US Rail System Transportation?
- Thread starter Modern Imperialism
- Start date
LA and SF are way too far apart which is a big reason CA failed. At the end of the day, I am betting it costs $100 billion+ and in the end, it is not worth it. You could probably build trollies and trams in every major city in CA and allow everyone to use it for free and still come out ahead. It would also serve more people, reduce pollution more and save more energy as it would be actually used.
Why would the private sector put in dime one for the project? That is what CA planned to do and came up empty. The only way I see it working is to guarantee profits for the private company. After all, it is a near certain money loser. At that point, you might as well sell bonds instead.
There is an intermediate distance, 200-400 miles, where rail travel at “traditional” levels made sense. No high-tech, high-speed, except for more double tracking in spots.
Notice how many nonstop flights have disappeared from the timetables? You can no longer fly from St. Louis to Memphis, Kansas City, Nashville or Indianapolis. Driving is faster. These are routes where old fashioned railroad could beat driving decades ago, but not today. The costs would be prohibitive today. Maybe it would take postal service support, but fifties-level rail service for short distance, connecting with air travel for longer runs, would be more efficient.
SsgtC
Banned
No, China is not the answer. China has a population over 4 times larger than the United States. In addition, that population is largely clustered in the Eastern half of the country. Which is also where 99% of their HSR lines are. Combine those two factors and what you get is, China has three times the population of the US in an area half the size of the United States. See the two maps below n the first is China's population density. The second is their HSR network. See how the two match up? Even the one line that goes West follows where the population density is highest. China is not the example to use to justify HSR in the United States.
The issue is that by the 1950's railroads just didn't have the flexibility that people got from cars. Also highways looked like the future to a lot of people. The political issues are big as well, you mention Texas as a State that could support it but as a major oil producer why would they want to? As pointed out their just is no way for it to be anything else then a money sink. The costs in both time, money and legal issues would be immense.
marathag
Banned
Most steam engines in the Midwest and West had converted to oil burning by time most Steam was retired for Diesels by 1954. People really wouldn't stop driving cars or flying, so Texas keeps pumping no matter the method of transportation
SsgtC
Banned
Those routes he listed are "intermediate distance." And they still failed spectacularly.
Really? Then explain how Southwest has three daily nonstop flights from St Louis to Nashville? Or why they have four daily nonstop flights to Kansas City?
The other cities, you're right, no nonstop service. Want to know why? Because there's no demand for it. If there was, there would be direct service. If the airlines don't offer direct service somewhere, it's a good bet that direct rail service won't work out to well either.
PS: St Louis lost a lot of those destinations when TWA went bankrupt and St Louis was no longer a hub city. So your examples are slightly disingenuous.
West Coast.. San Diego - north to Seattle
LA or San Diego - Phoenix and or Vegas
Chicago - st Louis / Chicago Detroit Cleveland - Buffalo then north or south
Texas
Boston, NYC, Philly, DC
Devvy
Donor
LA and SF are 380 miles apart; it's pretty much straight in the middle of the sweet spot for HSR. Car driving will take 5-6 hours. Flying is a headline short 1:40, but excludes transit time to/from airport, checkin, security, loading/unloading and taxiing. Realistically more like 2:30 at least, if not 3:00 more realistically. Obviously if you live near the airport, and your destination is near the airport, then great. But HSR from city centre to city centre will also cater for a lot of travellers as well as those who can easily access the stations via BART or the LA transit.
380 miles as crow flies may well round out easily to 450 miles. But even with a mid range 150mph HSR, that's 3 hours, easily competitive with air travel for many passengers, and easily marketable to the right travel segments. Even a lower end 125mph HSR will do it in under 4 hours, and that's marketable if the price point is right.
I'm well aware of the geography of China and the US. The question was to name another large country where HSR works. China is a valid answer to that. You may argue against HSR in other ways, but sheer geography isn't it when another large country has successfully built it, and that I've repeatedly said that I only envisage HSR working in small regional areas. California, North-East, and maybe Texas.
Tell that to OTL; Texas has dabbled a couple of times in HSR, apparently it is fairly interesting OTL. Lawsuits from various concerns, as with many other things in the US, has prevented it.
Sorry, but no chance. Look at the geography north of San Fran, and the lack of any decent market.
Chicago-Milwaukee-Minneapolis maybe, again that crosses 3 state boundaries and the politics gets difficult quickly. Can't really see many other Chicago corridors if that one can't get off the ground.
Boston-NYC-Philly-DC is part of the North-East Corridor I've already mentioned, and already runs quasi-HSR well.
1) Again to what purpose? You are solving a non-problem. It is simply cheaper to have a road go from LA to SF which not only handles both passengers and cargo but can have exits anywhere needed. If you are trying to save congestion and energy intracity transit makes more sense. It both has a bigger effect and is cheaper.
2) Milwaukee-Chicago? Maybe. Minneapolis? Not a chance, it is too far away and there is basically nothing between Milwaukee and Minneapolis and not nearly enough traffic to justify it.
SsgtC
Banned
Except for one thing. You're blatantly ignoring the disparity in population density. China can run HSR where it does because it has astronomical population density in those areas. Not just in the major cities, but along the entire route. That's not the case in the US. I drive all over the country for work. And I can tell you first hand that between the major cities, there's almost literally nothing there. If your proposed HSR only serves major Urban centers, it'll never get approved. On the flip side, putting in multiple stops to serve rural or semi-rural areas defeats the whole purpose of HSR.
Modern Imperialism
Banned
The railroads don’t have to be traditional. It can be any type of transportation system similar to the railroads. It can be electric, long distance subways, or whatever. You just have to explain how it would work and be possible.
The reasons trams and subways work is that they are short distanced and so are being USED. Being used is the problem. Far more people are going from East LA to Downtown LA in a day than from LA to SF.
Modern Imperialism
Banned
What does that tram under the English Channel count as? How can you build something like that under the sea but building rails here is an issue?
We can but it would be a waste of money. The Chunnel was a prestige project more than anything else.
Modern Imperialism
Banned
Isn’t the 50s a perfect time for a prestige project in the US? Countries do often spend a lot of money on stuff to just outdo others and for the prestige. The public often join in on it too if presented correctly. America did do stuff just to do it during the Cold War so they could say they did it the best or first.
Keep air travel as a luxury service for domestic flights, this was relatively true until the 1970s, so stretch that out a decade and you have a higher demand and market for passenger rail. It ain’t gonna do much though, rail has a tiny niche. It has to be a cheaper short range alternative that is somewhat comparable to air travel. All you can do is give it a bit of breathing room for some high speed rail to develop for all the travel distances that are inefficient for airplanes (basically when you spend only an hour or less in the air) But it won’t be like Europe, rail probably won’t be subsidized in the US ITTL like in France and the UK if it isn’t a failure like Amtrak.
Last edited: