More Popular AMTRAK

Hendryk

Banned
I've done a bit of reading on this in the last few days, and there are possibilities. By the 70s airports started to lose ground in the trip time, with the hour or more at the start and hour at the end of each trip with check-in, security, baggage claim and all the rest. In addition many airline flights are delayed, cancelled and diverted etc, and airports are usually out in the boondocks, and getting there is another hassle. This means that on certain distances a 100+mph train is faster from city centre to city centre than flying, and as airports become more congested and paraniod this distance creeps up and up.

So this could be part of AMTRAKs strategy, finding key routes which are too far to drive easily but not far enough to warrant waiting in airports for 3 hours and push these with advertising/education. As airports become more and more of a hassle these distances go up and up which cuts into the cars convenience too. A bit of govt support wouldn't go astray either, they love throwing cash at airports and roads.
I second that assessment. On distances of less than roughly 1,000 km, a high-speed train is quite competitive vis-à-vis air transport: even though the trip itself may be shorter by plane, the gain of time is more than offset by the hassle of getting to the airport, going through security checks, etc., not to mention the problem of congestion which often requires planes to circle around until they're clear for landing. With the train, you just go to the station, which is usually conveniently located downtown, get onboard, and you're on your way. So with the right policy of investment and infrastructural upgrades, I could very well see the US east of the Mississippi and West of the Rockies use rail transport in the same way as Europe. Admittedly, in the flyover states, it's a different situation.
 
I agree Hendryk. In Amtraks case the Southwest Chief would be the thing to push, primarily because it can go 90mph on regular track. If I was running Amtrak back in the day (or even today) I'd be pushing to have other main routes upgraded to match the SWC 90mph speed and have the SWCs speed increase incrementally. I don't think it unreasonable for an upgraded SWC to match the British Intercity-125 speed of 125mph on many sectors. Given the torturous nature of US railway politics this would probably take decades, but the result could be the US have regular tracks with trains doing 90-120mph which could present a viable alternative to cars and planes over medium distances.
 
Absolutely agree on speed. Even 100mph trains could give short-hop airlines a run for their $ in Bosyorkington corridor. And one big reason cars & planes are cheaper is the massive subsidies from taxes, none of which rail gets. Balance that out, you make rail competitive; VIA gets major subsidies, or The Canadian wouldn't be running at all, either (& it's only 2-3x/wk as it is...)
 
Hendryk, you're forgetting that the main competition with the train at intermediate and shorter distances, especially here, is the CAR, not the airplane. The car has the fewest stages to wait for things save for walking, and it's usually cheapest, too Yeah, 90MPH WOULD start to be faster, though - for the fast parts of that one route (do they include the heavily populated ends?).

Pacific, both cars and Amtrak are heavily subsidized. What is true is that car subsidies are much bigger, and that with gas prices looking to go up alot, it does make sense to bring them closer together, as both Obama and Congress agree.
 
Last edited:
Cars and aviation are both heavily subidised so the way to fund the improvements AMTRAK needs to be competitive in its medium distance niche is to salami-slice some of the car/plane subsidies and add them to rail subsidies to create greater equality of resource allocation.
 
Amtrak seems to be doing ok in the NE corridor up to Washington DC using "high-speed" Acela Express trains. A rail service from Los Angeles to San. Frans. would probably be competitive. Think they are building it. But beyond those areas on long train trips train travel gets expensive. Better to fly which could save you half price.

Plus there is one thing Amtrak cannot compete with. Its the Greyhound Bus company and others. They also have Greyhound in Australia. You leave the driving to them like it says in the commercial.:D You can really get cheap bus fares. Buying your ticket with 14 days advance notice and no discount you can get a round trip ticket NY to LA for $212.00 dollars. Via train a standard seat would cost you easily double to triple the price.

European nations tend to be smaller and cities closer so train travel makes sense. Buses would be a problem on the many older narrow roads or streets in Europe.
 
We're not talking about long distance, because planes are obviously the way to go over 500+ miles, nor short distance because 200 miles you can't beat a car. But between these two distances a medium-high speed train service should be able to compete with cars and planes.

One question I have to ask is how much is cost a factor for people travelling the sorts of distances we're talking about, 100-700 miles or so?
 
Top