5 ms·

Why is a competitive carbon-neutral system of moving people between cities up to 1000 km apart an anachronism?

toast0 3y ago
Because service hasn't been competitive for decades, for various reasons, mostly because a single set of tracks doesn't work well for freight and passengers. Afaik, there's no place with large rail coverage where there's one rail network for freight and one rail network for passengers; a lot of the world has rail for passengers and lacks significant rail for freight, the US has rail for freight and lacks significant rail for passengers. The two use cases don't mix well. If you want to get somewhere in the US in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost, your options are usually roads (bus or personal vehicle) and commercial air travel. There's a couple corridors where boat or train actually work, but not many.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Russia (and some other ex-USSR states) has a large amount of passenger rail (long distance, commuter and the new thing that is daytime quick inter-regional trains) and also a large amount of freight as well. It helps that most of main lines are electrified twin tracks. With regards for competitiveness, once it's in it becomes vital infrastructure that nobody asks questions about. Like nobody asks "are the USA interstates competitive". They're there so that country as a whole remains competitive.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  China has both. Transcon rail will never be a thing but most people live in areas close by. The Midwest is roughly the size of France with similar population levels; and the upper limit of high speed rail travel is thought to be about five hours on the train, which is compatible with NYC to Chicago, or Chicago to Atlanta, or NYC to Atlanta, not to mention all the shorter trips in between.
  - bombcar 3y ago
    Those "shorter routes" are where things could shine, even if you don't go high-speed a train from MSP to CHI through Milwaukee would see some use.
  - sofixa 3y ago
    Even more than 5 hours - I've taken the Paris to Milan and Paris to Barcelona trains multiple times (6:30-7h), and both are relatively frequent, quite full, and competitive with air travel due to a number of factors even if they're slightly slower (for Paris-Milan depending on departure point and airport on both ends, you're looking at 30-60 mins per direction, plus being 2 hours early at the airport, plus the time to get from the gate to the train station to get out of the airport, plus 1h30 flight and you're looking at 5-6h for the plane vs 7h for the train): * vastly more comfortable, with more space and amenities * nice views * single style of hassle (get to the train, sit down, enjoy; with a plane you get to the terminal, pass through security, then wait, then go in a plane in heavily restricted mode, then you can move/do stuff after take-off, then again you go in restricted mode, then you wait for taxi to finish, then you get to the gate, then you walk towards the exits, wait for luggage, etc.)
bombcar 3y ago
I’m not even entire sure that all cost included that long distance Amtrak trains are lower carbon than other options.
bobthepanda 3y ago
The long distance west coast trains are a lot longer than 1000km, though. The Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle is 3600km.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Not the best option for those, then. Amtrak seems to be in "excursion mode" where they would promote routes that are way too long but scenic, instead of aiming to join many mid-population proximate cities and make sure passengers regularly get there on schedule. Long routes have their uses, but the bread and butter of any popular system should be the trains which leave in the evening and arrive the next morning. You do not lose a day and you do not have to pay for a hotel.
  - bobthepanda 3y ago
    The problem is that Amtrak has two conflicting dual mandates: * make a “profit” * run essential 3km+ long distance services. These often serve rural areas without parallel Interstate routes And has never been given the appropriate amount of money to do both at the same time.
    - thriftwy 3y ago
      Having these routes are no problem if you add five times as much pragmatic routes. On almost every city map in the US you can see a railway crossing it, usually in the downtown behind a large mall that should also double as a rail station if you ask me.
philwelch 3y ago
Most Amtrak locomotives are diesel.
- thriftwy 3y ago
  Put some wires on the top instead of laying CO² pipes.

Because service hasn't been competitive for decades, for various reasons, mostly because a single set of tracks doesn't work well for freight and passengers. Afaik, there's no place with large rail coverage where there's one rail network for freight and one rail network for passengers; a lot of the world has rail for passengers and lacks significant rail for freight, the US has rail for freight and lacks significant rail for passengers. The two use cases don't mix well. If you want to get somewhere in the US in a reasonable amount of time at a reasonable cost, your options are usually roads (bus or personal vehicle) and commercial air travel. There's a couple corridors where boat or train actually work, but not many.

thriftwy 3y ago
Russia (and some other ex-USSR states) has a large amount of passenger rail (long distance, commuter and the new thing that is daytime quick inter-regional trains) and also a large amount of freight as well. It helps that most of main lines are electrified twin tracks. With regards for competitiveness, once it's in it becomes vital infrastructure that nobody asks questions about. Like nobody asks "are the USA interstates competitive". They're there so that country as a whole remains competitive.
bobthepanda 3y ago
China has both. Transcon rail will never be a thing but most people live in areas close by. The Midwest is roughly the size of France with similar population levels; and the upper limit of high speed rail travel is thought to be about five hours on the train, which is compatible with NYC to Chicago, or Chicago to Atlanta, or NYC to Atlanta, not to mention all the shorter trips in between.
- bombcar 3y ago
  Those "shorter routes" are where things could shine, even if you don't go high-speed a train from MSP to CHI through Milwaukee would see some use.
- sofixa 3y ago
  Even more than 5 hours - I've taken the Paris to Milan and Paris to Barcelona trains multiple times (6:30-7h), and both are relatively frequent, quite full, and competitive with air travel due to a number of factors even if they're slightly slower (for Paris-Milan depending on departure point and airport on both ends, you're looking at 30-60 mins per direction, plus being 2 hours early at the airport, plus the time to get from the gate to the train station to get out of the airport, plus 1h30 flight and you're looking at 5-6h for the plane vs 7h for the train): * vastly more comfortable, with more space and amenities * nice views * single style of hassle (get to the train, sit down, enjoy; with a plane you get to the terminal, pass through security, then wait, then go in a plane in heavily restricted mode, then you can move/do stuff after take-off, then again you go in restricted mode, then you wait for taxi to finish, then you get to the gate, then you walk towards the exits, wait for luggage, etc.)

bombcar 3y ago

I’m not even entire sure that all cost included that long distance Amtrak trains are lower carbon than other options.

bobthepanda 3y ago

The long distance west coast trains are a lot longer than 1000km, though. The Empire Builder from Chicago to Seattle is 3600km.

thriftwy 3y ago
Not the best option for those, then. Amtrak seems to be in "excursion mode" where they would promote routes that are way too long but scenic, instead of aiming to join many mid-population proximate cities and make sure passengers regularly get there on schedule. Long routes have their uses, but the bread and butter of any popular system should be the trains which leave in the evening and arrive the next morning. You do not lose a day and you do not have to pay for a hotel.
- bobthepanda 3y ago
  The problem is that Amtrak has two conflicting dual mandates: * make a “profit” * run essential 3km+ long distance services. These often serve rural areas without parallel Interstate routes And has never been given the appropriate amount of money to do both at the same time.
  - thriftwy 3y ago
    Having these routes are no problem if you add five times as much pragmatic routes. On almost every city map in the US you can see a railway crossing it, usually in the downtown behind a large mall that should also double as a rail station if you ask me.

philwelch 3y ago

Most Amtrak locomotives are diesel.

thriftwy 3y ago
Put some wires on the top instead of laying CO² pipes.