US Rail System Transportation?

[SsgtC]

Oh, come on. “Totalitarian” is an egregious insult and a word of alarm which should only be used in a few rare circumstances to refer to a regime which is establishing itself as superior to the people. By using “totalitarian” to refer to practices you don’t like, you are weakening the word totalitarian, and you make it so that if actual totalitarians get called “totalitarian” they can blow it off as a meaningless insult.

Look at the post I was responding to. He says that mass transit doesn't work when people are free to live wherever they want. That implies that people shouldn't be allowed to decide where to live. Coupled with his other statements made regarding environmentalism, the implication is that a totalitarian dictatorship would be acceptable if said dictatorship promotes green initiatives.

 

[Indicus]

Look at the post I was responding to. He says that mass transit doesn't work when people are free to live wherever they want. That implies that people shouldn't be allowed to decide where to live. Coupled with his other statements made regarding environmentalism, the implication is that a totalitarian dictatorship would be acceptable if said dictatorship promotes green initiatives.

That’s a very tenuous connection. Wanting to nationalize a whole lot of land to encourage mass transit doesn’t make one a totalitarian, it just means that they have an insanely radical solution to a problem which could be solved in a much easier way.

 

[Johnrankins]

Regular rail offers no advantage, but better services would offer an advantage. But that's the whole point isn't it.

Not big enough. the problem is that with a car someone can go from where they are to where they are going directly whenever they want to go there with no need for waiting, long trips and transfers. That is very hard to beat.

 

[marathag]

Not big enough. the problem is that with a car someone can go from where they are to where they are going directly whenever they want to go there with no need for waiting, long trips and transfers. That is very hard to beat.

And you do it alone, or with people you want in that vehicle.
It's about control. Want a pitstop for Coffee and snacks? That's your call. Want to see different things out your window during your commute?
Change your route. You pick that Radio Station.

 

[SsgtC]

That’s a very tenuous connection. Wanting to nationalize a whole lot of land to encourage mass transit doesn’t make one a totalitarian, it just means that they have an insanely radical solution to a problem which could be solved in a much easier way.

That just sounds like a harder way to say totalitarian...

 

[Indicus]

That just sounds like a harder way to say totalitarian...

That you think crazy ideas are automatically totalitarian shows how toxic politics have become.

 

[SsgtC]

That you think crazy ideas are automatically totalitarian shows how toxic politics have become.

Extensive nationalization of property to force citizens to live near areas served by mass transit sounds pretty totalitarian to me. And let's not forget there was also the suggestion to ban private ownership of automobiles. That's pretty totalitarian too.

 

[Bbone91]

The problem here is that you can't run freight and high-speed passenger trains on the same tracks at the same time. High-speed freight is not efficient unless you can snatch high-value, low-weight express packages from air freight, and the speed differential otherwise is too high to be safe. US high speed trains (Acela) are twice the weight of other countries' HSR trains because they're designed to maintain structural integrity while slamming into a parked freight train at 120 mph because the NEC is still used for freight service at night. Like many Western European rail networks, freight would have to fit in around the passenger trains.

Why does freight have to be high speed rail? I was thinking more along the lines of interurban freight delivery. Maybe refitting the trolley lines to handle local freight deliveries. It could take trucks off the road, and give those lines a bit more time to effectively modernize.

 

[marathag]

Why does freight have to be high speed rail? I was thinking more along the lines of interurban freight delivery. Maybe refitting the trolley lines to handle local freight deliveries. It could take trucks off the road, and give those lines a bit more time to effectively modernize.

Trucks shine in the last mile delivery market, and unless your industrial&commercial districts have plentiful rail connections with loading docks, will be of little use.

Interurbans were in the middle of the street, and the time it takes to offload freight compared to people walking off, would really snarl things up.

 

[Bbone91]

Trucks shine in the last mile delivery market, and unless your industrial&commercial districts have plentiful rail connections with loading docks, will be of little use.

Interurbans were in the middle of the street, and the time it takes to offload freight compared to people walking off, would really snarl things up.

Good point.

 

[Histor32]

@SsgtC

I want to appologize for my remarks.

Not written as intended, I had multiple edits while multi tasking and was bouncing back and forth, but obviously not an excuse, and my post was wrong and incorrect in its form. Never meant to imply any form of direct Ill, but lost in my edits was the consequences that would lead us all to such an end (not specifically you} . Either way, my post was very badly composed and again I appologize

My appologies

 

[phx1138]

Rail has the potential to stay even with aircraft on shorter routes: Boston-DC (& in between), Dallas-Houston, L.A.-SF or L.A.-LV, Detroit-Chicago-Cleveland.

Can it be done after WW2? IMO, yes: take off the taxes on the land under the railbeds, so railways aren't subsidizing their competition. (I'd add, give even $0.50 to rail for every $1 into Interstate.) That, IMO, goes a long way to keeping rail competitive.

The biggest issue is the grade crossings, & those need to be addressed; getting USG money to replace them all would be a big help.

Getting rid of some of the plain stupid regulations would help, too. Everything from requirements to sound horns passing through towns to track curve radii different from Europe (are European rail curves really unsafe?) to requiring passenger cars to (notionally) survive the impact of a loaded freight train. (IDK what can, short of a nuclear containment vessel, & AFAIK, nobody's proposing putting them on railcars with passengers in them. ) That would help with performance.

Dealing with the land requirements for track straightening, without serious eminent domain issues, is one IDK enough to comment on. Straightening would be a good idea in many places.

It is possible, IMO, to raise speeds to a 200-250mph peak speed without totally relaying all the short/medium-line track, or, at least, not all at once.

Getting service between Chicago & Denver & San Francisco/L.A./Seattle competitive with even a DC-6 or Connie is a non-starter short of replacing with maglev, AFAICT.

All those Walmart trucks you're seeing? They're going from a distribution center to the store.

All the semis I see on the highway aren't, & that freight can still be carried by rail, & more cheaply than by trucks. It would put a lot of long-haul truckers out of work (& my uncle used to be one of them), but I'll bet goods would be cheaper in general. Energy consuption across the U.S. would be down, too.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

@phx1138

One idea I also had was a series of state-level networks that my TL's amtrak regions would link together. I can see state-run operations in California, Texas, Florida, and New York for sure. Then maybe in Ohio, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia, and Washington/Oregon.

 

[phx1138]

One idea I also had was a series of state-level networks that my TL's amtrak regions would link together. I can see state-run operations in California, Texas, Florida, and New York for sure. Then maybe in Ohio, Alabama, Missouri, Georgia, and Washington/Oregon.

Given you're not crossing state lines anywhere, I could see that working pretty well. A state agency could safely ignore absurd Federal rules by saying, these trains don't run interstate & so aren't bound, much like narrow-gauge tourist lines.

The state's willingness to use eminent domain for the benefit of a state business would seem greater, too.

You may have hit on the ideal approach.

The only real issue I don't see resolved is the grade crossings. That's an expensive problem to fix, even if you limit to the ones on the proposed HSR routes. States are less well-equipped to deal with a high cost problem like that. It may be possible to address it with bond issue(s), but somehow, I doubt it, & I'm less than certain a tax break for the rail companies will completely cover it; even a kind of "debt swap", where the state pays the bill & the railway repays it, akin TVA, leaves the state paying the tab up front, & that ain't chickenfeed.

If you've ideas on that, I'd love to hear 'em.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

@phx1138

I have a railroad TL you can contribute ideas to as well: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-tunnel-a-tl-of-the-american-railroad.460663/

I bring that up because I specifically envisioned that the line in Ohio would be a collaboration between my TL's New York Central and C&O.

 

[phx1138]

I have a railroad TL you can contribute ideas to as well: https://www.alternatehistory.com/fo...-tunnel-a-tl-of-the-american-railroad.460663/

I bring that up because I specifically envisioned that the line in Ohio would be a collaboration between my TL's New York Central and C&O.

I'll give it a read ASAP.

For the record, most of what I've proposed is second- & third-hand from others on the forum, so if you search, you should be able to find more detailed posts (& whole threads).

 

[marathag]

Given you're not crossing state lines anywhere, I could see that working pretty well. A state agency could safely ignore absurd Federal rules by saying, these trains don't run interstate & so aren't bound, much like narrow-gauge tourist lines.

Not after Wickard v. Filburn.
Interstate Commerce is whatever Uncle Sam deems it to be

 

[marathag]

Getting rid of some of the plain stupid regulations would help, too.

The requirement for a Fireman to be present on every diesel wasn't overturned nationwide until 1985.

By 1955, Dieselization was over 90%. by 1965 it was all diesel, save for a few excursion trains.

After that point, Firemen were there to assist the Engineer, but mostly it was featherbedding. Most of what they did was read paperback novels, drink coffee and draw full pay, that also cut into the Engineer's pay, since he had an 'assistant' onboard

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

The requirement for a Fireman to be present on every diesel wasn't overturned nationwide until 1985.

By 1955, Dieselization was over 90%. by 1965 it was all diesel, save for a few excursion trains.

After that point, Firemen were there to assist the Engineer, but mostly it was featherbedding. Most of what they did was read paperback novels, drink coffee and draw full pay, that also cut into the Engineer's pay, since he had an 'assistant' onboard

Then in my TL's de-regulation, that will certainly be the first thing to go.

 

[phx1138]

Not after Wickard v. Filburn.
Interstate Commerce is whatever Uncle Sam deems it to be

That's the chicken seller, isn't it? Yer right. I thought of Fulton (1817?), but forgot that one.

Which means the narrow-gauge lines operate under a special low-traffic exemption, or something.

The requirement for a Fireman to be present on every diesel wasn't overturned nationwide until 1985.

I've never seen that one before, & it leaves me speechless. Not surprised...