AHC: Have America maintain trains as a popular, nationwide mode of transport till the 21st century.

Go take a look at Transport America.

I could argue with the actual Timeline's plausibility, but the principle of the Interstate program including rail funding alongside highway would do the trick, and imo isn't terribly hard to justify, even if OTL's outcome is more likely.
 
Factor 1 is that Amtrak/Passenger rail has to have dedicated tracks OR have the right of way over cargo when sharing tracks. Once passenger service got the short end of the stick relative to cargo, it's sayonara to the passenger trains for anything except sightseeing.

I think the best way to do it is to butterfly the Sun Belt business-friendly climate that started leading to immigration to the less densely populated South. If the South remained mostly rural and you saw continually increasing density in the Rust Belt and Mid-Atlantic through New England, then trains have a lot more going for them. The way a city is laid out also really matters, because a tightly packed city linked to another tightly packed city is a lot more feasible on train than a spread out city to a spread out city.

Oil prices would also do a lot.

Now one interesting concept would be the rise of dedicated land cruising in conjunction with the rise of oceanic cruises.
 
I dont think America would realistically ever have a railway network as widely used and sophisticated as Western Europe for the simple fact that the massive distances between US cities will always make decent national railway networks expensive, and I dont see that many US presidents willing to go out of their way (and cut funds for defense in the process) to improve the US passenger rail system. I think your best bet is to simply steer US politics in general further to the left, and get social-democratic presidents and congresspeople eager to invest heavily in public transit and social programs, including generous funds to Amtrak.

Other than that, kill the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1956. Somehow. It was a major pretext for gutting public transit systems at least in Detroit, and probably many other cities as well. A less well funded and massive highway system would probably allow greater room for passenger rail.
 
I dont think America would realistically ever have a railway network as widely used and sophisticated as Western Europe for the simple fact that the massive distances between US cities will always make decent national railway networks expensive, and I dont see that many US presidents willing to go out of their way (and cut funds for defense in the process) to improve the US passenger rail system.

The vast distances are a particularly big problem. For instance, a trip from New York to Los Angeles, by train, would be a four and a half day journey at minimum, and require switching trains in Chicago (as there is a divide between the major US railways there.) In Canada, Canadian Pacific's premier long-distance train, "The Canadian" took three days to reach Vancouver from Toronto. Airplanes can do that trip in hours rather than days, and the lack of a need for them to be rolling hotels with sleeping and dining facilities helped bring costs down. Even in their heyday, most of the big-name streamlined passenger trains were money-losing affairs, and relied on their mail hauling contracts to turn a profit.

That said, I wouldn't mind spending a few days in this!

iu


That's VIA Rail Canada's version of The Canadian. The original 1954 cars have been restored and there are no plans to retire them. However, this is a trip where the journey itself is the attraction, not the destination; schedules have been relaxed to 90 hours. However, the views are incredible, the beds are comfortable, there are showers, and there's good food and lots of it.
 
Last edited:

Driftless

Donor
Tighter enforcement of noise laws leads to airports being built farther from population centers, may allow train travel an edge for a time.
 

DougM

Donor
A few points I think people are missing. Actually the US had a by far larger and better developed rail system then Europe had. However we have spent the last 50 to 60 year taking it apart. Sowhat we have today is But a pale echo of its former self.
The next thing to keep in mind is that the Highway system in France, England, Germany and Italy is far more used then most people think it is. Yes the have extensive train travel but that doesn’t mean everyone uses it.
The third point is having traveled on the trains in England France and Germany I can tell you from personal experience they are not the wonder system folks make them out to be. First off the trains themselves are not perticularly more comfortable then what we have here nor are they in stunn8ngly amazing condition like we are often led to believe. The TGV in perticular is often very worn and using pretty much no advanced rider tech. Often not even having any indication in the cars of where the train currently is. And yes I am talking first class.
As for being on time. I will use my most recent trip as an example, I was on 8 different trains in Switzerland, England, Germany and France. And my train was late departing station on 3 of those occasions, Ranging from 5 min to 20. And on thre of this 4 we lost time after departure to arrive even later (the 5 minute turned into 15 because of a delay for construction slowing)
And the absolutely rediculus way they do a boarding stampede is crazy and in the US would be out lawed because of ADA if nothing else.
Don’t get me wrong the system is nice and useful I am just saying it is not the perfect alwas on time system we are often led to believe.

As for getting the US system to be dominant, well that is frankly the definition of ASB. The problem is very simple the US is way way to large and has to few of people. In shorter computer situations we HAVE trains (see New York or Boston or any other major city). As for long distance well no one is going to take a train averaging less then 150mph (even the TGV doesn’t average THAT fast as it has slow places for interchanges as well as station stops) vs 600 mph for long distances. I can be in Florida from Michigan in a couple hours by plane vs about 10 or 12 at TGV speed, This is something that is an issue in Europe but not as often because the distance is shorter. But if they have long distance say sother Italy to Paris they take airplanes too.
So that means we are looking at intermediated distance say 600 miles or less or about 4 hours travel time. And this is probably what most train travel in Europe is. But the problem is the US is 98% the size of Europe but with less then 1/3 the population density overall. And if you consider states like Alaska or Montana it is much much less then even that. So you will NEVER be able to afford to pay for the system to be built much less operated.
Then assuming you somehow can pay for it. You won’t get it past congress. Because you are going to have to skip places. Once again Montana and Alaska come to mind. But many other places do as well. Most states have large areas where you will never build a train network for passengers. The upper peninsula of Michigan being a good example. Or even large parts of the lower peninsula. So do you think the congressman from those locations will vote for it?
Now assuming you can overcome those two things (which you can’t) you have the problem that US towns and cities are set up for trains. We have no practical way to get to the train shortcof using our car. (For most of US anyway)
And of course don’t forget that you have to not only have a couple trains per day you have to have a LOT of trains per day otherwise the schedule will keep people from using them. If I need to get someplace by 3 this afternoon a train that arrives at 5 is of no use and I will have to drive, so not only do you need a ton of trains that will be going to destinations that very few people want to go you have to run them multiple times a day.
These simple points means that as long as Cars exist, the US is going to use them in huge numbers over the trains.
Keep in mind I wish it was different, I have a large collection of train related books and magazines I belong to a number of railroad related societies I have spend countless hours over the last 4 decades researching trains and out investigating the remains of old trains. So I am very much “pro” trains. But unfortunately the US is just to big and to small of a population to make them practical.
 
This. Airplane killed the Trains more that the car, the car just was a mercy Kill, at best you can have a east coast Service but not that much

Absolutely. Freight trains are also vitally important in North America due to the vast distances, and trains hundreds of cars (and several kilometres) long are commonplace. The fastest scheduled train in Canada is a freight train. CP's The Expressway- an all-trailer-on-flatcar train overnight between Toronto and Montreal. Supposedly, there are only two types of train that will cause an Expressway to take a siding- another Expressway going the opposite direction, or a train carrying the Queen herself!
 
Last edited:
Absolutely. Freight trains are also vitally important in North America due to the vast distances, and trains hundreds of cars (and several kilometres) long. The fastest scheduled train in Canada is a freight train. CP's The Expressway- an all-trailer-on-flatcar train overnight between Toronto and Montreal. Supposedly, there are only two types of train that will cause an Expressway to take a siding- another Expressway going the opposite direction, or a train carrying the Queen herself!
Excatly, for cargo trains paid themselves but for passangers plane won plain and simple
 
Excatly, for cargo trains paid themselves but for passangers plane won plain and simple
What killed passenger rail was the loss of US Postal Mail Contracts.

The RPO car with mail being sorted was what made the trains between cities profitable. Passengers were just there as an afterthought, and the Trains acting as PR for being luxurious, like NYC '20th Century Limited' or just fast, like the Granger C&NW, with the '400' between Twin cities and Chicago

With that mail gone, only the NE Corridor had enough population density to almost break even, and the Railroads couldn't wait to dump that operation on the new Amtrak
 

Devvy

Donor
Forgive me for my laziness here, but I'll rinse and repeat the same rough notion I use every time this discussion comes up (always happy to see a rail thread though!):

Passenger rail in the US needs pruning, and substantial financial reform from the pre 1960s situation to avoid ludicrous taxation and union rules which hampered financial viability (which led to situations such as Penn Central). However, passenger rail in the North East, Eastern Seaboard, around the Great Lakes, Mid-West and California could be much improved without massive TL alteration. Trains across the country are going to die off in favour of the aeroplane, but trains for the short to mid range distances are viable. You need a Govt in charge who either subsidises railways to a similar level as highways, an Amtrak/Regional Passenger Railway who owns and operates large swathes of their own track (and can therefore prioritise passenger trains over freight), and management who understands the sweet spot of rail; punctuality, speed (over congestion, not over aeroplanes), onboard comfort (ability to eat/work/use phone etc), and ticket price if well operated. Get that right, and it would definitely be much more popular in afore mentioned areas to a greater or lesser extent. Not as popular as the car, and not as popular as the plane for long distances, but far more popular than OTL.
 
A few points I think people are missing. Actually the US had a by far larger and better developed rail system then Europe had. However we have spent the last 50 to 60 year taking it apart. Sowhat we have today is But a pale echo of its former self.

even before the Great Depression, roughly 25% of the Nation's Railroad companies were in receivership. Too many companies, too much duplicated lines. The USA hit peak rail mileage in 1913, and lost miles ever since.
You can mostly thank Henry Ford for that.

People wanted Roads, not dirt paths, and Roads also allowed the growth of Trucks moving cargo between towns
 
What killed passenger rail was the loss of US Postal Mail Contracts.
That is still cargo and something would be killed by the phone and later internet...maybe in a USA where USPO is not boycotted to be privatize with USPO being still the biggest cargo mover would save the passangers train? They would benefit of internet shopping too
 
That is still cargo and something would be killed by the phone and later internet...maybe in a USA where USPO is not boycotted to be privatize with USPO being still the biggest cargo mover would save the passangers train? They would benefit of internet shopping too

Packages were the purview of REA, Railroad Express Agency, a semi-private company, had the same fate

From the wiki
During the winter of 1917, the United States suffered a severe coal shortage. On December 26, President Woodrow Wilson commandeered the railroads on behalf of the United States government to move federal troops, their supplies, and coal. Treasury Secretary William Gibbs McAdoo was assigned to consolidate the railway lines for the war effort. All contracts between express companies and railroads were nullified and McAdoo proposed that all existing express companies be consolidated into a single company to serve the country's needs. The result was that a new company called the American Railway Express Agency formed in July 1918. The new entity took custody of all the pooled equipment and property of existing express companies (the largest share of which, 40%, came from American Express, who had owned the rights to the express business over 71,280 miles (114,710 km) of railroad lines, and had 10,000 offices, with over 30,000 employees). During World War I, the United States Railroad Administration (USRA) took over the nation's railroads. Under the USRA, the four major and three minor express companies were consolidated as American Railway Express, Inc., except for the portion of Southern Express that operated over the Southern Railway and the Mobile & Ohio.[1]

In March 1929, the assets and operations of American Railway Express Inc. were transferred to Railway Express Agency (REA). REA was owned by 86 railroads in proportion to the express traffic on their lines; no one railroad or group of railroads controlled the agency. In response to customer demand, REA added a Chicago, Illinois-based refrigerator car line. In 1927, REA began an Air Express Division.[2] In 1938, the remainder of Southern Express also joined the consolidated REA.


Post-World War II


In 1959, REA negotiated a new contract allowing it to use any mode of transportation. It also acquired rights to allow continued service by truck freight after passenger trains were discontinued. REA also attempted to enter the piggyback and container operations business, without success. Another blow came when the Civil Aeronautics Board terminated REA's exclusive agreement with the airlines for air express.
 
So they are Doomed anyway? Well then....

USPS didn't really get into shipping packages till the Parcel Post law of 1913.
Between that and the formation of REA during the War, many Express Companies gave up on cargo shipping, and moved into finance

Now you know how American Express and Wells Fargo haven't delivered packages in a long, long time
 
Because you are going to have to skip places. Once again Montana and Alaska come to mind.
I can (barely) remember taking one of the last passenger trains from Dillon MT to Butte MT, way back when I was about 6. My mom had to go there for some reason, didn't have a car at the time (right after her divorce), and had to haul all three of her kids there with her. The main thing I remember is that the trip was slow (a couple of hours) and uncomfortable (wooden seats, no padding). Once they built the Interstate, you could get there in an hour (used to take longer on roundabout state highways)…
 
Top