston to Washington (with stops in NY, and maybe Phillidelphia). It's only 400 miles, that's like Paris-Marseille, and far shorted than a 4 hour 560 mile Tokyo - Hiroshima trip)

xxpor 5y ago
>I understand that US passenger trains don't have priority, and thus this isn't workable. This is largely true, but isn't on the NEC. It's one of the few corridors that Amtrak actually owns.
- Redoubts 5y ago
  Mostly. They don’t own the stretch through Connecticut for example, and the train will come to full stops between stations as a result.
  - PLenz 5y ago
    This stretch is owned by another rail network (ConnDot) that prioritizes other passenger trains (Metro North and Shoreline East)
    - iso1210 5y ago
      There's a large advantage to passengers having a nationally organized network - same as with air traffic control (provided by government), or highways (provided by government). Of course track segregation between non stop services and local services would be better.
dreamcompiler 5y ago
Comparing any rail service with France or Japan is futile. Nobody compares with them, least of all the US. For Tokyo to Hiroshima you have multiple departure times every day, and your choices of speed at each time include slow, reasonable, fast, really fast, and really, really fast. It's rather breathtaking, even if you're from a country with good train service.
- iso1210 5y ago
  The UK has 3 trains an hour between London and Manchester (160 miles, about the same as Boston-New York), takes 2 hours, running on victorian infrastructure and a mixed mode railway, In Germany, Berlin to Hannover, 180 miles, multiple trains per hour, under 2 hours. Many similar services out of say Frankfurt or Cologne too. Italy, Florence-Rome, about 170 miles, 2 trains an hour taking 90 minutes. For longer trips -- 2 trains per hour from London to Edinburgh (390 miles) taking just over 4 hours, again based on 150 year old railway, reliable clockface services. Madrid to Barcelona, 400 miles, hourly or better taking 2.5 hours OK, France, Japan, Korea, China, Italy, Spain have the high speed services, but most of the western world - certainly areas as dense as the US's north east corridor - has this reliability, frequency and speed on the c. 200 mile trips like Boston-New York or New York - Washington. (There's probably more argument for a 3 train per hour Boston-Washington multiple-stop service taking about 4 hours, rather than a dedicated high speed service which only stops in New York, but the point is that the US is so far detached from the western world it's unbelivable)

xxpor 5y ago

>I understand that US passenger trains don't have priority, and thus this isn't workable. This is largely true, but isn't on the NEC. It's one of the few corridors that Amtrak actually owns.

Redoubts 5y ago
Mostly. They don’t own the stretch through Connecticut for example, and the train will come to full stops between stations as a result.
- PLenz 5y ago
  This stretch is owned by another rail network (ConnDot) that prioritizes other passenger trains (Metro North and Shoreline East)
  - iso1210 5y ago
    There's a large advantage to passengers having a nationally organized network - same as with air traffic control (provided by government), or highways (provided by government). Of course track segregation between non stop services and local services would be better.

dreamcompiler 5y ago

Comparing any rail service with France or Japan is futile. Nobody compares with them, least of all the US. For Tokyo to Hiroshima you have multiple departure times every day, and your choices of speed at each time include slow, reasonable, fast, really fast, and really, really fast. It's rather breathtaking, even if you're from a country with good train service.

iso1210 5y ago
The UK has 3 trains an hour between London and Manchester (160 miles, about the same as Boston-New York), takes 2 hours, running on victorian infrastructure and a mixed mode railway, In Germany, Berlin to Hannover, 180 miles, multiple trains per hour, under 2 hours. Many similar services out of say Frankfurt or Cologne too. Italy, Florence-Rome, about 170 miles, 2 trains an hour taking 90 minutes. For longer trips -- 2 trains per hour from London to Edinburgh (390 miles) taking just over 4 hours, again based on 150 year old railway, reliable clockface services. Madrid to Barcelona, 400 miles, hourly or better taking 2.5 hours OK, France, Japan, Korea, China, Italy, Spain have the high speed services, but most of the western world - certainly areas as dense as the US's north east corridor - has this reliability, frequency and speed on the c. 200 mile trips like Boston-New York or New York - Washington. (There's probably more argument for a 3 train per hour Boston-Washington multiple-stop service taking about 4 hours, rather than a dedicated high speed service which only stops in New York, but the point is that the US is so far detached from the western world it's unbelivable)