High-speed Rail in North America

[Carl Schwamberger]

I'm pretty sure that Carl's point was that the rails were there before the roads, ....

Part of my point. The other part was the organizers were anticipating the growth of the city for the next century. The same people who financed the local transit were financing growth at those distances. The county fairgrounds were relocated to end of one of the lines, a amusement park along another, expansion for the University redirected along a third. Two lines ran to adjacent towns with strong growth, another serviced a new factory district that was laid out entirely outside the city. New residential tracts were platted adjacent to the passenger rails.

This same investment group/s also financed a net of freight or service tracks through the rural zone where they anticipated industrial development.

 

[Workable Goblin]

It's the 'last mile' that hurts. Yes, there would be several rail spokes, but unless you live adjacent to the line, you are walking to it on dirt paths and then waiting for the trolley to show.

Which is why I said "roads for local travel, rail for commuting". You drive (carpool, probably) to and from the station, not all the way downtown to work. It's a subtle change, but not an implausible one, I think. It's not obvious that you would want to use your car for commuting on a big highway--whereas in reality it has been accepted and even, to some degree, celebrated, it's easy to imagine a world where commuting by car is scoffed at and seen as a silly, stressful waste of time you could be using productively or at least more pleasantly on transit since you don't have to worry about driving. It's all a matter of culture.

Also, as Carl points out the rails spurred development of the areas immediately around them, just the same way that highways did later on, so quite shortly most people would be living next to the lines and probably wanting to go somewhere else along the lines, too. In the first half of the 20th century, suburbs were "streetcar suburbs," and there's no obvious reason why something like that couldn't have been the model for the second half, too...

 

[Andrew Boyd: Duke of Dank]

Here's my own take on the idea.

In 1931, a revised version of the Ripley plan for a regional railroad consolidation act was released. Under which the following changes were made to bring about these 16 railroads.

Boston & Maine: Bangor & Aroostook; Delaware & Hudson; Maine Central

New York, New Haven & Hartford: Lehigh & Hudson River; New York, Ontario & Western

New York Central: Rutland; Virginian

Pennsylvania: Long Island; Norfolk & Western; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line; Toledo, Peoria & Western (east of Peoria); 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound

Baltimore & Ohio: Buffalo & Susquehanna; Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh; Central Railroad of New Jersey; Chicago & Alton; Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville (North of Monon, IN); Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Detroit & Toledo Shore Line; Lehigh & New England; Reading; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line

Chesapeake & Ohio: Bessemer & Lake Erie; Chicago & Illinois Midland; Chicago, Attica & Southern; Detroit & Mackinac; Hocking Valley; Lehigh Valley; New York, Chicago & St. Louis; Pere Marquette

Wabash & Erie: Akron, Canton & Youngstown; Ann Arbor; Detroit, Toledo & Ironton; Erie; Pittsburgh & Shawmut; Pittsburgh & West Virginia; Pittsburgh, Shawmut & Northern; Wabash; Western Maryland; Wheeling & Lake Erie

Atlantic Coast Line: Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast; Chicago & Eastern Illinois; Clinchfield; Georgia Route; Gulf, Mobile & Northern; Louisville & Nashville; Mississippi Central; New Orleans Great Northern; 50% of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac; 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound; 50% of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (East of Nashville)

Southern: Chicago, Terre Hautte, and Southeastern; Columbus & Greenville; Florida East Coast; Mobile & Ohio; Norfolk Southern; Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (west of Nashville); Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville (south of Monon, IN); Tennessee Central (East of Nashville

Illinois Central: Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay; Central of Georgia; Seaboard Air Line; 50% of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac; 50% of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (East of Nashville); Tennessee Central (West of Nashville)

Great Northern: Chicago Central & Pacific; Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic; Great Northern; Minneapolis & St. Louis; Northern Pacific; Spokane, Portland & Seattle

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific: Butte, Anaconda & Pacific; Duluth & Iron Range; Duluth, Missabe & Northern; Escanaba & Lake Superior; Trackage rights on Spokane, Portland & Seattle to Portland,

Union Pacific: Central Pacific; Chicago & North Western; Kansas City Southern; Lake Superior & Ishpeming; Litchfield & Madison; Missouri-Kansas-Texas

Missouri Pacific: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; Colorado & Southern; Denver & Rio Grande Western; Denver & Salt Lake; Fort Smith & Western; Fort Worth & Denver; Green Bay & Western; Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka; Texas & Pacific; Western Pacific; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley;

Southern Pacific: Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific; St. Louis Southwestern; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe: Chicago Great Western; Kansas City, Mexico & Orient; Louisiana & Arkansas; Meridian & Bigbee; Midland Valley; Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern; Missouri & North Arkansas; St. Louis-San Francisco; Toledo, Peoria & Western (west of Peoria)

Canadian-American International: Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific; Grand Trunk Western; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Saute Ste. Marie; Wisconsin Central

In addition, several interurban lines were split up and given to various railroads. For example, a series of Toledo- Logansport lines were given to the PRR, a Lima- Cincy network to the NKP/C&O, and a Cincy- Louisville line for the Illinois Central. Lastly, there was a Buffalo- Fostoria, OH line for the B&O.

The Act took place over the next few years, ending in 1948 when the St. Louis-San Fransisco was absorbed into the santa fe. This would ultimately prove important for the future of rail transport in America. As later that year, the Middle east made a series of sanctions against supporters of the newly formed Israel, causing a crisis into the early 50s.

During this time, several more railroad lines were also built. Among them, the Illinois Central created as Nashville- Chattanooga line which they then used as a new route for The City of Miami. The Santa Fe also built a line from Temple, TX to Austin and San Antonio, and ran connecting services to their mainline. Lastly, the Southern Pacific linked San Diego and LA, and built a line to Las Vegas, despite competition with the Union Pacific.

Thanks to the renewal of American railroads thanks to the oil crises of first the early 50s and then the late 70s, passenger rail began to make a dramatic resurgence as it became america's preferred alternative to the automobile. This pro-rail stance common among Americans became even more prominent after and the growing hassle of getting on planes, not to mention weather hazards and more darkly the September 11 attacks.

It was during the early days of the worst air disasters that Americans began to reconsider flocking from the railroads so quickly. At this point, private entrepreneurs began to cash in on the desires of people to get from one place to another quickly. But without having to wait around in poor weather and possibly losing luggage. This was also true in the case of freight rail, which also began to prove its potential at a stronger, better alternative to trucks. In spite of all this, steam engines were still fairly common, albeit mainly in the form of bigger engines like 4-8-2s and 4-8-4s that were demoted to freight service.

The first of these HSR projects was a collaboration between the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New Haven Railroad. Together they upgraded the NH line from Boston to New York and the PRR from there to Washington DC. This new operation, which became known as the Colonial Express, was inaugurated in 1970, and soon it was considered by many superior to the airlines that operated between the same areas. In no small part due to its superior dining options, clean conditions, and service at reasonably high speeds even in the face of poor weather. Concurrently, the Pennsy also used the same treatment to upgrade the Pittsburgher, its NY-Pittsburgh passenger train, freight rail was naturally included in its plans for faster trains. The end result was the Keystone Corridor, a perfectly speedy rail service from New York to Pittsburgh. The Metroliner services were so popular by the mid-1970s that it actually caused air traffic in the Northeast Corridor to be all but extinct, and Atlantic City saw a major revival of its fortunes in the 1970s as travelers could reach it more easily. It was a similar situation in California, and perhaps more importantly the lines themselves proved to be hugely profitable for the Pennsylvania.

All too soon, the success of this service was noticed in the West by California's Southern Pacific Railroad. They themselves proceeded to make similar upgrades to the route of their Coast Daylight passenger service from San Francisco to Los Angeles. This line had already been upgraded via the use of EMD diesels and concrete ties in the place of wood ties and steamers. But by 1975, the SP had created a high speed transit operation on par with that of Japan. The SP even went up to 11 in trying to beat the Santa Fe in Chicago- LA traffic. As it took the flatter terrain of the ex-Rock Island line and made similar modifications, thus also upgrading the Golden State passenger train.

In 1973, the Southern Railroad took a note of the Pennsy's book. Then it made heavy conversions to their ex- Florida East Coast mainline and included a new branch to Orlando. The end result of this was Brightline. A successful passenger service which naturally won the hearts of many Floridans fed up with traffic jams and who felt a plane ride between the two cities was absurd.

Eventually, the Chicago area was next to be subject to the new high speed rail craze. But it was the New York Central, the Pennsy's fierce rival, that held most of the cards in the Midwest. They initially started with the James Whitcomb Riley on the Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati mainline in 1975. This newly improved service was a success, and soon, the NYC used the line splitting at Greensburg, IN to create another high speed service to Louisville. This was followed shortly after with the upgrading of the lines from Cleveland to Chicago and Cincinnati. But the NYC was not going to stop there. For it expanded the scope of their higher speed rail program, and made the upgrades all the way to Buffalo, NY. By 1988, the NYC had most of their passenger rail lines running at speeds of 125 mph. The effect was hard to understate, New York City's problems in the 1970s led to an economic boom in upstate New York (particularly Troy and Albany), as people chose to live further away from the crime and poverty stricken big city while still having access to it.

The Southern Pacific was impressed by the NYC's method of competing with the PRR, and decided to try and repeat the endeavor to compete with their own rival, the Santa Fe. This included a line from Los Angeles to the Bay Area. As well as some efforts to do this on the Sunset route from LA to New Orleans, plus the former Rock Island line to Chicago.

The PRR was naturally shocked by the NYC's efforts and success at upstaging them in the high speed rail development. Starting when they began eating at the PRR's profits in the Chicago-Cincinnati/Louisville traffic. As such, the PRR decided to cash in where the NYC hadn't tried to do so, New York- St. Louis. The upgrades began in 1979, and soon, they had reached Columbus, OH. Where the line split again to Cincinnati. However, the PRR got in a financial rut that kept the project from starting again until the 1990s. When they did start again, however, they did with a vengeance. Eventually linking Ft. Wayne and Columbus via Lima, OH, which they rerouted the famous Broadway Limited over.

Meanwhile in the west, the Milwaukee Road decided to upgrade its famous Hiawatha service from Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities. Later on, they also upgraded the line from Milwaukee to Green Bay. The Union Pacific attempted to do likewise, and they ran their own train between the three cities via Madison, WI on the former C&NW.

Soon after in 1974, Congress crated the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, better known as Amtrak, which was formed in 1977 to co-ordinate the passenger rail services both public and private in the United States, and even possibly create new rail lines for these uses. Amtrak from its formation was meant to co-ordinate private-sector operations as well as take over those of railroads that sought to exist the passenger business. The bill that created Amtrak also provided funds and organization for cities to take over money-losing commuter operations, which proved a hugely-beneficial provision for railroads and created multiple agencies, including Metra in Chicago, Metrolink in Los Angeles, New Jersey Transit in New Jersey, Caltrain in the San Francisco Bay Area and SEPTA in Philadelphia, to handle the commuter operations. By the 1980s, cities both large and small that had troubles with traffic congestion were looking at commuter rail as a way of alleviating congestion.

One of Amtrak's long-term plans from its creation was to establish high-speed rail in the Midwest, but with the New York Central already working on the eastern half of its proposed network, Amtrak soon was working on filling in gaps, planning out high-speed service from Chicago to St. Louis via Peoria, Ft. Wayne to Indianapolis via Muncie, Chicago to Indianapolis via Valparaiso and Lafayette, and Chicago to the Twin Cities via both Detroit and Madison. On the Chicago-St. Louis line, the Illinois Central beat Amtrak to the punch, so Amtrak simply agreed to help the IC with getting equipment and track built to link Peoria in the new mainline. Whereas Amtrak agreed to help the Great Northern compete with the Milwaukee Road by building the Chicago- Twin Cities line, plus a branch to Green Bay.

Not even the South was immine to the high speed rail craze striking the nation. The Illinois Central was pretty quick to try its hand there after creating Chicago- St. Louis service. As such, they started on the former Seaboard Air Line. Building all across Florida from Tampa and Naples to Miami via Orlando. They then eventually built up to Richmond, and on the RF&P with the ACL to DC. Then the RF&P also built a line from Richmond to Norfolk which worked with the NEC.

However, the Southern had a trick of its own up their sleeve, and they started the Peach Blossom, which ran from Birmingham to Atlanta, Macon, and Jacksonville. This was followed by building from Atlanta to Raleigh via Charlotte. It also made a deal with Atlantic Coast Line, and they agreed to let the Southern operate passenger trains on the former L&N from Birmingham to New Orleans, plus the former A&WP Atlanta to Montgomery, thus remaking the former Southern Crescent line. Meanwhile, they also worked with Amtrak to create their own rerouting of the FEC via Orlando and a new line to Tampa.

Out west, the ATSF also had their line from Tulsa to Texas upgraded. As well as from Denver to El Paso.

All around, passenger rail in 2018 is in a far better spot than IOTL. With modernized variations of the streamliners of yesteryear being supplemented by some of the fastest trains in the western world corridors.

 

[Bytor]

This was also true in the case of freight rail, which also began to prove its potential at a stronger, better alternative to trucks.

This is going to have huge impacts. Part of modern day cost decreases were due to "Just In Time" production and shipping. Trains come less often than trucks so the supplier needs more warehousing space to store stuff before delivery, and the sellers need to maintain regional warehouses on rail spurs for the local stores. Truck-enabled JIT logistics meant the sellers, even chains, contracted to have stuff delivered to the stores' individual warehouses on a more frequent basis, and that spurred JIT production - smaller factories producing shorter runs before retooling for a different run of something else rather than multiple lines producing different things to keep larger warehouses full prior to shipping.

Though perhaps it might result in the evolution and popularity of big-box stores a few decades earlier at the regional central warehouses that rail shipping would require.

 

[Bytor]

In spite of all this, steam engines were still fairly common, albiet mainly in the form of bigger engines like 4-8-2s and 4-8-4s that were demoted to freight service.

Also, steam trains are highly dependant upon water and the quality of coal, especially for long distance usage. See this link about steam boxes, so I think that US operators would still switch to diesel electric in the 1930s and post-WW2 era so all virtually the steam locomotives would be gone except for quaint, niche usage, just like OTL.

 

[sloreck]

A couple of things:
1. Steam locomotives tend to be harder in the roadbed than diesel electrics
2. While a lot of folks talk about how high speed rail over a certain distance does not compete with air travel, if you are going NYC-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago a high percentage of the folks will be going only one or two stops, not necessarily the entire way

 

[Bytor]

A couple of things:
1. Steam locomotives tend to be harder in the roadbed than diesel electrics
2. While a lot of folks talk about how high speed rail over a certain distance does not compete with air travel, if you are going NYC-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago a high percentage of the folks will be going only one or two stops, not necessarily the entire way

Also, here in OTL, HSR could compete because of the lack of security theatre and driving time to and from the airport. Most people live an hour away (or more) from their nearest airport which are most on the outskirts of town, so on top the 2 hour flight time from NYC to Chicago, you've got an hour for home→airport to be their 2 hours early to make sure you get through security in time, and then another hour for airport→hotel. So that trip really takes 6 hours in total, door-to-door. Compare that to say a 15-20 minute bus or LRT trip to your local multi-modal station where you arrive 5-10 minutes early to get on your train, and then a 4.5 ride to Chicago at 300+km/h. You disembark downtown and your hotel is a 10 minute walk away. Total time, 5 hours door-to-door, and you have better leg room than on a plane with a dining and/or bar car which you can get up and walk to. And depending on the coach car configuration, tables for groups of people. Manhattan Union Station to D.C. would be just under 2 hours for HSR but is 5 hours by plain (1hr drive + 2hr security + .1hr flight + 1hr drive).

For 300km/h HSR, pretty much anything under 1,500km is competitive in terms of time and would likely be cheaper to boot if European prices are relevant.

 

[Bytor]

Which is why I said "roads for local travel, rail for commuting". You drive (carpool, probably) to and from the station, not all the way downtown to work. It's a subtle change, but not an implausible one, I think. It's not obvious that you would want to use your car for commuting on a big highway--whereas in reality it has been accepted and even, to some degree, celebrated, it's easy to imagine a world where commuting by car is scoffed at and seen as a silly, stressful waste of time you could be using productively or at least more pleasantly on transit since you don't have to worry about driving. It's all a matter of culture.

Also, as Carl points out the rails spurred development of the areas immediately around them, just the same way that highways did later on, so quite shortly most people would be living next to the lines and probably wanting to go somewhere else along the lines, too. In the first half of the 20th century, suburbs were "streetcar suburbs," and there's no obvious reason why something like that couldn't have been the model for the second half, too...

An ATL that has better rail travel like this probably also had better bus public transit as well, too. And not just commuter rail but light rail as well. So people are probably hopping on the bus at a stop no more than a 5 minute walk from home, most closer and transferring to either and inter-city commuter rail to get to the next town over, or to an express bus or LRT line if they work the downtown/uptown or another business core in their own city.

 

[Riain]

For mine I think a better bet for US HSR isn't a top down business/policy PoD but rather a bottom up technology demonstrator generating demand.

The US High Spend Transportation Act saw the production of some 50 (eventually 61) electric Budd Metroliner cars making trains 4-6 cars long and 6 UAC Turbotrains in 2 trains of 3 cars, using 50% government funding. The ~10 metroliners started 10-12 120mph services a day NYC - DC but 2 little turbotrains couldn't match that NYC-Boston. The Metroliner was kept in service, inproved in the 70s and 80s and replaced by the Acela on the 2000s. In contrast the turbotrain left AMTRAK service in 1976 and were sold to Canada who made up 3 x 9 car trainsets and kept them in service until 1982.

I think that if the government paid 50% of the cost of 50 turbotrain cars to make up ~10 trains the story of HSR in the US would be very different. Firstly it would be difficult to dispose of such a large fleet of trains and secondly 10-12 high speed services NYC - Boston would likely generate an expectation of fast trains on that route and also raise the possibility of starting turbotrain services outside the NEC and generating an expectation of HSR in other parts of the country.

 

[Andrew Boyd: Duke of Dank]

This is the updated version of my original idea...

In 1931, a revised version of the Ripley plan for a regional railroad consolidation act was released. Under which the following changes were made to bring about these 16 railroads.

Boston & Maine: Bangor & Aroostook; Delaware & Hudson; Maine Central

New York, New Haven & Hartford: Lehigh & Hudson River; New York, Ontario & Western

New York Central: Rutland; Virginian

Pennsylvania: Long Island; Norfolk & Western; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line; Toledo, Peoria & Western (east of Peoria); 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound

Baltimore & Ohio: Buffalo & Susquehanna; Buffalo, Rochester & Pittsburgh; Central Railroad of New Jersey; Chicago & Alton; Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville (North of Monon, IN); Delaware, Lackawanna & Western; Detroit & Toledo Shore Line; Lehigh & New England; Reading; 50% of the Pennsylvania-Reading Seashore Line

Chesapeake & Ohio: Bessemer & Lake Erie; Chicago & Illinois Midland; Chicago, Attica & Southern; Detroit & Mackinac; Hocking Valley; Lehigh Valley; New York, Chicago & St. Louis; Pere Marquette

Wabash & Erie: Akron, Canton & Youngstown; Ann Arbor; Detroit, Toledo & Ironton; Erie; Pittsburgh & Shawmut; Pittsburgh & West Virginia; Pittsburgh, Shawmut & Northern; Wabash; Western Maryland; Wheeling & Lake Erie

Atlantic Coast Line: Atlanta, Birmingham & Coast; Chicago & Eastern Illinois; Clinchfield; Georgia Route; Gulf, Mobile & Northern; Louisville & Nashville; Mississippi Central; New Orleans Great Northern; 50% of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac; 50% of the Winston-Salem Southbound; 50% of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (East of Nashville)

Southern: Chicago, Terre Hautte, and Southeastern; Columbus & Greenville; Florida East Coast; Mobile & Ohio; Norfolk Southern; Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (west of Nashville); Chicago, Indianapolis & Louisville (south of Monon, IN); Tennessee Central (East of Nashville

Illinois Central: Atlanta & St. Andrews Bay; Central of Georgia; Seaboard Air Line; 50% of the Richmond, Fredericksburg & Potomac; 50% of the Nashville, Chattanooga & St. Louis (East of Nashville); Tennessee Central (West of Nashville)

Great Northern: Chicago Central & Pacific; Duluth, South Shore & Atlantic; Great Northern; Minneapolis & St. Louis; Northern Pacific; Spokane, Portland & Seattle

Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific: Butte, Anaconda & Pacific; Duluth & Iron Range; Duluth, Missabe & Northern; Escanaba & Lake Superior; Trackage rights on Spokane, Portland & Seattle to Portland,

Union Pacific: Central Pacific; Chicago & North Western; Kansas City Southern; Lake Superior & Ishpeming; Litchfield & Madison; Missouri-Kansas-Texas

Missouri Pacific: Chicago, Burlington & Quincy; Colorado & Southern; Denver & Rio Grande Western; Denver & Salt Lake; Fort Smith & Western; Fort Worth & Denver; Green Bay & Western; Kansas, Oklahoma & Gulf; Oklahoma City-Ada-Atoka; Texas & Pacific; Western Pacific; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley;

Southern Pacific: Chicago, Rock Island & Pacific; St. Louis Southwestern; 50% of the Trinity & Brazo Valley

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe: Chicago Great Western; Kansas City, Mexico & Orient; Louisiana & Arkansas; Meridian & Bigbee; Midland Valley; Minneapolis, Northfield & Southern; Missouri & North Arkansas; St. Louis-San Francisco; Toledo, Peoria & Western (west of Peoria)

Canadian-American International: Duluth, Winnipeg & Pacific; Grand Trunk Western; Minneapolis, St. Paul & Saute Ste. Marie; Wisconsin Central

In addition, many interurban routes in the Midwest were picked up from use by various railroads. Most notably the PRR, which purchased right of way from Toledo to Logansport, IN. The Nickel Plate, which made an entire mainline out of the Ohio Electric Lima- Cincinnati line, and the Erie, which purchased alot of the Indiana Railroad. In addition, the South Shore, North Shore, CA&E, and Illinois Terminal mixed with several other interurbans to make the Illinois and Michigan Shore Railroad, aka the Michigan Shore Line. Which later proved itself as an effective route for freight trains heading east or west that wished to bypass congested Chicago and St. Louis yards.

The Act took place over the next few years, ending in 1948 when the St. Louis-San Fransisco was absorbed into the Santa Fe. This would ultimately prove important for the future of rail transport in America.

When given the funding plans for transport in the 1956, President Eisenhower decided that in addition to the highway system. Eisenhower felt that the country should be "the most mobile society on Earth" in case of a Soviet aggression event. As such, the railroads also got a piece of the pie that was government support. These actions would lead to the survival of many trolleys and passenger trains, which was very appreciated by the railroads. This also allowed such companies as ALCO, Budd, and Pullman to survive ITTL. With the former going into a deal with Caterpillar and eventually merging with Chrysler and Emerson Electric in 1969.

Thanks to the oil crisis of the late 70s, passenger rail began to make a dramatic resurgence as it became America's preferred alternative to the automobile. This pro-rail stance common among Americans became even more prominent after and the growing hassle of getting on planes, not to mention weather hazards and more darkly the September 11 attacks.

It was during the early days of the worst air disasters that Americans began to reconsider flocking from the railroads so quickly. At this point, private entrepreneurs began to cash in on the desires of people to get from one place to another quickly. But without having to wait around in poor weather and possibly losing luggage. This was also true in the case of freight rail, which also began to prove its potential at a stronger, better alternative to trucks.

The first of these HSR projects was a collaboration between the Pennsylvania Railroad and the New Haven Railroad. Together they upgraded the NH line from Boston to New York and the PRR from there to Washington DC. This new operation, which became known as the Colonial Express, was inaugurated in 1970, and soon it was considered by many superior to the airlines that operated between the same areas. In no small part due to its superior dining options, clean conditions, and service at reasonably high speeds even in the face of poor weather. Concurrently, the Pennsy also used the same treatment to upgrade the Pittsburgher, its NY-Pittsburgh passenger train, freight rail was naturally included in its plans for faster trains. The end result was the Keystone Corridor, a perfectly speedy rail service from New York to Pittsburgh.

All too soon, the success of this service was noticed in the West by California's Southern Pacific Railroad. They themselves proceeded to make similar upgrades to the route of their Coast Daylight passenger service from San Fransisco to Los Angeles. This line had already been upgraded via the use of EMD diesels and concrete ties in the place of wood ties and steamers. But the SP created a high speed transit operation on par with that of the UK.

Eventually, the Chicago area was next to be subject to the new high speed rail craze. But it was the New York Central, the Pennsy's fierce rival, that held most of the cards in the Midwest. They initially started with the James Whitcomb Riley on the Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati mainline. This newly improved service was a success, and soon, the NYC used the line splitting at Greensburg, IN to create another high speed service to Louisville. This was followed shortly after with the upgrading of the lines from Cleveland to Chicago and Cincinnati. But the NYC was not going to stop there. For it expanded the scope of their higher speed rail program, and made the upgrades all the way to Buffalo, NY. Where there was already a New York- Albany- Buffalo- Toronto service called The Emperor, and a collaboration with the B&M to link Montreal with them via the former D&H at Albany. By 2003, the NYC had most of their passenger rail lines running at speeds of 125 mph.

In the NE Corridor meanwhile, the PRR/NH made a deal with the B&M to expand the NE Corridor to Portland, ME. Likewise, the RF&P, under ACL and IC rule but still semi-independent, worked with them by extending it to Richmond, the via an entirely new line to Norfolk. After this, the IC and Southern devised a plan to further expand the operations to Florida in the South and New Orleans in the west. With them sharing the former SAL from Raleigh to Richmond, and the Southern taking the train to Charlotte, Atlanta, Birmingham, and New Orleans. While the IC would go down to Charleston, Savannah, Jacksonville, Orlando, and Tampa or Miami. The IC reintroduced the SAL's green, yellow, and orange livery for their trainsets and locomotives assigned to the region, whereas the Southern restored the two-tone green of their iconic Crescent passenger train.

The State of Georgia also worked with both of them to make an Atlanta- Macon service which then split to Savannah or Jacksonville. This service became known as the Peach Blossom, and was painted in an ornate livery of pink and bright green, quickly becoming popular with the locals of these states. Eventually, feeder lines were made on the CofG to Columbus, GA and on the Southern to Chattanooga. Florida also worked with the two roads, and created with the IC's former SAL a Jacksonville- Orlando- Miami/Tampa line and a supplementary line on the Southern's former FEC to serve to Florida coast.

By the time everything was complete, Kentucky and Tennessee were the only Southeastern states with little to no HSR. Though that was justified due to there comparatively sparse populations. Even then, the ACL operated the Ohio River Runner from Cincy to St. Louis on the former L&N through Louisville and Evansville, and serviced them well with 100 mph streamliners on their former Louisville and Nashville line. With such services as the Pan American (Cincinnati- Louisville- Nashville- Birmingham- New Orleans), and the Dixie Limited, which ran from Chicago to Atlanta via Evansville and the former NC&StL to Atlanta, then their home rails to Jacksonville and the former FEC to Jacksonville. They eventually formed an additional Chicago service, The Floridian, which used to old Chicago- Atlanta line, but then used the state-supported Georgia and Florida SOU/IC routes to Miami.

The ACL also involved somewhat in high speed trains still, and worked with the IC on the New Orleans- Jacksonsville Gulf Coast service, introducing a new livery which consisted of aqua and dark blue. The ACL also created Atlanta/Birmingham- Montgomery- Mobile- New Orleans services which would connect with Southern trains like the Crescent, the local governments-supported high speed trains, and their own trains to Richmond and DC.

Meanwhile in the western half of the Midwest, the Milwaukee Road decided to upgrade its famous Hiawatha service from Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities. Later on, they also upgraded the line from Milwaukee to Green Bay. The Union Pacific did likewise using their former C&NW lines, followed by a Twin Cities- Omaha line, then a line to Chicago via Cedar Rapids.

This was followed shortly after by the SP upgrading the former Rock Island from Chicago to Des Moines and Omaha, which became home of the Corn Belt Rocket, which sported the iconic red and silver of Rock Island passenger trains. Chicago- St. Louis traffic was mainly in the form of the IC's Green Diamond, which bought back the two-tone green livery of the original engines for the trainsets operating the upgraded service.

Even Colorado got some HSR service. In this case, it was a MoPac service from Denver to Pueblo on the former Rio Grande. Which was the later linked to their Kansas City line via Salina, KS. As well as the Union Pacific linking it further with Ft. Collins and Cheyenne, WY.

In Texas, high speed rail took the form of a triangle centered around the ATSF FWD line to Houston, with a new line splitting at Temple to serve Austin and San Antonio. The Santa Fe later extended the service to Oklahoma City. With branches to Wichita and over the former Frisco to Tulsa. The ATSF used the TGV Duplex because it reminded them of their own bi-level superliners which they used on their Midwest- California services, which also benefited from the upgrades. These upgrades would be soon followed by upgrades to the Chicago- Kansas City line and the former Frisco to St. Louis. Then eventually upgrading the line from Kansas City to Wichita via Topeka, which allowed for theme to operate the trainsets on the Texas Chief and the Frisco Chief, the later of which was a service they introduced after the Frisco was taken over in 1948. They also invested in upgrades to the their Chicago-LA services. Namely the Super Chief, and the Missouri Chief, which ran on the former Frisco at Avard, OK to St. Louis, they received new diesels and new variants of the Superliner cars. Lastly, they formed and agreement with the SOU/IC to create the Florida Chief, running trains over the former Frisco to Birmingham, then having the Southern take over there to go to Atlanta, Jacksonville, and points on the former SAL.

While the ATSF handled traffic to FWD and Oklahoma, the Southern Pacific would operate an El Paso- San Antonio- Houston- New Orleans route in conjunction with the state of Texas. The SP also built a Phoenix to Tucson line in Arizona with hope of using them as a platform to make the Sunset Limited from New Orleans to LA a 125 mph. This upgrade didn't happen as envisioned. But the Sunset Limited did serve as an effective link to them all.

Meanwhile, in the Northwest, the Great Northern naturally took charge of a Vancouver- Seattle- Portland services in the form of the Cascades. The was followed by the SP link Portland with other cities on its mainline in Oregon to Eugene. Which was then linked to their California services via the revitalization of the Shasta Daylight.

The Chicago- St. Louis corridor was almost completely dominated by the Illinois Central. Which reintroduced the Green Diamond service with the two-tone green livery that was almost iconic to the original trainset. Though the B&O, Erie (via former Wabash), and ACL (via former C&EI) also tried to put up fights there. The Michigan Shore, however, was the second biggest player, who operated their train via Peoria and Springfield when going to St. Louis.

Most long distance train routes, like the ATSF Chiefs or UP Cities run at slower speeds. Typically up to 100 mph. But they are also very successful, as they are more luxurious, comfortable, and open-ended than airplanes. Most of them have adapted coaches based on the ATSF Budd bi-level Superliners, or otherwise dome cars. One example of the Superliners being mimicked is the SP California Cars, which were essentially a bi-level take on their three-car diners on the original daylight. Though trains in the east often stick to single-level trains with dome cars for sight-seeing. Thmost notable exception being the ACL Champion, in a ploy to beat the IC.

All around, passenger rail in 2018 is in a far better spot than IOTL. With modernized variations of the streamliners of yesteryear being supplemented by some of the fastest trains in the nation. Not to mention various Auto Train routes, regularly scheduled tourist trains (called cruise trains by some), and the occasional excursion behind a large steam locomotive.

 

[Simon]

Also, here in OTL, HSR could compete because of the lack of security theatre and driving time to and from the airport.

This assumes that if high speed rail was built and became popular that they wouldn't introduce 'security theatre' at the stations as well. There have been a number of train bombings carried out by terrorists in the last decade or so internationally, and the TSA have already tried to expand their remit from just airports to other venues a few years back.

 

[DougM]

The US is not set up for rail. If my family in Germany wants to go to the big city from the smalll village they get in a car and drive the the nearest train station. Then they take a train to whatever’s City they like. As ALL of Germany is within practical high speed rail travel distance. Once in whatever city they went to they take the local rail (above or below ground) good bus system or they walk wherever they want to go. Then they reverse this on the way home.

If I want to do this I drive to a train station (and in some areas of Michigan that could be 1 to 4 HOURS of driving time). I take a train to one of a HANDFUL of cities. As MOST cities in the US are to far to go by even fast trains. Once I get to the city I may be lucky and be able to get around by local transit (if I am going to Chicago) otherwise I need to spend a FORTUNE on cabs or I have to rent a car.

The problem is MOST places people take trains to in Europe have no need to rent a car in the other end. Most places people go in the US they need a car on the other end.
Add in that Anyplace in any given country in Europe is generally within practical train travel distance vs the US where MOST of the country is well outside train travel distance and you have turned high speed rail from something that works as a network into a series of small high speed commuter runs.
In France they have high speed rail in a lot of areas and connected to everywhere by fast local trains. So the whole country feels it has access to the network and is willing to support it. That is not the case in the US. No one in Michigan is going to support a couple billion to build high speed rail in California. What am I supposed to do? Fly to California to connect to the high speed rail so I can take it to a city I could have just flown to to begin with?

And the system in Europe is not perfect either. I spent a week in France last year and a week in Germany this year as well as a few days in London and Paris and it is not as great as folks believe.

Last year I took a high speed rail From Paris to Avignon and From Avignon to Tours. I need to rent a car in Avignon and Tours as the places I wanted to go did not have practical commuter options.
On the Trip from Avignon to Tours I had to basically go back to the edge of Paris where my train split and my part went back out to Tours. By the time I got to Tours the car rental places where closed so it was a private car service out to my hotel that night then back in to Tours in the morning. As it turns out I could have Driven from Avignon to Tours keeping my rental car. Time wise it would have been a few hours longer then the train but would have avoided the change of trains on the way and two rides and ultimately would have cost about the same and been about the same time.

This year we took HSR from Koln to Paris and Paris to London. First off the HSR was 25 minutes late leaving Koln (so much for famed German efficiency ) On top of this my schedule had to be built around the train schedule. And for those that have used HSR in France Germany and England as well as Local transit systems in the same areas can tell you, they are NOT easy (physically) to use. So I would not recommend them for use with those that have trouble walking. It was really hard on my father (87 with a bad heart lung issues so can’t do steps well) In France the HSR is set up like it is the Kentucky derby. Everyone stands around a monito until about 10 minutes before departure then the board flashes the track number and everyone is off on a race to the train. To find the correct car and seat. If you are lucky you get an escalator or elevator but not alwas and it is often so far out of the way that you can’t find it. And no asking for assistance before hand does not help (except in London).

So let’s not pretend that the system is perfect. And to implement this in the US we will have to do better then they do in Europe. If you put the London Underground in the US the lawsuits over ADA access would cost billions. And Frances train stations are worse.

So the reality is we need a pre 1900 POD in order to completely change the way we build cities just to Start to make this work.

Frankly the idea of connecting relatively close airports has some merit. Think of it as a spoke and hub system. You take a train a short distance (say 250 miles or so) and a plain long distances. For the US that may be the most practical option available

 

[Devvy]

The US is not set up for rail. If my family in Germany wants to go to the big city from the smalll village they get in a car and drive the the nearest train station. Then they take a train to whatever’s City they like. As ALL of Germany is within practical high speed rail travel distance. Once in whatever city they went to they take the local rail (above or below ground) good bus system or they walk wherever they want to go. Then they reverse this on the way home.

If I want to do this I drive to a train station (and in some areas of Michigan that could be 1 to 4 HOURS of driving time). I take a train to one of a HANDFUL of cities. As MOST cities in the US are to far to go by even fast trains. Once I get to the city I may be lucky and be able to get around by local transit (if I am going to Chicago) otherwise I need to spend a FORTUNE on cabs or I have to rent a car.

The problem is MOST places people take trains to in Europe have no need to rent a car in the other end. Most places people go in the US they need a car on the other end.
Add in that Anyplace in any given country in Europe is generally within practical train travel distance vs the US where MOST of the country is well outside train travel distance and you have turned high speed rail from something that works as a network into a series of small high speed commuter runs.
In France they have high speed rail in a lot of areas and connected to everywhere by fast local trains. So the whole country feels it has access to the network and is willing to support it. That is not the case in the US. No one in Michigan is going to support a couple billion to build high speed rail in California. What am I supposed to do? Fly to California to connect to the high speed rail so I can take it to a city I could have just flown to to begin with?

While you've been a bit forceful in your points, I generally agree. A countrywide HSR system is lunacy.

However, some areas are appropriate for a high speed rail system; the NEC, Midwest, California, Texas and Florida in descending levels of likely "workability". Rather than creating a system for visitors to use as in your example, I think such systems would largely replace city-to-city flights (ie. between Minneapolis and Chicago), and also act as feeder airlines - especially if such services have a city centre station and a station at the local major airport (to connect to flights and also act as a park-and-ride station).

HSR is expensive though; overhead power in general needs to be installed, and to a high standard (taut wires), track needs to continues welded rail or everything on board will be shaken to hell. Dedicated trains are usually needed due to the streamlined requirements, and the US regulations do not the economics any better due to the crashworthy requirements which have a corresponding effect on weight, which affects costs. But as I've mentioned before (I think in this thread?); making sure trains can do a continuous 90mph will have just a big knockon effect on timetables due to the current myriad of issues and speed restrictions on the US rail networks.

And the system in Europe is not perfect either. I spent a week in France last year and a week in Germany this year as well as a few days in London and Paris and it is not as great as folks believe.

(snip)

So let’s not pretend that the system is perfect. And to implement this in the US we will have to do better then they do in Europe. If you put the London Underground in the US the lawsuits over ADA access would cost billions. And Frances train stations are worse.

I agree that systems in Europe are far from perfect; the low platform height in much of the EU doesn't particularly help disabled people. And FYI - we have similar legislation to the ADA in the UK, but the London Underground is largely exempt under grandfather rights; the cost to install disabled access in a system designed and built largely in the 19th Century is just completely infeasible except where new stations are built (and you'd find that certains sections of the Underground are far better than others because of this).

 

[sloreck]

There are a few separate problems here. There is the public transit situation in many US cities - a mess to be sure, the issue of urban-suburban public transit - a mess since the interurban lines went away and everything built on auto traffic which is always clogged no matter how many lanes the highway, and intercity transit. Even at an average of 150 mph when moving, minus the times for stops, going from New York to Chicago is 6-8 hours by HSR and not really competitive with air travel for most folks. So, building NYC-Chicago HSR for its own sake is not workable. However building a HSR NY-Philadelphia-Pittsburgh-Cleveland-Chicago or similar could work as each of these segments could support HSR, very few will get on at one end and go to the other but going one or a few segments is quite competitive. Portland, ME to Richmond, VA is another route that could have individually profitable segments. Lots of other examples. In reality, I doubt you'd see a complete HSR from the east coast to the west coast, or even something like Boston-Florida. San Diego-Seattle might just happen.

A key to making the system work is interconnection. Good public transit connections between rail/air/regional bus. Having combined rail/regional bus stations in large cities with a fast (perhaps dedicated) transit to the airport from there. In smaller cities, having the transportation hub in one place (air/train) with quick connection to the city center - this allows folks who live a couple of hours or more from the airport to take the train right to the airport and go long distance from there.

This sort of scheme is doable by adapting to the sorts of distances you have in the USA compared to Europe or Japan. IMHO you need a PoD at the Depression or before to keep interurbans and mass transit (like LA had) from going under or being bought out and torn up by auto/petroleum interests, and also improvements to urban and interurban mass transit funding like highways were during and after the depression. WWII and gasoline rationing kept some systems going but they faded away 10-15 years after the war.

 

[Marc]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but a brief tale about high speed rail and Texas.
Some decades ago, there was a proposal to create a very fast triangular link between Dallas-Houston-San Antonio.
(Aside: France and Texas are roughly the same size).
Perhaps surprisingly, it had some serious traction in the Legislature. Until Southwest Air effectively lobbied against it.

 

[Roger II]

That is an interesting detail. But in a sense that makes a good deal of sense-those are the three most important metro areas and they're close enough that very fast rail is extremely practicable. Plus it might incentivize better bus/tram systems.

 

[DougM]

Keep in mind in Europe basically the Rail passenger network is subsidized by the (high) taxes and creates enough routs that it at least appears to be useful to most of the country. Add in the regular rail tat allows for pretty much anyone to go anyplace using only the railroad and you have to whole country “buying in” because it is useful to everyone.

This is ASB level of impossible to achieve in the US. You could not build enough passenger stations much less afford to run enough trains to get the coverage of the US to be even close to that of Europe. So you will automatically have large areas of the country that feel left out. Now if you start building self contained regional systems then huge parts of the country are going to be left out. And because these systems are not intended to be EVER connected you know from day one that they are only going to serve a smalll area of the country and the rest of the country can fend for itself. Add in that most of the areas you are leaving out of the system just happen to be the conservative “fly over” parts of the country and you have all but organized the resistance to this huge spending from the very start.

I like trains I am a HUGE train buff I have driven halfway across the country to ride or see a train. But as much as I like them they are just not practical in the US without changing the country in ways that are all but impossible and all would have needed to happen more the 70 years ago.

The only chance you have of this in the 80s or later is if we get into a big depression and the government sells it as a public works program.
And the only way the whole country buys into it is if you creat an interconnected system. Someone needs to sit down and figure out how Local roads/Local transit systems, regional systems/roads, expressways, HSR and airplanes ALL interconnect to give a practical system that covers most of the country. It can be done but exactly how remains to be seen. Although I think that if you have the government subsidies transport from local roads through HSR then perhaps the government will need to subsidize interstate air travel more then it does now. Perhaps a given amount of money per passenger mile or some such. This would creat a workable affordable system that is available to all.

And before you say subsidies to the airline are not needed keep in mind that the US is to big to use trains even HSR for transcontinental travel. So we are effectively just scaling up. In the same way that a tiny country like Lichtenstein does not need 180mph trains but France does the US needs something a LOT faster the 180mph to even partway across it.

 

[M79]

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but a brief tale about high speed rail and Texas.
Some decades ago, there was a proposal to create a very fast triangular link between Dallas-Houston-San Antonio.
(Aside: France and Texas are roughly the same size).
Perhaps surprisingly, it had some serious traction in the Legislature. Until Southwest Air effectively lobbied against it.

Construction is actually underway starting with the Dallas-Houston line...

https://www.texascentral.com/

 

[Roger II]

I mean, you can couple(if you are really willing to spend the dosh) a comprehensive system that covers both heavy duty and substantial freight rail in Flyover CountryTM with HSR where practical(basically NE, Old Northwest, SE, Texas, California, and PNW-I suspect if you can fit in Canada and run trains between Vancouver and Seattle say and between NYC or Montreal and fit in Toronto you've got just a touch more utility). That way the rail system is being funded heavily enough for both good passenger service to make it a usable auto alternative and possibly to promote cleaner air and long-term electrification and enough substantial freight rail bundled in with funding to be useful for agricultural and mineral train shipment that "flyover country" gets something out of it.

 

[Marc]

Construction is actually underway starting with the Dallas-Houston line...

https://www.texascentral.com/

Good to hear that. Texas really is a prime region for a decent high speed rail network; and the speeds don't have to be super high to be attractive. Just using fairly standard diesel-hydraulic locomotives, it's possible to have 120+ runs on main lines, close to double automotive speeds.