4 ms·

Missing from this article is the correlation between train length and use of sidings when opposing trains need to pass. It’s well known the reason Amtrak sucks

Missing from this article is the correlation between train length and use of sidings when opposing trains need to pass. It’s well known the reason Amtrak sucks is because freight trains run on the same tracks and their sidings are too short, relative to the length of the trains, to prevent freight-caused delays on most Amtrak lines. Avg. passenger rail speeds in the US peaked in the 1880’s iirc. If you simply can’t use a siding because your train is too long, I can see a derailment becoming more likely. There may also be loading fatigue contributions, similar to higher speeds and harder tires making semi trucks responsible for 90+% of US highway wear. The longest trains no doubt run on a minority of busiest routes, so there is less risk of derailment with shorter trains on the plurality of routes. In essence, it’s not that the derailed train is too long, it’s that the previous train is too long, causing the track to wear out too fast.

bombcar 2y ago
A federal law limiting trains to the length of a siding within 60 miles (or be double tracked) would simplify some things.
unyttigfjelltol 2y ago
Amtrak has weak service outside key corridors because it operates on infrastructure that it doesn't own, which is constructed and maintained to a freight-optimal standard, and so is slow and unreliable. Freight traffic conflicts are just icing on the cake, as is politicization of funding and a basic failure of purpose from inception-- Amtrak was a railroad union pension rescue brought about by massive subsidization of auto and air infrastructure in the mid-20th century. The purpose forever has been to extend and pretend, and not to actually make intercity rail travel viable across the US.
bequanna 2y ago
Even if there was a ~25% decrease in Amtrack trip length, would there be any meaningful increase in use? I’ve looked at longer Amtrack trips and the time it takes to travel across just a few states relative to flying just doesn’t make sense to me.
- banannaise 2y ago
  Making a service better is a good thing regardless of whether it increases use. That said, there are some people for whom train travel makes a lot of sense, especially if you make it more efficient. You just don't happen to be one of them.
  - bequanna 2y ago
    I guess the exact same argument could have been made in the 40s-50s for adding additional lanes on roads just for horse powered passengers. Some people enjoy the nostalgia, sure, but we’ve moved on and have better options. The US will likely never embrace (or need) longer range high speed passenger rail like Europe. I don’t understand why we would dedicate more public money or policy to continue to prove this point. Other than a few retirees who have time to kill, who would be interested in taking an Amtrack train from Chicago -> LA? This trip via Amtrak takes 3 days. I am not interested in my tax dollars subsidizing pleasure trips for Senior citizens.
    - katbyte 2y ago
      It’s not the same? Trains are great for the environment and pack a lot of people into a small area. Roads and cars do not.
    - banannaise 2y ago
      Treating rail like an outdated and obsolete technology is weird. American rail infrastructure is, in many cases, outdated and obsolete. Rail as a technology is not. For freight, it is far more efficient than basically any other land transportation technology, even in the present state. For passengers, it is also more economically efficient than road travel, although the present quality of infrastructure often makes it impractical, and it lacks the aggressive subsidies of road travel. > Other than a few retirees who have time to kill, who would be interested in taking an Amtrack train from Chicago -> LA? This trip, which is an extreme example, takes 43 hours today (per the Amtrak ticketing portal). Driving this route (which people do) takes 30 hours and must be split up over 2-3 days due to fatigue. Greyhound takes 46 hours. Megabus does not serve California. Even with the current (bad) state of rail infrastructure in this country, the only more efficient travel method for this trip is flying. An upgraded conventional railway (similar to the Acela Express) would cover that distance in about 30 hours. An average high-speed rail would take about 15-20 and could be done in a day. Also, why are you pretending that this infrastructure doesn't serve shorter trips as well? A plane from Chicago to LA only serves Chicago and LA. The Amtrak route also serves Kansas City, Albuquerque, and Flagstaff. The route you were referring to (the Texas Eagle, 66 hours) serves Springfield, St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson, and dozens of smaller cities.

bombcar 2y ago

A federal law limiting trains to the length of a siding within 60 miles (or be double tracked) would simplify some things.

unyttigfjelltol 2y ago

Amtrak has weak service outside key corridors because it operates on infrastructure that it doesn't own, which is constructed and maintained to a freight-optimal standard, and so is slow and unreliable. Freight traffic conflicts are just icing on the cake, as is politicization of funding and a basic failure of purpose from inception-- Amtrak was a railroad union pension rescue brought about by massive subsidization of auto and air infrastructure in the mid-20th century. The purpose forever has been to extend and pretend, and not to actually make intercity rail travel viable across the US.

bequanna 2y ago

Even if there was a ~25% decrease in Amtrack trip length, would there be any meaningful increase in use? I’ve looked at longer Amtrack trips and the time it takes to travel across just a few states relative to flying just doesn’t make sense to me.

banannaise 2y ago
Making a service better is a good thing regardless of whether it increases use. That said, there are some people for whom train travel makes a lot of sense, especially if you make it more efficient. You just don't happen to be one of them.
- bequanna 2y ago
  I guess the exact same argument could have been made in the 40s-50s for adding additional lanes on roads just for horse powered passengers. Some people enjoy the nostalgia, sure, but we’ve moved on and have better options. The US will likely never embrace (or need) longer range high speed passenger rail like Europe. I don’t understand why we would dedicate more public money or policy to continue to prove this point. Other than a few retirees who have time to kill, who would be interested in taking an Amtrack train from Chicago -> LA? This trip via Amtrak takes 3 days. I am not interested in my tax dollars subsidizing pleasure trips for Senior citizens.
  - katbyte 2y ago
    It’s not the same? Trains are great for the environment and pack a lot of people into a small area. Roads and cars do not.
  - banannaise 2y ago
    Treating rail like an outdated and obsolete technology is weird. American rail infrastructure is, in many cases, outdated and obsolete. Rail as a technology is not. For freight, it is far more efficient than basically any other land transportation technology, even in the present state. For passengers, it is also more economically efficient than road travel, although the present quality of infrastructure often makes it impractical, and it lacks the aggressive subsidies of road travel. > Other than a few retirees who have time to kill, who would be interested in taking an Amtrack train from Chicago -> LA? This trip, which is an extreme example, takes 43 hours today (per the Amtrak ticketing portal). Driving this route (which people do) takes 30 hours and must be split up over 2-3 days due to fatigue. Greyhound takes 46 hours. Megabus does not serve California. Even with the current (bad) state of rail infrastructure in this country, the only more efficient travel method for this trip is flying. An upgraded conventional railway (similar to the Acela Express) would cover that distance in about 30 hours. An average high-speed rail would take about 15-20 and could be done in a day. Also, why are you pretending that this infrastructure doesn't serve shorter trips as well? A plane from Chicago to LA only serves Chicago and LA. The Amtrak route also serves Kansas City, Albuquerque, and Flagstaff. The route you were referring to (the Texas Eagle, 66 hours) serves Springfield, St. Louis, Little Rock, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Tucson, and dozens of smaller cities.