6 ms·

America and trains: the little engine that could ?

justrealist 3y ago
Passenger trains, we lead the world in freight rail. (outside China, I have no idea whether Chinese freight rail is or isn't great).
- usr1106 3y ago
  We? I don't think I am part of your team. Yes, your message has a point, but don't delute it by using sloppy language.
- ChatGTP 3y ago
  America is best, leading the world in GDP and Freight rail.
kibwen 3y ago
America has removed more miles of railway than most other countries have ever had. I hold out hope that high-speed rail is still possible, at least between the major population centers in each region. The good news is that airports and flying are abjectly miserable experiences, which makes people willing to look at alternatives.
- richwater 3y ago
  Flying is miserable because consumers demand low prices. There is no forces that would change this when applied to trains.
  - numpad0 3y ago
    High speed rail tends to be better because trains are supported not by air but by rails on the ground. Weight penalties are significantly reduced. One aspect of HSR vs air that I have bit of issues but are rarely mentioned is what car people call NVH characteristic - Noise, Vibration, and Harshness - are much worse in HSR than airplanes. It's a bit of in-between with high speed taxing, windy day in a high rise building and rollercoaster ride all the way to the destination. Airplanes are magic carpets once up there, and that can be more comfortable than trains.
    - Symbiote 3y ago
      Which high speed train are you comparing to? I find aircraft much noisier than any train. More like magic vacuum cleaners, they seem to be the best use of noise-cancelling headphones and earplugs aren't uncommon. Vibration depends on how well the track is maintained, but there are certainly fewer surprises (turbulence). There are videos online of people balancing coins on trains — I did this myself once from Malmö to Copenhagen Airport, though that is only 200km/h. I'm not sure what harshness is in this context.
      - numpad0 3y ago
        Tokaido Shinkansen N700/700S. There are lots of upsides to HSR such as extremely good seat pitch and total absence of security theater, and it's true that the airliners has a loud constant white noise, but when it comes to noise and vibrations, I feel airplanes less... intermittent and less interrupting. Those Recaro camp chairs aren't too bad either.
  - kibwen 3y ago
    The expense of railway lies in acquiring the land and laying the track in the first place. Once that's done, the operational costs are negligible relative to an airline. Of course, getting those land rights is often an insurmountable nightmare in its own right.
    - labcomputer 3y ago
      > Once that's done, the operational costs are negligible relative to an airline. I'll need to see some evidence for that claim. 1. The relatively slower speed of trains means that the amount of person-hours of labor for the crew is similar or greater than for a plane. And railroad employees generally have even better union contracts than airline employees. 2. Airlines don't have to build a track, but neither do they need to maintain a track. That cost is not negligible.
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        There are fewer crewmembers, though. The FAA requires a 50:1 ratio for flight attendants. (Famously, JetBlue in the US ripped out two rows of seats in its original A320s to get to a round multiple of 50, and then used the extra room to get the largest seat pitch in economy.) To give a bit of comparison, there are 16k employees at JR Central, who operate the Tokaido Shinkansen in addition to normal rail lines; there are 90k employees at Delta. (JR Central has a market cap of $26B and Delta has a market cap of $23B.)
        labcomputer 3y ago
        Notice that I did not specify the number of crew members, just the number of labor hours.
        bobthepanda 3y ago
        That's fair. I suppose one benefit of trains is all the intermediate traffic. Every flight attendant is only really serving an A->B flight, or an A->B->C flight with an intermediate stop. Trains can make many stops and have higher turnover, and combined with the generally higher capacity of a train, I wonder if the passenger-hours per employee ends up being a wash.
  - tyingq 3y ago
    >There is no forces that would change this when applied to trains. I'm not sure how successful it's been, but this article[1] for Deutsche Bahn's "ICE" first class makes it look attractive to me. I think because space isn't as much a premium, the upcharge for first class on a train can be a much smaller jump than the economy -> first class jump on a plane. [1] https://onemileatatime.com/deutsche-bahn-ice-first-class-review/ https://onemileatatime.com/deutsche-bahn-ice-first-class-rev...
    - ghaff 3y ago
      First class on a train relative to standard seating is also much less of a big deal than planes in general.
  - nharada 3y ago
    Isn't the counter-example in America cars? It's definitely cheaper to have an econo-box but instead we drive 8 seat tanks to get groceries.
    - dboreham 3y ago
      You never know when you'll need to pick up a sofa on sale at Costco.
      - vel0city 3y ago
        Plus at Costco couches only come in 2-packs even though lots of the time just one would last you the week.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Flying can get expensive fairly quickly. One major source of this is landing fees; at heavily congested airports the price to get a new slot, or buy someone out of an existing one, is quite high because of a lack of space and alternatives. Most of the airports in the Northeast are chronically congested, to the point where I believe DCA and all the New York area airports have caps on flight movements. And there's no 'cheap' airport in the NYC area either, which is a common tactic for Ryanair et al (fly into an airport over 50 miles away for the cheaper landing fees, which means cheaper tickets, but also probably means the passenger is making up the difference getting to their final destination.)
- Robotbeat 3y ago
  Nah. Flying is awesome. Especially without the TSA. But Brightline is technically HSR running on a converted line.
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Brightline is the sweat spot for HSR in the US, between population centers annoyingly long to drive but annoyingly short to fly. Long haul air transport isn’t going away, but these short hops are the best places to build HSR. Tangentially, this frees up airport gates for routes that cannot be accomplished by rail. My understanding is that their future rail segments are focused on these routes.
    - laurencerowe 3y ago
      Brightline is only really HSR under the 1970s pre TGV/Bullet Train definition. Most of the world has moved on to using 250km/h (155mph) as the cut off with many new lines over 300km/h (185mph).
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        We can quibble over the definition of high speed rail in speed, but what’s important is that light rail enables transportation for people who can’t or prefer not to drive, who can’t afford a car for these trips, and overall takes cars off the road. Faster isn’t always better depending on the distance traveled (time saved going much faster over these shorter routes is going to be marginal vs cross country); sometimes faster than the status quo is fast enough.
        laurencerowe 3y ago
        I agree that regional services are generally more important than long distance HSR. It's absurd that the 80 mile trip from Oakland to Sacramento takes 2 hours. FWIW, Brightline is very traditional heavy rail. It even uses locomotives rather than the more efficient diesel multiple units typically used on similar non-electrified routes in Europe. For stopping services there are big advantages to going electric since they are able to accelerate much faster. The electrification work on Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose is almost complete. This should make most trips much faster though probably won't make much difference to the express services. Light rail usually refers to the in-city services operated with smaller street-car/tram like vehicles. These tend not to be very fast with top speeds around 50mph when operating on dedicated track, but it doesn't usually matter as they stop very frequently.
- snakeyjake 3y ago
  >The good news is that airports and flying are abjectly miserable experiences I have always had fantastic airport and flying experiences. Of course, I pay today almost exactly what I paid for airline tickets in the 80s and 90s, adjusting for inflation. That means I don't buy $90 fares on airlines where I have to scramble like a pig at a trough for a seat.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    Where do you fly out of? At SEA it's pretty miserable unless you pay for PreCheck and Clear, which just feels like TSA making the entire thing shitty and then shaking you down for money to make it not shitty.
    - Johnny555 3y ago
      Even with Clear and first class seats, SEA is no picnic, I try to fly out of Paine Field any time I can... for an international flight, I'll even drive up to Vancouver to avoid SEA.
    - labcomputer 3y ago
      > At SEA it's pretty miserable unless you pay for PreCheck and Clear But PreCheck is $78 per 5 years, and Clear doesn't really have much benefit if you already have PreCheck (it gets you to the front the PreCheck line, which at most airports, is already very short).
    - ghaff 3y ago
      If you fly any amount paying for PreCheck is just part of the deal. It’s the way it is.
      - bobthepanda 3y ago
        It's still abjectly miserable; SEA has such horrid staffing issues even PreCheck lines might get into the parking lots. Trains have either no security theater to speak of (Acela) or have very minimal stuff (Brightline)

Passenger trains, we lead the world in freight rail. (outside China, I have no idea whether Chinese freight rail is or isn't great).

usr1106 3y ago
We? I don't think I am part of your team. Yes, your message has a point, but don't delute it by using sloppy language.
ChatGTP 3y ago
America is best, leading the world in GDP and Freight rail.

kibwen 3y ago

America has removed more miles of railway than most other countries have ever had. I hold out hope that high-speed rail is still possible, at least between the major population centers in each region. The good news is that airports and flying are abjectly miserable experiences, which makes people willing to look at alternatives.

richwater 3y ago
Flying is miserable because consumers demand low prices. There is no forces that would change this when applied to trains.
- numpad0 3y ago
  High speed rail tends to be better because trains are supported not by air but by rails on the ground. Weight penalties are significantly reduced. One aspect of HSR vs air that I have bit of issues but are rarely mentioned is what car people call NVH characteristic - Noise, Vibration, and Harshness - are much worse in HSR than airplanes. It's a bit of in-between with high speed taxing, windy day in a high rise building and rollercoaster ride all the way to the destination. Airplanes are magic carpets once up there, and that can be more comfortable than trains.
  - Symbiote 3y ago
    Which high speed train are you comparing to? I find aircraft much noisier than any train. More like magic vacuum cleaners, they seem to be the best use of noise-cancelling headphones and earplugs aren't uncommon. Vibration depends on how well the track is maintained, but there are certainly fewer surprises (turbulence). There are videos online of people balancing coins on trains — I did this myself once from Malmö to Copenhagen Airport, though that is only 200km/h. I'm not sure what harshness is in this context.
    - numpad0 3y ago
      Tokaido Shinkansen N700/700S. There are lots of upsides to HSR such as extremely good seat pitch and total absence of security theater, and it's true that the airliners has a loud constant white noise, but when it comes to noise and vibrations, I feel airplanes less... intermittent and less interrupting. Those Recaro camp chairs aren't too bad either.
- kibwen 3y ago
  The expense of railway lies in acquiring the land and laying the track in the first place. Once that's done, the operational costs are negligible relative to an airline. Of course, getting those land rights is often an insurmountable nightmare in its own right.
  - labcomputer 3y ago
    > Once that's done, the operational costs are negligible relative to an airline. I'll need to see some evidence for that claim. 1. The relatively slower speed of trains means that the amount of person-hours of labor for the crew is similar or greater than for a plane. And railroad employees generally have even better union contracts than airline employees. 2. Airlines don't have to build a track, but neither do they need to maintain a track. That cost is not negligible.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      There are fewer crewmembers, though. The FAA requires a 50:1 ratio for flight attendants. (Famously, JetBlue in the US ripped out two rows of seats in its original A320s to get to a round multiple of 50, and then used the extra room to get the largest seat pitch in economy.) To give a bit of comparison, there are 16k employees at JR Central, who operate the Tokaido Shinkansen in addition to normal rail lines; there are 90k employees at Delta. (JR Central has a market cap of $26B and Delta has a market cap of $23B.)
      - labcomputer 3y ago
        Notice that I did not specify the number of crew members, just the number of labor hours.
        bobthepanda 3y ago
        That's fair. I suppose one benefit of trains is all the intermediate traffic. Every flight attendant is only really serving an A->B flight, or an A->B->C flight with an intermediate stop. Trains can make many stops and have higher turnover, and combined with the generally higher capacity of a train, I wonder if the passenger-hours per employee ends up being a wash.
- tyingq 3y ago
  >There is no forces that would change this when applied to trains. I'm not sure how successful it's been, but this article[1] for Deutsche Bahn's "ICE" first class makes it look attractive to me. I think because space isn't as much a premium, the upcharge for first class on a train can be a much smaller jump than the economy -> first class jump on a plane. [1] https://onemileatatime.com/deutsche-bahn-ice-first-class-review/ https://onemileatatime.com/deutsche-bahn-ice-first-class-rev...
  - ghaff 3y ago
    First class on a train relative to standard seating is also much less of a big deal than planes in general.
- nharada 3y ago
  Isn't the counter-example in America cars? It's definitely cheaper to have an econo-box but instead we drive 8 seat tanks to get groceries.
  - dboreham 3y ago
    You never know when you'll need to pick up a sofa on sale at Costco.
    - vel0city 3y ago
      Plus at Costco couches only come in 2-packs even though lots of the time just one would last you the week.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Flying can get expensive fairly quickly. One major source of this is landing fees; at heavily congested airports the price to get a new slot, or buy someone out of an existing one, is quite high because of a lack of space and alternatives. Most of the airports in the Northeast are chronically congested, to the point where I believe DCA and all the New York area airports have caps on flight movements. And there's no 'cheap' airport in the NYC area either, which is a common tactic for Ryanair et al (fly into an airport over 50 miles away for the cheaper landing fees, which means cheaper tickets, but also probably means the passenger is making up the difference getting to their final destination.)
Robotbeat 3y ago
Nah. Flying is awesome. Especially without the TSA. But Brightline is technically HSR running on a converted line.
- toomuchtodo 3y ago
  Brightline is the sweat spot for HSR in the US, between population centers annoyingly long to drive but annoyingly short to fly. Long haul air transport isn’t going away, but these short hops are the best places to build HSR. Tangentially, this frees up airport gates for routes that cannot be accomplished by rail. My understanding is that their future rail segments are focused on these routes.
  - laurencerowe 3y ago
    Brightline is only really HSR under the 1970s pre TGV/Bullet Train definition. Most of the world has moved on to using 250km/h (155mph) as the cut off with many new lines over 300km/h (185mph).
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      We can quibble over the definition of high speed rail in speed, but what’s important is that light rail enables transportation for people who can’t or prefer not to drive, who can’t afford a car for these trips, and overall takes cars off the road. Faster isn’t always better depending on the distance traveled (time saved going much faster over these shorter routes is going to be marginal vs cross country); sometimes faster than the status quo is fast enough.
      - laurencerowe 3y ago
        I agree that regional services are generally more important than long distance HSR. It's absurd that the 80 mile trip from Oakland to Sacramento takes 2 hours. FWIW, Brightline is very traditional heavy rail. It even uses locomotives rather than the more efficient diesel multiple units typically used on similar non-electrified routes in Europe. For stopping services there are big advantages to going electric since they are able to accelerate much faster. The electrification work on Caltrain between San Francisco and San Jose is almost complete. This should make most trips much faster though probably won't make much difference to the express services. Light rail usually refers to the in-city services operated with smaller street-car/tram like vehicles. These tend not to be very fast with top speeds around 50mph when operating on dedicated track, but it doesn't usually matter as they stop very frequently.
snakeyjake 3y ago
>The good news is that airports and flying are abjectly miserable experiences I have always had fantastic airport and flying experiences. Of course, I pay today almost exactly what I paid for airline tickets in the 80s and 90s, adjusting for inflation. That means I don't buy $90 fares on airlines where I have to scramble like a pig at a trough for a seat.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  Where do you fly out of? At SEA it's pretty miserable unless you pay for PreCheck and Clear, which just feels like TSA making the entire thing shitty and then shaking you down for money to make it not shitty.
  - Johnny555 3y ago
    Even with Clear and first class seats, SEA is no picnic, I try to fly out of Paine Field any time I can... for an international flight, I'll even drive up to Vancouver to avoid SEA.
  - labcomputer 3y ago
    > At SEA it's pretty miserable unless you pay for PreCheck and Clear But PreCheck is $78 per 5 years, and Clear doesn't really have much benefit if you already have PreCheck (it gets you to the front the PreCheck line, which at most airports, is already very short).
  - ghaff 3y ago
    If you fly any amount paying for PreCheck is just part of the deal. It’s the way it is.
    - bobthepanda 3y ago
      It's still abjectly miserable; SEA has such horrid staffing issues even PreCheck lines might get into the parking lots. Trains have either no security theater to speak of (Acela) or have very minimal stuff (Brightline)