5 ms·

If I could travel by train domestically in the USA as is common in Europe, I would prefer it. It's a real shame that the USA has yet to develop decent passenge

If I could travel by train domestically in the USA as is common in Europe, I would prefer it. It's a real shame that the USA has yet to develop decent passenger trains.

cheeze 2y ago
Seriously. EU rail is great! Show up 15 minutes before my train leaves, sit on my phone (albeit often without reception) and pass the time sitting at a comfy table. I took a first class trip in Italy recently. Food was fine and it's Italy, but those seats were very comfortable!
vkou 2y ago
Likewise, it's a real shame that Europe has yet to develop cheap cargo trains. Perhaps both regions should look into doubling their rail networks.
- gambiting 2y ago
  Where in Europe doesn't have cheap cargo trains? I used to live next to a train line in Poland and the cargo trains never stop going, there's so much cargo being moved by rail that the lines are almost always at capacity.
  - TMWNN 2y ago
    vkou is correct. The US freight rail system is the best and cheapest in the world, and has a larger share of freight shipping than in other countries. <https://archive.is/20240502094047/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-railroading https://archive.is/20240502094047/https://www.economist.com/...>
  - vkou 2y ago
    Measured in mile-tonnes, ~40% of US cargo travels by rail. Meanwhile, only ~20% of EU cargo travels by rail. The US prioritizes freight on its rail network, the EU prioritizes passenger service.
    - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
      This is disingenous. There is no "rail network" about which the US (through some political process) makes decisions about prioritization. There is a freight rail network, and there is Amtrak's rails between Boston and DC. That's it. We're not prioritizing freight, the network is owned by freight companies. Also, with regards to percentages, this is the wrong comparison. The numbers you need (which I could not find) are what percentage of cargo travels to within Nkm of its destination by trail in the USA, where N is the typical value for Europe. We have substantial freight hauling in the US because of long distance journeys. The last Nkm is generally done by truck. In Europe, there is much less long distance freight hauling, and much more hauling that takes place under the Nkm "limit", ergo more is done by truck.
      - gaadd33 2y ago
        Although under the law that created Amtrak, the track owners are supposed to give priority to passenger trains. I don't think that's been enforced for 30+ years (maybe ever) so freight is prioritized since it makes the owners more money.
        PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        That's fair enough, but that leaves a certain level of ambiguity (or perhaps ambivalence) about what is prioritized by government. What we can say is that the track owners' priorities are clear. The Biden administration did begin to take steps to enforce the law in this area, but I think it did not get very far and will almost certainly cease in the new administration.
        db48x 2y ago
        No, Amtrak trains are always prioritized. Well, almost always. Every train journey is planned in advance, so that each block of rail is reserved for a specific train and only that train. When those reservations are made, Amtrak trains get priority over freight trains. However, in recent decades the average length of the freight trains has increased greatly. This results in trains that are too long to fit on any of the sidings. This means that it is possible for a freight train to be in a place where it cannot pull into a siding and allow an Amtrak train to pass or overtake it. The law simply does not anticipate this scenario, and it cannot force the freight companies (who own most of the track) to extend their sidings to accommodate the larger trains or to change the length of their trains. I believe that the FRA has tried to resolve this for some time, but unsuccessfully. At this point it will take either a big lawsuit or an act of Congress to fix the problem. It should also be noted that if an Amtrak train is forced to stop and wait on some other train, that this does not delay the Amtrak train. The stop is part of the train’s schedule so while it makes the trip longer it doesn’t make the train late. On the other hand, an Amtrak train that is _already_ late loses its reservations and therefore could get delayed even more by freight trains. No guarantees though; sometimes they make up time simply because there are no freight trains in the way.
Izikiel43 2y ago
The question is, where? Most of the midwest is empty, same with other states. You have very dense areas in the east coast, which already leverage a large train network. In the west coast, Oregon and WA already have trains connecting their largest cities (Portland/Seattle/Vancouver). California has caltrain, and internal city trains. In the USA, for passengers, it makes much more sense to fly than trains, the infrastructure costs and time costs of trains vs planes don't make sense.
- ocschwar 2y ago
  I'll put it this way: if it were easy and efficient to take a train from Chicago to Bloomington, Dubuque, Rockford, Ft. Wayne, every one of these places would make the effort to make it worthwhile to ride that train. Instead we just accept that all these places are effectively served by Chicago's OHare Airport, and there's no reason to travel among these places.
- undersuit 2y ago
  The density is a function of our travel system. Putting dedicated passenger train routes into the US to connect the biggest cities would lead to the smaller cities along the routes receiving increased immigration. Every city has a road through it to do the same thing. >In the USA, for passengers, it makes much more sense to fly than trains You don't live in the midwest I take it. It makes more sense to drive than to take a flight that passes you through one of the airline hubs for most every trip that is less than 400 miles.
  - bongodongobob 2y ago
    So, most trips.
- itishappy 2y ago
  "We have rail at home" Rail at home: > Boston to Buffalo: 11h32m
- jcranmer 2y ago
  > Most of the midwest is empty, same with other states. Most of the Midwest has the same functional density as Europe. Indeed, if you overlay a map of France on the Midwest, with Paris centered on Chicago, you'll find that there are cities of comparable sizes at comparable distances. The Great Empty largely exists only on the plains and the mountainous west, where all but the most ardent fantasists concede that no passenger system is viable. But most of the population in the US lives in or near a city that would have viable high-speed rail destinations!
miki123211 2y ago
>common in Europe European rail travel is mostly small-town-to-city (for commuting) and city-to-city, mostly when the cities aren't that far apart (a few hours at most). International travel in Europe is much less common than interstate travel in the US, mostly because of the language and culture barriers, so most trips people take are in the same country. Our countries are far smaller, and the major cities of each country are far close to each other than the major cities in the US, so trains make sense. Trains in Europe mostly replace cars, NOT planes. It's just that a lot more travel here can be done by car/train in a reasonable time. To an average European, SFO to LAX by train would be just about bearable, depending on country and train speed. Anything much farther than that would probably be a flight.
- fy20 2y ago
  A bit more context: Very few people in Europe travel internationally by train. If you need to go fast you go by air, or if you need to go cheap you go by bus. Train travel works well within some countries (a decade ago, I took a train from Rome to Venice and back for a 1 day conference - driving would have been around 6 hours each way), but for international travel it's usually not worth it. You are also dealing with different ticketing and scheduling systems, not to mention theres a bunch of big mountains in the middle of Europe meaning it's geographically hard to cross.
  - leoedin 2y ago
    I live in London and work for a French company. I’m travelling to Brussels and Paris fairly regularly. Many of my colleagues do the same. It’s a 2 hour high speed train. Far better than flying. Europe is a large place, but my experience in Western Europe is that people absolutely travel by inter-city train between countries when the journey time is 3 hours. More than that and flying starts to be favoured. Driving isn’t really an option for these journeys because the trains are so much faster than cars. A 2 hour train journey would take 4+ hours by car.
    - nmeofthestate 2y ago
      A similar distance to NY-to-DC (which would be half an hour slower on the train according to Google).

If I could travel by train domestically in the USA as is common in Europe, I would prefer it. It's a real shame that the USA has yet to develop decent passenger trains.

cheeze 2y ago

Seriously. EU rail is great! Show up 15 minutes before my train leaves, sit on my phone (albeit often without reception) and pass the time sitting at a comfy table. I took a first class trip in Italy recently. Food was fine and it's Italy, but those seats were very comfortable!

vkou 2y ago

Likewise, it's a real shame that Europe has yet to develop cheap cargo trains. Perhaps both regions should look into doubling their rail networks.

gambiting 2y ago
Where in Europe doesn't have cheap cargo trains? I used to live next to a train line in Poland and the cargo trains never stop going, there's so much cargo being moved by rail that the lines are almost always at capacity.
- TMWNN 2y ago
  vkou is correct. The US freight rail system is the best and cheapest in the world, and has a larger share of freight shipping than in other countries. <https://archive.is/20240502094047/https://www.economist.com/briefing/2010/07/22/high-speed-railroading https://archive.is/20240502094047/https://www.economist.com/...>
- vkou 2y ago
  Measured in mile-tonnes, ~40% of US cargo travels by rail. Meanwhile, only ~20% of EU cargo travels by rail. The US prioritizes freight on its rail network, the EU prioritizes passenger service.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
    This is disingenous. There is no "rail network" about which the US (through some political process) makes decisions about prioritization. There is a freight rail network, and there is Amtrak's rails between Boston and DC. That's it. We're not prioritizing freight, the network is owned by freight companies. Also, with regards to percentages, this is the wrong comparison. The numbers you need (which I could not find) are what percentage of cargo travels to within Nkm of its destination by trail in the USA, where N is the typical value for Europe. We have substantial freight hauling in the US because of long distance journeys. The last Nkm is generally done by truck. In Europe, there is much less long distance freight hauling, and much more hauling that takes place under the Nkm "limit", ergo more is done by truck.
    - gaadd33 2y ago
      Although under the law that created Amtrak, the track owners are supposed to give priority to passenger trains. I don't think that's been enforced for 30+ years (maybe ever) so freight is prioritized since it makes the owners more money.
      - PaulDavisThe1st 2y ago
        That's fair enough, but that leaves a certain level of ambiguity (or perhaps ambivalence) about what is prioritized by government. What we can say is that the track owners' priorities are clear. The Biden administration did begin to take steps to enforce the law in this area, but I think it did not get very far and will almost certainly cease in the new administration.
      - db48x 2y ago
        No, Amtrak trains are always prioritized. Well, almost always. Every train journey is planned in advance, so that each block of rail is reserved for a specific train and only that train. When those reservations are made, Amtrak trains get priority over freight trains. However, in recent decades the average length of the freight trains has increased greatly. This results in trains that are too long to fit on any of the sidings. This means that it is possible for a freight train to be in a place where it cannot pull into a siding and allow an Amtrak train to pass or overtake it. The law simply does not anticipate this scenario, and it cannot force the freight companies (who own most of the track) to extend their sidings to accommodate the larger trains or to change the length of their trains. I believe that the FRA has tried to resolve this for some time, but unsuccessfully. At this point it will take either a big lawsuit or an act of Congress to fix the problem. It should also be noted that if an Amtrak train is forced to stop and wait on some other train, that this does not delay the Amtrak train. The stop is part of the train’s schedule so while it makes the trip longer it doesn’t make the train late. On the other hand, an Amtrak train that is _already_ late loses its reservations and therefore could get delayed even more by freight trains. No guarantees though; sometimes they make up time simply because there are no freight trains in the way.

Izikiel43 2y ago

The question is, where? Most of the midwest is empty, same with other states. You have very dense areas in the east coast, which already leverage a large train network. In the west coast, Oregon and WA already have trains connecting their largest cities (Portland/Seattle/Vancouver). California has caltrain, and internal city trains. In the USA, for passengers, it makes much more sense to fly than trains, the infrastructure costs and time costs of trains vs planes don't make sense.

ocschwar 2y ago
I'll put it this way: if it were easy and efficient to take a train from Chicago to Bloomington, Dubuque, Rockford, Ft. Wayne, every one of these places would make the effort to make it worthwhile to ride that train. Instead we just accept that all these places are effectively served by Chicago's OHare Airport, and there's no reason to travel among these places.
undersuit 2y ago
The density is a function of our travel system. Putting dedicated passenger train routes into the US to connect the biggest cities would lead to the smaller cities along the routes receiving increased immigration. Every city has a road through it to do the same thing. >In the USA, for passengers, it makes much more sense to fly than trains You don't live in the midwest I take it. It makes more sense to drive than to take a flight that passes you through one of the airline hubs for most every trip that is less than 400 miles.
- bongodongobob 2y ago
  So, most trips.
itishappy 2y ago
"We have rail at home" Rail at home: > Boston to Buffalo: 11h32m
jcranmer 2y ago
> Most of the midwest is empty, same with other states. Most of the Midwest has the same functional density as Europe. Indeed, if you overlay a map of France on the Midwest, with Paris centered on Chicago, you'll find that there are cities of comparable sizes at comparable distances. The Great Empty largely exists only on the plains and the mountainous west, where all but the most ardent fantasists concede that no passenger system is viable. But most of the population in the US lives in or near a city that would have viable high-speed rail destinations!

miki123211 2y ago

>common in Europe European rail travel is mostly small-town-to-city (for commuting) and city-to-city, mostly when the cities aren't that far apart (a few hours at most). International travel in Europe is much less common than interstate travel in the US, mostly because of the language and culture barriers, so most trips people take are in the same country. Our countries are far smaller, and the major cities of each country are far close to each other than the major cities in the US, so trains make sense. Trains in Europe mostly replace cars, NOT planes. It's just that a lot more travel here can be done by car/train in a reasonable time. To an average European, SFO to LAX by train would be just about bearable, depending on country and train speed. Anything much farther than that would probably be a flight.

fy20 2y ago
A bit more context: Very few people in Europe travel internationally by train. If you need to go fast you go by air, or if you need to go cheap you go by bus. Train travel works well within some countries (a decade ago, I took a train from Rome to Venice and back for a 1 day conference - driving would have been around 6 hours each way), but for international travel it's usually not worth it. You are also dealing with different ticketing and scheduling systems, not to mention theres a bunch of big mountains in the middle of Europe meaning it's geographically hard to cross.
- leoedin 2y ago
  I live in London and work for a French company. I’m travelling to Brussels and Paris fairly regularly. Many of my colleagues do the same. It’s a 2 hour high speed train. Far better than flying. Europe is a large place, but my experience in Western Europe is that people absolutely travel by inter-city train between countries when the journey time is 3 hours. More than that and flying starts to be favoured. Driving isn’t really an option for these journeys because the trains are so much faster than cars. A 2 hour train journey would take 4+ hours by car.
  - nmeofthestate 2y ago
    A similar distance to NY-to-DC (which would be half an hour slower on the train according to Google).