4 ms·

For as much as the Americans like to complain in here and on reddit about their train infrastructure, imo it is still one of the best in the world. Yes, the big

For as much as the Americans like to complain in here and on reddit about their train infrastructure, imo it is still one of the best in the world. Yes, the big tragedy it's that is focused on freight transport instead of also taking into consideration public transport, but the good thing is that you still have most of the actual tracks in place and functional. Over here in Europe most of them are gone, with very exceptions (like Switzerland). This reddit post [1] comparing the French railway network in 1910 to what was still available in 2014 is just depressing. [1] https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/4be0sc/train_network_in_france_between_1910_and_2014/ https://old.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/4be0sc/train_netwo...

bombcar 4y ago
The US rail network does what it is designed to do very well - move absolutely insane amounts of freight (container/truck and bulk) relatively quickly over insanely long distances. Unless you live in or near a deep-water ocean port, almost everything you have went on a train at some point if you're in the US.
sekao 4y ago
> the big tragedy it's that is focused on freight transport I don't see the tragedy in that. Tracks in the US are privately owned and freight makes them more money than passenger rail. Don't think we'd gain anything by artifically changing that. Even in Europe planes are usually faster and cheaper than rail when traveling between countries.
- ghaff 4y ago
  I'm not sure why this would be considered a controversial statement. A lot of short to medium distance in Europe is very good/convenient by rail, e.g. Eurostar from London to Brussels or Paris--even if not necessarily cheaper than flying. But while I've taken night trains between countries, it was more for the experience and not to save either time or money.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- woweoe 4y ago
  The tragedy is that people who want to use the railways are put below freight in priority - whereas other countries such as Russia and India are capable of mixing both.
alistairSH 4y ago
I’m not sure I’d call it a tragedy, at least not when talking about trains across the American West or Midwest. That’s an absolutely massive space, and outside a few cities, it’s pretty sparse. It IS absolutely a tragedy that we don’t have particularly good rail transit from major city to major city. A proper high speed line from DC->NYC->Boston. SD->LA->SF. And NYC to Chicago, maybe. Probably others, but those seem like they’d be doable and get some airplanes out of the sky and cars off the interstate.
- ghaff 4y ago
  Northeast Corridor works pretty well as it is--and is very popular, albeit mostly to and from NYC as opposed to the entire length. The controversy around California HSR is well-known. And NYC to Chicago has to go through a continental divide so it's not clear how competitive that could be with flying--which it has to be if it's going to be popular with business travelers.
  - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
    What continental divide does it cross? Chicago is on Lake Michigan, which drains into the Atlantic. New York is on the Atlantic.
    - ghaff 4y ago
      Basically some combination of the Eastern and St. Lawrence divides--mostly the Appalachians. [1] (Would have to look up the exact current route.) It's basically why the Erie Canal was built. [2] The Saint Lawrence Seaway goes into the Atlantic north of the St. Lawrence divide. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Continental_Divide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Continental_Divide [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal
      - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
        I do not consider the St. Lawrence divide to be a "continental" divide, nor do I know of anyone who considers it to be so. It's just a watershed divide, and those are a dime a dozen. I can see that some people would consider the Eastern divide to be a continental divide, though I do not.
Luc 4y ago
> This reddit post [1] comparing the French railway network in 1910 to what was still available in 2014 is just depressing. Well don't be depressed because that second map is obviously and totally wrong. It's even mentioned in the comments of the reddit link if you scroll down enough. The maps should actually be pretty much the same.
bobthepanda 4y ago
If you were to make the same comparison in the US it would be very similar. A lot of railroads were abandoned or turned into trails. Those that remained were stripped as much as possible to fire sell assets in desperate attempts to improve the balance sheets (de-electrified to sell the copper, reduced tracks from 4 to 2 or 2 to 1 to sell the rails, etc.) At least part of it is that in some US jurisdictions railroads have to pay property tax on their assets, which is not something that (usually) publicly owned roads and airports deal with. This is a massive perverse incentive to run everything as skimpy as possible to reduce the value of land.

bombcar 4y ago

The US rail network does what it is designed to do very well - move absolutely insane amounts of freight (container/truck and bulk) relatively quickly over insanely long distances. Unless you live in or near a deep-water ocean port, almost everything you have went on a train at some point if you're in the US.

sekao 4y ago

> the big tragedy it's that is focused on freight transport I don't see the tragedy in that. Tracks in the US are privately owned and freight makes them more money than passenger rail. Don't think we'd gain anything by artifically changing that. Even in Europe planes are usually faster and cheaper than rail when traveling between countries.

ghaff 4y ago
I'm not sure why this would be considered a controversial statement. A lot of short to medium distance in Europe is very good/convenient by rail, e.g. Eurostar from London to Brussels or Paris--even if not necessarily cheaper than flying. But while I've taken night trains between countries, it was more for the experience and not to save either time or money.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
woweoe 4y ago
The tragedy is that people who want to use the railways are put below freight in priority - whereas other countries such as Russia and India are capable of mixing both.

alistairSH 4y ago

I’m not sure I’d call it a tragedy, at least not when talking about trains across the American West or Midwest. That’s an absolutely massive space, and outside a few cities, it’s pretty sparse. It IS absolutely a tragedy that we don’t have particularly good rail transit from major city to major city. A proper high speed line from DC->NYC->Boston. SD->LA->SF. And NYC to Chicago, maybe. Probably others, but those seem like they’d be doable and get some airplanes out of the sky and cars off the interstate.

ghaff 4y ago
Northeast Corridor works pretty well as it is--and is very popular, albeit mostly to and from NYC as opposed to the entire length. The controversy around California HSR is well-known. And NYC to Chicago has to go through a continental divide so it's not clear how competitive that could be with flying--which it has to be if it's going to be popular with business travelers.
- AnimalMuppet 4y ago
  What continental divide does it cross? Chicago is on Lake Michigan, which drains into the Atlantic. New York is on the Atlantic.
  - ghaff 4y ago
    Basically some combination of the Eastern and St. Lawrence divides--mostly the Appalachians. [1] (Would have to look up the exact current route.) It's basically why the Erie Canal was built. [2] The Saint Lawrence Seaway goes into the Atlantic north of the St. Lawrence divide. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Continental_Divide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Continental_Divide [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erie_Canal
    - AnimalMuppet 4y ago
      I do not consider the St. Lawrence divide to be a "continental" divide, nor do I know of anyone who considers it to be so. It's just a watershed divide, and those are a dime a dozen. I can see that some people would consider the Eastern divide to be a continental divide, though I do not.

Luc 4y ago

> This reddit post [1] comparing the French railway network in 1910 to what was still available in 2014 is just depressing. Well don't be depressed because that second map is obviously and totally wrong. It's even mentioned in the comments of the reddit link if you scroll down enough. The maps should actually be pretty much the same.

bobthepanda 4y ago

If you were to make the same comparison in the US it would be very similar. A lot of railroads were abandoned or turned into trails. Those that remained were stripped as much as possible to fire sell assets in desperate attempts to improve the balance sheets (de-electrified to sell the copper, reduced tracks from 4 to 2 or 2 to 1 to sell the rails, etc.) At least part of it is that in some US jurisdictions railroads have to pay property tax on their assets, which is not something that (usually) publicly owned roads and airports deal with. This is a massive perverse incentive to run everything as skimpy as possible to reduce the value of land.