US Rail System Transportation?

[DougM]

Something just occurred to me as I finished my last post. If you think about it except China (a totalitarian government that does whatever it wants to no mater what the people think) no country in the world has managed to build a high speed rail network on a nation scale approaching what the US would need.
Canada Russia and other US sized countries don’t have them.
France perhaps the largest country with a high speed rail system is about 1/15th the size of the US. So in effect this countries that have high speed rail systems have what in the US would be “regional” systems. So you want high speed rail in the US then build a regional system and get the region to pay for it not the national government.
Because the coast of a national system would be 10x as much as France paid and that is not counting the cost of inflation. And you won’t get that approved.

 

[Dan1988]

Technically population density, not population, is what matters.
Congress tried to bring high speed rail to the densely populated Northeast with the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, but all we got out of it was the 90 mph Metroliner.

That was primarily the result of a bad design on the Metroliner's part, including the US version of the shitty Lucas electrics trope assigned to classic British cars. Nothing wrong with HSR itself. Any other design, even stealing the original Japanese design, would be much better than the Metroliner.

 

[kernals12]

That was primarily the result of a bad design on the Metroliner's part, including the US version of the shitty Lucas electrics trope assigned to classic British cars. Nothing wrong with HSR itself. Any other design, even stealing the original Japanese design, would be much better than the Metroliner.

So why didn't they do that?

 

[Dan1988]

So why didn't they do that?

That I don't know. National chauvinism, perhaps, which leads to something problematic on the tracks? Basically think about how Americanscmigrated to imported autos fast and the half-hearted attempts by the Big Three to lurk them back, and failed, and you'd see similar problems with the Metroliner.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

I also can see some individual states that could have their own rail networks...

- Florida
- New York
- Texas
- California
- Ohio

 

[kernals12]

Because nobody else gets anything out of it. If the NE corridor wants a train they have to pay for it. Have NY, NJ and the other states form a regional transit authority and pay for it. There is no legal bar to it. It is perfectly constitutional for various states to cooperate with each other. No reason you have to get Idaho to help pay for it.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

View attachment 456888

He's actually right though.

 

[kernals12]

He's actually right though.

Yes he is, but given the vicious turf wars that currently go on between the MTA, NJ Transit, and the Port Authority, and even within the MTA between LIRR and Metro North, this is like herding cats.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

Yes he is, but given the vicious turf wars that currently go on between the MTA, NJ Transit, and the Port Authority, and even within the MTA between LIRR and Metro North, this is like herding cats.

I see...

 

[kernals12]

I see...

New York and Jersey argue about a lot of things. Even in the 1980s, they couldn't decide who owned the statue of liberty.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

New York and Jersey argue about a lot of things. Even in the 1980s, they couldn't decide who owned the statue of liberty.

In that case, I can imagine more luck if Illinois and Wisconsin were making the HSR. At least between Chicago and Milwaukee.

 

[kernals12]

In that case, I can imagine more luck if Illinois and Wisconsin were making the HSR. That is, as long as the urban centers were large enough.

Milwaukee is not very big.
Texas seems like the best bet. It's only 240 miles from Houston to Dallas and it's over completely flat land. But I still think it's pointless.

 

[Dan1988]

View attachment 456888

Well, there's always merging the commuter and regional rail operation now done independently IOTL by MA, CT, NY, and NJ into one - make it early enough, and at least for those four plus RI and NH you could get a good railway system on par with the best in smaller countries, even if it does not look like an Amtrak-like service but more like, say, a much better version of Israel Railways or Nederlandse Spoorwegen.

 

[Dan1988]

Yes he is, but given the vicious turf wars that currently go on between the MTA, NJ Transit, and the Port Authority, and even within the MTA between LIRR and Metro North, this is like herding cats.

Can't be any worse than the MA/RI Pilgrim Partnership, even if it means Beacon Hill running the show for, say, the Atlantic City Line. (You will LEARN to appreciate rusty coaches with overflowing toilets and disappearing seatbacks since no one knows how European-style passenger cars work.)

 

[marathag]

In that case, I can imagine more luck if Illinois and Wisconsin were making the HSR. At least between Chicago and Milwaukee.

'30s thru '50s you had Milwaukee Road, CNW and CB&Q running respectable passenger trains from Chicago to Twin Cities that were averaging 60-63 mph, with 7-8 stops. Not enough traffic just to Milwaukee to justify even limited HSR.
Rock Island even had a 60mph average for their Chicago to Des Moines run, and that had 6 stops.

 

[DougM]

A 240 mile train is all but pointless except for business/ work travel. As it will only save about half an hour or so over driving and you have to go at Thier time

 

[Mark E.]

'30s thru '50s you had Milwaukee Road, CNW and CB&Q running respectable passenger trains from Chicago to Twin Cities that were averaging 60-63 mph, with 7-8 stops. Not enough traffic just to Milwaukee to justify even limited HSR.
Rock Island even had a 60mph average for their Chicago to Des Moines run, and that had 6 stops.

Those are the distances where rail travel makes the best sense because most travelers are willing to allocate a "half day" to travel over modest distances. That travel can extend hours into the evening if dinner is eaten on board.

A 240 mile train is all but pointless except for business/ work travel. As it will only save about half an hour or so over driving and you have to go at Thier time

An advantage there is that the businessman does not have to drive and can take advantage of a rail car compartment equipped with wi-fi to do work on a laptop or to watch a recording.

 

[daveg1967]

Let's go back to the original proposition, the US encourages railroads as well as highways in the 1950s. The original poster is ignoring or unaware of a basic fact. Railroads were the most hated entities in the US for generations. All the complaints about "Big Oil", "Big Pharma", or "Big Tobacco" are nothing compared to the hatred the railroad companies faced. Political parties and movements were formed to oppose the railroads. Cars and highways were viewed as the antidote to the railroad. Killing the railroads was seen as a feature, not a bug for the highway act.

 

[kernals12]

Let's go back to the original proposition, the US encourages railroads as well as highways in the 1950s. The original poster is ignoring or unaware of a basic fact. Railroads were the most hated entities in the US for generations. All the complaints about "Big Oil", "Big Pharma", or "Big Tobacco" are nothing compared to the hatred the railroad companies faced. Political parties and movements were formed to oppose the railroads. Cars and highways were viewed as the antidote to the railroad. Killing the railroads was seen as a feature, not a bug for the highway act.

That may have been true in the 1890s, but in the 50s? I doubt it.

 

[Mark E.]

That may have been true in the 1890s, but in the 50s? I doubt it.

In the 1890's, there were no airplanes and no cars to speak of. Railroads ruled the land, but by the thirties the ICC came along with stricter regulations.