AMTRAK to Vegas.

The 'desert wind' train from LA to Salt Lake City via Vegas was canceled in 1997. WI instead of cancelation the service was cut short and just did LA to Vegas? Would 9/11 save this service?
 
Considering how the Northeast corridor is the only line remotely close to being profitable, I say no. Amtrak is lucky enough to have enough special interests invested in preventing them getting the axe, Reagan almost did it.
 
The 'desert wind' train from LA to Salt Lake City via Vegas was canceled in 1997. WI instead of cancelation the service was cut short and just did LA to Vegas? Would 9/11 save this service?

Not likely. The people with money fly and the broke people drive. Trains, like buses are the worst of both. Might help with the drive as the marginal USC student might take the train, thus alleviating some of the traffic on weekends but that's about it. Flying on Southwest is just too convenient. Same with LA to SF.
 
Not a bad route length

That's actually a very good route length for fast trains, as the airport hassle is non-existent, and much higher speeds are possible for trains than buses--and trains are much roomier. It might work, if the track and signals are up to 100 mph trains. (Or at least might not be a total fiasco...)
 
Not likely. The people with money fly and the broke people drive. Trains, like buses are the worst of both. Might help with the drive as the marginal USC student might take the train, thus alleviating some of the traffic on weekends but that's about it. Flying on Southwest is just too convenient. Same with LA to SF.
In terms of time, high speed trains (250+km/hr) can reasonably compete with air, purely on the basis of time, up to about 1000km range. The flight may only be an hour, but add time to get to the first airport; jump through hoops; fly; pick up luggage and get from second airport to where you're going... well, you're lucky if you get away with less than three hours burnt.
Medium speed rail (150+km/hr) can reasonably compete (on the basis of time) on distances of maybe 500km.
If you're concerned about comfort rather than time, add 50%-100% to those figures.

There's two problems though:
1. Rail infrastructure in the US (and also Australia) has often degenerated to the point where pushing rolling stock capable of medium speed to medium speed is coming-off-the-tracks-and-turning-into-burning-wreck-impracticable.
2. The dreaded catch 22... There's no useful rail service, so no-one uses rail, hence no-one wants to improve rail services, therefore there's no useful rail service. Repeat ad infinitum.
 
Last edited:
I went there this weekend for Punk Rock Bowling. I saw Rancid, Mighty Mighty Bosstones, The Refused and it was fun. The casinos were booked and the remaining rooms expensive though. I had to take Greyhound because I am poor and my family stole my car in NJ and wrecked it. I wish I had a car again, though I don't like planes nowadays.

I take AMTRAK around in California though I cut back after the crash in Philadelphia. The trains are slightly nicer than the Dirty Dog and have fewer crooks riding them, but have long delays and accidents. I was in Fresno going to Bakersfield when the train hit someone and we spent hours trapped in a train with no electricity while they cleaned up the mess and the toilets stank up the train and people broke out through the doors into a ghetto area of Fresno despite police being outside telling them not to.

AMTRAK has bad safety standards, I think. Having a crash out in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave would be a problem.
 
That's actually a very good route length for fast trains, as the airport hassle is non-existent, and much higher speeds are possible for trains than buses--and trains are much roomier. It might work, if the track and signals are up to 100 mph trains. (Or at least might not be a total fiasco...)

..............................................................................................

Higher gasoline prices and more airline hijacking a will eventually make passenger trains more popular.
This thread reminds me of a conversation with a CN locomotive engineer twenty-some-odd years ago when they were proposing high-speed (100 mph) passenger rail service linking Detroit with Quebec City. He said that the rails were already good enough for 100 mph trains ... the problem was red-necks in pick-up trucks.
?
?
?
Then he reminded me of all the level crossings between Detroit and Quebec City and all the brain-dead red-necks who try to race trains to level crossings. Red-necks lose far too often!
He recounted the time he radioed his boss to report hitting a pick-up truck in Eastern Ontario.
His boss asked "Did you get the license number?"
The locomotive engineer replied "Yes! I have the license number, the license plate and the entire rear bumper hanging off the front end of my locomotive!"
Hah!
Hah!
Bottom line, passenger rail only works when you separate trains, cars and pedestrians on different levels with lots of fences separating them.
 
Flying in the US is not convenient, especially going through that security regime. Sure it's tolerable when amortised over a few hour flight but something short like Burbank-Vegas all that bullshit is the most time consuming part of the journey. At least you can catch the Metro to Burbank, LAX is a fucking nightmare to get to and move around in.

The train could feed people in via the Metro network and dispense with the security regime for the most part. It could be run a lot like a commuter railway rather than a full service 'adventure' like other long distance AMTRAK trains.

IIUC there are significant sections of track out that way with ATS, so passenger trains could possibly to 90mph on parts of the route. If so then this route could have been a candidate for funding under that HSR initiative that was put forward a few years ago.
 
Grand Central Station is a major PIA to get to in Los Angeles. Burbank and Long Beach airports are fairly easy to get to if you are in the Valley or South Bay. And for anyone on the West Side of LA, LAX is actually easier to get to. On the other end, without traffic Vegas is a 4 hour drive. Given parking is free in Vegas, by the time you factor in time and taxis, you are as well of driving.
 
It's keeps popping up every years plans for a high speed rail from Vegas to LA. Making like one stop in like Barstow or one of those other cities.
 
I could see a weekend commuter rail for Amtrak between Las Vegas and Los Angeles. That has been a proposition made for the Palm Springs area before, why not Vegas too. I think that is the best you are going to get from Amtrak. That's if Southern Californians, the car capital of America would want it.
 
Top