Your challenge noble warrior, should you choose to undertake this laborious task, is to find a way to have the US have the largest and most efficient etc. etc. etc. rail transportation system in the world.
US Has Best Rail Transportation System In The World
- Thread starter SlyDessertFox
- Start date
No limits on the start date as long as it's after 1900.
In the modern day.
And let it run down and fall to pieces as little or no preventative maintenance was done and a lot of track was lost as it was salvaged to patch the heavy use war industry areas. After the war Ford and other auto manufactures were rolling in cash as the rails were trying to keep what they had rolling.
If we are just talking freight, it's not hard. In fact the US may be a lot closer to the top than you think.
Passenger? No way. Not without a 'everybody but the US screw' of massive proportions. The US is too big and sparse for a Japan or European style highspeed network.
Passenger? No way. Not without a 'everybody but the US screw' of massive proportions. The US is too big and sparse for a Japan or European style highspeed network.
CthulhuFhtagn
Banned
I'm pretty sure the US has the best freight rail transportation system in the world (maybe second to China?). Passenger, on the other hand....no way, not happening. Car culture and the sheer size of the country make it impossible.
I should clarify that I'm referring to passenger rail. And I'll modify it a bit: It just has to have a far, far, far better passenger train system than it has now if best isn't possible.
I don't think its impossible, you just have to get them to want to do it.
Have the railroads recognize the threats represented by the car, the truck and the airplane a lot earlier. Have them invest more heavily in HSR and push for segregated freight and passenger lines.
Too bad we also happened to run it into the ground in WWII while being so large and efficient. So WWII should somehow be avoided or US involvement toned down at the very least so as not to wreck the raillroads.
Also I feel like there is one thing that could go a long way towards helping this goal be realized. Have the railroads electrify more. IOTL the only lines that were electrified before Amtrak was created were the Northeast Corridor from Washington to New Haven, the Pennsylvania mainline from Philadelphia to Harrisburg, the New York Commuter trains, and a few commuter lines out of Chicago. If we can get the fund to extend the electrification to Boston, Springfield, Pittsburgh, and Albany then the Northeast has got the infrastructure to support a terrific passenger rail network. Other possibilities for electrification include the Los Angeles to San Francisco lines and corridors from Chicago to a few major cities like Detroit, St. Louis, and Cleveland. In fact, if Chicago to Cleveland and Harrisburg to Pittsburgh are electrified then it just makes sense to add Pittsburgh to Cleveland to the list since it's a fairly short distance and would allow the through-running of all electric trains from New York to Chicago which would be a tremendous boon for overnight trains in the Northeast and Midwest. I may be starting to ramble at this point.
Last edited:
Riain
Banned
Firstly, I don't think there is any such thing as 'The Best In the World', just the best for the situation.
Secondly, the US is too big to have an integrated national system, but does have a lot of HSR sweet spots: city pairs of over 1,000,000 people 200-500 miles apart. In addition the US has a lot of rail infrastructure that could be put to work moving passengers if there was a will to do so.
As for execution, perhaps AMTRAK could be formed not as a means to let US passenger rail die quietly but rather to facilitate the development of advanced passenger rail in the US. AMTRAK could buy advanced trains such as the TurboTrain and Metroliner, expand and update things like ATS which allow higher speeds and make limited infrastructure investments to reduce/remove bottlenecks to passenger rail speed. If this was pursued from the 1965 High Speed Ground Transportation Act the US could have plenty of high and medium speed rail routes throughout the country.
Secondly, the US is too big to have an integrated national system, but does have a lot of HSR sweet spots: city pairs of over 1,000,000 people 200-500 miles apart. In addition the US has a lot of rail infrastructure that could be put to work moving passengers if there was a will to do so.
As for execution, perhaps AMTRAK could be formed not as a means to let US passenger rail die quietly but rather to facilitate the development of advanced passenger rail in the US. AMTRAK could buy advanced trains such as the TurboTrain and Metroliner, expand and update things like ATS which allow higher speeds and make limited infrastructure investments to reduce/remove bottlenecks to passenger rail speed. If this was pursued from the 1965 High Speed Ground Transportation Act the US could have plenty of high and medium speed rail routes throughout the country.
Last edited:
marathag
Banned
Since 1900, the only times the Railroads did real well was WWI(till Nationalized) and then during WWII, from Tire and Gas rationing. It was also the only time that Streetcar lines were profitable.
The maximum amount of railroad trackage was reached in 1913.
Railroads continually went in and out of receivership, before and after the great Depression. losing money was the norm, till the Mergers started in the late '60s, and rail abandonment started in earnest. The efficiency of diesel Prime Movers from Steam helped with bulk freight, no so much with passengers.
What killed Passenger Rail was not people flying or driving more, it was the loss of Subsidies for moving US Postal Mail from city to city in the 1950s.
Riain
Banned
The US postal service didn't switch from passenger trains to trucks/air until 1966, but train ridership was declining long before that.
What passenger transportation system makes a profit without subsidies? Government money can either be spent upgrading roads or airports, or it could be spent upgrading passenger rail services which might produce better overall outcomes.
What passenger transportation system makes a profit without subsidies? Government money can either be spent upgrading roads or airports, or it could be spent upgrading passenger rail services which might produce better overall outcomes.
Devvy
Donor
Sadly the US rail system has to reach rock bottom in order to force the overhaul of the system that is holding it back.
1) Speed restrictions meant that trains can't exceed 79mph without some form of automatic signalling (be it in-cab signalling, automatic stop after SPAD etc) which meant that it was damn expensive to run at higher speeds then 79mph.
2) Local taxes meant that the rail systems were taxed extortionately high (I can't remember if it was state or really local taxes, but anyway). This caused a huge financial drain on the rail networks.
3) The huge amounts of freight hauled on the network meant that slow freight trains often caused hold ups and delays for passenger trains.
The way I'd see it being rescued is to (as I did in my Amtrak TL):
- Bring Amtrak as a consolidated national passenger rail operator into operation.
- Keep commuter rail operations within Amtrak.
- Allow Amtrak to innovate and act as the vehicle to introduce high speed rail.
Sadly Amtrak didn't keep commuter rail (and so lost a potentially valuable source of income), and wasn't allowed to innovate (Amtrak was stifled as a vehicle to shut down interstate passenger rail instead).
While passenger rail is never going to compete against the plane on long distance journeys in the US, it can act as a far superior system in denser areas (primarily the wider north east as far west as Chicago area and as far south as Atlanta area potentially. If you get decent speeds (and I mean long stretches of 100-120mph running), then it can act as a good airport connections route (local feeder airlines replaced by Amtrak) and city to city transport connecting multiple cities together along some routes.
Depends how you define subsidies. There are many systems that manage to cover operation costs and turn a profit. There are non afaik that manage to cover all the development & construction costs as well though - however that applies to pretty much any transport system; road and air systems included.
1) Speed restrictions meant that trains can't exceed 79mph without some form of automatic signalling (be it in-cab signalling, automatic stop after SPAD etc) which meant that it was damn expensive to run at higher speeds then 79mph.
2) Local taxes meant that the rail systems were taxed extortionately high (I can't remember if it was state or really local taxes, but anyway). This caused a huge financial drain on the rail networks.
3) The huge amounts of freight hauled on the network meant that slow freight trains often caused hold ups and delays for passenger trains.
The way I'd see it being rescued is to (as I did in my Amtrak TL):
- Bring Amtrak as a consolidated national passenger rail operator into operation.
- Keep commuter rail operations within Amtrak.
- Allow Amtrak to innovate and act as the vehicle to introduce high speed rail.
Sadly Amtrak didn't keep commuter rail (and so lost a potentially valuable source of income), and wasn't allowed to innovate (Amtrak was stifled as a vehicle to shut down interstate passenger rail instead).
While passenger rail is never going to compete against the plane on long distance journeys in the US, it can act as a far superior system in denser areas (primarily the wider north east as far west as Chicago area and as far south as Atlanta area potentially. If you get decent speeds (and I mean long stretches of 100-120mph running), then it can act as a good airport connections route (local feeder airlines replaced by Amtrak) and city to city transport connecting multiple cities together along some routes.
Depends how you define subsidies. There are many systems that manage to cover operation costs and turn a profit. There are non afaik that manage to cover all the development & construction costs as well though - however that applies to pretty much any transport system; road and air systems included.
Would higher oil prices from the 30s to 60s help both in terms or limiting aviation and the car?