5 ms·

I think the biggest challenge to rail in the US is just how huge the US is. Take a common train ride in Europe: Paris to Berlin. You've actually traveled less

I think the biggest challenge to rail in the US is just how huge the US is. Take a common train ride in Europe: Paris to Berlin. You've actually traveled less distance than from New York to Chicago, and it took 8 hours to do so. In fact from Paris all the way to Moscow is much shorter than from LA to NYC. Without some amazing new tech in rail, I doubt it'll ever be a popular alternative in the US to flying (other than intra-regional trips).

mcot2 13y ago
Yes, the U.S. is big. BUT if you implement high speed rail in specific corridors it would be quite a bit better than flying. The DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston route covers millions of people. It is absolutely criminal that we cannot get trains on this route which have average speeds greater than ~90mph (amtrack acela express). DC to Boston is only ~450 miles. Even if we get to only 150-200mph (which is already occurring in China over long distances) we are looking at only 2-3 hours from DC to Boston.
mikeash 13y ago
I doubt rail will replace cross-country flights, but there is a ton of air traffic on shorter routes. As one example where it's already done, the DC-NYC Amtrak route is quite popular, despite being just as expensive, if not more so, as the plane ride. It takes a similar amount of time, factoring in travel to and from airports, waiting, etc. and is much nicer. There are still a ton of airline flights between these two cities as well, of course, and those could probably be supplanted to a large degree with additional improvements. That's with current American trains, which are painfully slow. Imagine modern high-speed rail between, for example, DC and Miami. It's a bit over 1,000 miles which would take about five hours. That would be an excellent substitute for the plane trip, which is about two hours in the air, but tons of time and hassle at the airports. I have family in South Florida and if such a train existed at something like a reasonable price, I'd definitely go for it. As it is, Amtrak on that route takes nearly 24 hours and costs way more than an airline ticket. I don't see why they get any passengers at all, given that. Seems like 1,000 miles is about the limit for high-speed trains. How many pairs of large American cities are less than 1,000 miles apart and have lots of travel between them? I would bet there are quite a number. Rail doesn't have to solve everything to solve a bunch of things.
- dfc 13y ago
  You doubt rail will compete/replace cross country air travel because "it seems like 1,000 miles is the limit for high speed trains." Is there any reason to think that what appears to be the case is actually the case? I do not know a lot about rail travel why is distance a limiting factor? Is it a business limitation or a physical limitation?
  - mikeash 13y ago
    1,000 miles is about the point where air travel starts to become substantially faster than modern high-speed rail. Airplanes add about three hours onto the trip just to account for getting to and from the airports (which are almost always far away from the city), going through security, arriving early enough to account for unexpected problems, etc. With trains it's much less, often well under an hour. However, airplanes go much faster. That DC-Miami trip would be about five hours by high-speed train and is about two hours by plane. It would be roughly a wash when you account for the extra overhead of airplane travel, making the train more attractive due to being more comfortable and potentially cheaper. But go much farther, and the plane starts to get a lot faster. For a coast-to-coast flight, a high-speed train is still going to take nearly a full day, while an airplane can do it in about eight hours after accounting for the extra overhead. So, as far as I can see, 1,000 miles is roughly the breakeven point on planes versus high speed rail.
  - cmsmith 13y ago
    The 1,000 mile rule is pretty widely quoted and is not too controversial. Reasons for it are: 1. Speed (physical limitation). Due to reduced overhead (time getting to and at airport), trains are faster or equivalent to air travel for short (<500 mi) routes, and are not much slower for medium (<1000 mi) routes. Whereas for cross country (~3000 mi) routes, even a high speed train would take a couple of days for a trip that could be made in 10 hours by plane (incl. overhead). 2. Infrastructure costs. Air travel infrastructure is proportional to the number of passengers and constant with respect to the travel distance (since each passenger occupies 1/200th of a gate at two airports for about an hour, regardless of the travel distance. Rail travel infrastructure is proportional to the distance traveled and relatively constant with respect to the number of passengers. These combine to mean that shorter trips with more passengers are more competitive by rail, and longer trips with fewer passengers are more competitive by plane.
wdr1 13y ago
Yet, we still lack rail on routes that would likely prove to be popular in West. E.g., between LA & SF or LA & Vegas.
m_mueller 13y ago
Don't use Europe as an example for an efficient train system. Learn from the best: Japan. New York - Washington? Sure, no problem, takes about 2h 15min[1][2][3]. New York - Chicago? 8 hours [4]. Looking at the American timetable - holy crap, 19 hours for the same distance by train, 12 hours by car. [1]https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?saddr=Tokyo+Station,+Tokio&daddr=Nagoya,+Aichi&hl=de&ll=35.209722,138.03772&spn=2.118357,2.988281&sll=35.185033,138.323364&sspn=2.119001,2.988281&geocode=FWZ0IAIdRKlUCCHG5gyLgyUwRCkLcJ_Y-4sYYDHG5gyLgyUwRA%3BFYbTGAIdngYpCCllI3sQnnADYDFSs87o1CKWKg&oq=nago&brcurrent=3,0x601bb6ce8cb0c32f:0xfcfa66ebdf6f1655,0&ttype=dep&date=10%2F03%2F14&time=08:00&noexp=0&noal=0&sort=def&mra=ls&t=m&z=9&start=0 https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?saddr=Tokyo+Station,+Tokio&da... [2]https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York,+NY,+USA/Washington,+DC,+USA/@39.8121037,-76.6196479,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059731!2d40.7143528!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c6de5af6e45b:0xc2524522d4885d2a!2m2!1d-77.0364641!2d38.9072309!3e0 https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York,+NY,+USA/Washington... [3]https://duckduckgo.com/?q=230mi+in+km https://duckduckgo.com/?q=230mi+in+km [4]https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?saddr=aomori&daddr=okayama&hl=de&ll=37.744657,137.669678&spn=8.198093,11.953125&sll=37.735969,137.318115&sspn=8.199052,11.953125&geocode=FTjlbgIdZaJjCCmjaisc8J-bXzF-oYVtnC3G_w%3BFarLEAIdDnP7BylPoPsvcQVUNTFmV2lgJoDDEA&brcurrent=3,0x34674e0fd77f192f:0xf54275d47c665244,0&ttype=dep&date=09%2F03%2F14&time=22:49&noexp=0&noal=0&sort=def&mra=ltm&t=m&z=7&start=0 https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?saddr=aomori&daddr=okayama&hl...
- Uehreka 13y ago
  At one point I was attending college in Baltimore while my family lived in Chicago. I'm fine with long trains rides (8-10 hours or so) but the routes from Baltimore to Chicago were reported to be 27 hours (For this reason I never actually used them). I don't know how they come up with stuff like that.
  - m_mueller 13y ago
    I tell you what, I'd be fine too sitting for 8h in this[1], the standard Shinkansen interior. They even have wall outlets as well as onboard LTE between Tokyo and Osaka. I'm usually more productive in those than in my office. There's only one issue: If you're not a tourist carrying a weekly rail pass, it costs around 140$ one way for a 3h trip. Sounds like a lot, however considering the distance they travel in that time it starts to look reasonable again. [1]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/JR_Central_N700_002.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/JR_Centra...
leoc 13y ago
But no-one in a hurry takes the train from Paris to Moscow either. Conversely, look at the distances between, say, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Ohio, and Detroit. The distance from Chicago to Detroit is only slightly greater than that from London to Paris, minimum time 2h 15m by train.
- joelrunyon 13y ago
  This. Even the bus system is pretty solid between these cities - but an upgraded train system would be much preferred through sitting in traffic & stressing behind the wheel. The hub system in different locations (NE, Midwest, West Coast) with a few connection points - would be an incredible option to have.

mcot2 13y ago

Yes, the U.S. is big. BUT if you implement high speed rail in specific corridors it would be quite a bit better than flying. The DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston route covers millions of people. It is absolutely criminal that we cannot get trains on this route which have average speeds greater than ~90mph (amtrack acela express). DC to Boston is only ~450 miles. Even if we get to only 150-200mph (which is already occurring in China over long distances) we are looking at only 2-3 hours from DC to Boston.

mikeash 13y ago

I doubt rail will replace cross-country flights, but there is a ton of air traffic on shorter routes. As one example where it's already done, the DC-NYC Amtrak route is quite popular, despite being just as expensive, if not more so, as the plane ride. It takes a similar amount of time, factoring in travel to and from airports, waiting, etc. and is much nicer. There are still a ton of airline flights between these two cities as well, of course, and those could probably be supplanted to a large degree with additional improvements. That's with current American trains, which are painfully slow. Imagine modern high-speed rail between, for example, DC and Miami. It's a bit over 1,000 miles which would take about five hours. That would be an excellent substitute for the plane trip, which is about two hours in the air, but tons of time and hassle at the airports. I have family in South Florida and if such a train existed at something like a reasonable price, I'd definitely go for it. As it is, Amtrak on that route takes nearly 24 hours and costs way more than an airline ticket. I don't see why they get any passengers at all, given that. Seems like 1,000 miles is about the limit for high-speed trains. How many pairs of large American cities are less than 1,000 miles apart and have lots of travel between them? I would bet there are quite a number. Rail doesn't have to solve everything to solve a bunch of things.

dfc 13y ago
You doubt rail will compete/replace cross country air travel because "it seems like 1,000 miles is the limit for high speed trains." Is there any reason to think that what appears to be the case is actually the case? I do not know a lot about rail travel why is distance a limiting factor? Is it a business limitation or a physical limitation?
- mikeash 13y ago
  1,000 miles is about the point where air travel starts to become substantially faster than modern high-speed rail. Airplanes add about three hours onto the trip just to account for getting to and from the airports (which are almost always far away from the city), going through security, arriving early enough to account for unexpected problems, etc. With trains it's much less, often well under an hour. However, airplanes go much faster. That DC-Miami trip would be about five hours by high-speed train and is about two hours by plane. It would be roughly a wash when you account for the extra overhead of airplane travel, making the train more attractive due to being more comfortable and potentially cheaper. But go much farther, and the plane starts to get a lot faster. For a coast-to-coast flight, a high-speed train is still going to take nearly a full day, while an airplane can do it in about eight hours after accounting for the extra overhead. So, as far as I can see, 1,000 miles is roughly the breakeven point on planes versus high speed rail.
- cmsmith 13y ago
  The 1,000 mile rule is pretty widely quoted and is not too controversial. Reasons for it are: 1. Speed (physical limitation). Due to reduced overhead (time getting to and at airport), trains are faster or equivalent to air travel for short (<500 mi) routes, and are not much slower for medium (<1000 mi) routes. Whereas for cross country (~3000 mi) routes, even a high speed train would take a couple of days for a trip that could be made in 10 hours by plane (incl. overhead). 2. Infrastructure costs. Air travel infrastructure is proportional to the number of passengers and constant with respect to the travel distance (since each passenger occupies 1/200th of a gate at two airports for about an hour, regardless of the travel distance. Rail travel infrastructure is proportional to the distance traveled and relatively constant with respect to the number of passengers. These combine to mean that shorter trips with more passengers are more competitive by rail, and longer trips with fewer passengers are more competitive by plane.

wdr1 13y ago

Yet, we still lack rail on routes that would likely prove to be popular in West. E.g., between LA & SF or LA & Vegas.

m_mueller 13y ago

Don't use Europe as an example for an efficient train system. Learn from the best: Japan. New York - Washington? Sure, no problem, takes about 2h 15min[1][2][3]. New York - Chicago? 8 hours [4]. Looking at the American timetable - holy crap, 19 hours for the same distance by train, 12 hours by car. [1]https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?saddr=Tokyo+Station,+Tokio&daddr=Nagoya,+Aichi&hl=de&ll=35.209722,138.03772&spn=2.118357,2.988281&sll=35.185033,138.323364&sspn=2.119001,2.988281&geocode=FWZ0IAIdRKlUCCHG5gyLgyUwRCkLcJ_Y-4sYYDHG5gyLgyUwRA%3BFYbTGAIdngYpCCllI3sQnnADYDFSs87o1CKWKg&oq=nago&brcurrent=3,0x601bb6ce8cb0c32f:0xfcfa66ebdf6f1655,0&ttype=dep&date=10%2F03%2F14&time=08:00&noexp=0&noal=0&sort=def&mra=ls&t=m&z=9&start=0 https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?saddr=Tokyo+Station,+Tokio&da... [2]https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York,+NY,+USA/Washington,+DC,+USA/@39.8121037,-76.6196479,8z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m14!4m13!1m5!1m1!1s0x89c24fa5d33f083b:0xc80b8f06e177fe62!2m2!1d-74.0059731!2d40.7143528!1m5!1m1!1s0x89b7c6de5af6e45b:0xc2524522d4885d2a!2m2!1d-77.0364641!2d38.9072309!3e0 https://www.google.com/maps/dir/New+York,+NY,+USA/Washington... [3]https://duckduckgo.com/?q=230mi+in+km https://duckduckgo.com/?q=230mi+in+km [4]https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?saddr=aomori&daddr=okayama&hl=de&ll=37.744657,137.669678&spn=8.198093,11.953125&sll=37.735969,137.318115&sspn=8.199052,11.953125&geocode=FTjlbgIdZaJjCCmjaisc8J-bXzF-oYVtnC3G_w%3BFarLEAIdDnP7BylPoPsvcQVUNTFmV2lgJoDDEA&brcurrent=3,0x34674e0fd77f192f:0xf54275d47c665244,0&ttype=dep&date=09%2F03%2F14&time=22:49&noexp=0&noal=0&sort=def&mra=ltm&t=m&z=7&start=0 https://maps.google.co.jp/maps?saddr=aomori&daddr=okayama&hl...

Uehreka 13y ago
At one point I was attending college in Baltimore while my family lived in Chicago. I'm fine with long trains rides (8-10 hours or so) but the routes from Baltimore to Chicago were reported to be 27 hours (For this reason I never actually used them). I don't know how they come up with stuff like that.
- m_mueller 13y ago
  I tell you what, I'd be fine too sitting for 8h in this[1], the standard Shinkansen interior. They even have wall outlets as well as onboard LTE between Tokyo and Osaka. I'm usually more productive in those than in my office. There's only one issue: If you're not a tourist carrying a weekly rail pass, it costs around 140$ one way for a 3h trip. Sounds like a lot, however considering the distance they travel in that time it starts to look reasonable again. [1]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/JR_Central_N700_002.JPG http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/88/JR_Centra...

leoc 13y ago

But no-one in a hurry takes the train from Paris to Moscow either. Conversely, look at the distances between, say, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Columbus, Ohio, and Detroit. The distance from Chicago to Detroit is only slightly greater than that from London to Paris, minimum time 2h 15m by train.

joelrunyon 13y ago
This. Even the bus system is pretty solid between these cities - but an upgraded train system would be much preferred through sitting in traffic & stressing behind the wheel. The hub system in different locations (NE, Midwest, West Coast) with a few connection points - would be an incredible option to have.