US Rail System Transportation?

[kernals12]

Every single publicly and privately funded high speed rail effort in the US has failed for good reason. America's population centers are too far apart and gasoline is too cheap to make it profitable. And contrary to what train-boosters say, we are not the only developed country without it. The British, Australians, and Canadians all make do with slow trains, plus highways and airlines.

 

[Johnrankins]

Every single publicly and privately funded high speed rail effort in the US has failed for good reason. America's population centers are too far apart and gasoline is too cheap to make it profitable. And contrary to what train-boosters say, we are not the only developed country without it. The British, Australians, and Canadians all make do with slow trains, plus highways and airlines.

Even CA had to give it up and they have the highest population. The US is simply too spread out.

 

[kernals12]

Even CA had to give it up and they have the highest population. The US is simply too spread out.

Technically population density, not population, is what matters.
Congress tried to bring high speed rail to the densely populated Northeast with the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, but all we got out of it was the 90 mph Metroliner.

 

[Johnrankins]

Technically population density, not population, is what matters.
Congress tried to bring high speed rail to the densely populated Northeast with the High Speed Ground Transportation Act of 1965, but all we got out of it was the 90 mph Metroliner.

Because nobody else gets anything out of it. If the NE corridor wants a train they have to pay for it. Have NY, NJ and the other states form a regional transit authority and pay for it. There is no legal bar to it. It is perfectly constitutional for various states to cooperate with each other. No reason you have to get Idaho to help pay for it.

 

[SsgtC]

You will never get it paid for. The map shown has 20 states with basically zNothing to gain from what may be the most expensive government project in history. Keep in mind high speed rail is WORSE then regular railroads, they need broader curves and lower grades and they need to have no grade crossings so every road has to have a bridge. At a very conservative 1/2 million per bridge that is going to get expensive, using metropolitan Detroit as an example we have a grid of roads with a significant road every 1/2 mile. And our suburbs extend out about 40 miles. So just to get one line out of the suburbs will cost 40 million just in bridges. Not continue that for the whole system. Then find 51 senators willing to pay for it. Keep in mind that 40 of them are getting nothing for thier state from this. So you need 51 out of the remaining 60 and you are not getting that.

It's even worse than that. The Union Pacific is preparing to lengthen some sidings. Sidings mind you, not main line. Just a place for a train to pull into and park while another passes it on the main. The estimated cost is Three Million Dollars per Mile. This is along an already established right of way with no or few grade crossings.

Now take that number and double it. Because odds are, that's what it'll average out to to build an HSR corridor. Just for a single track mainline and the associated switches and signals. Minimum. And is likely even higher. Even if we stick with 6 million per mile, every 180 miles of track is a staggering one billion dollars (just over actually 1.08 to be precise) Just to connect Indianapolis with Chicago would cost 1.1 billion. They're only 182 miles apart. Tack on Milwaukee and were up to over 1.6 billion. For one corridor with a single track. That doesn't even begin to include the cost to purchase the land either. Add that in, and you can probably double it again.

 

[Johnrankins]

It's even worse than that. The Union Pacific is preparing to lengthen some sidings. Sidings mind you, not main line. Just a place for a train to pull into and park while another passes it on the main. The estimated cost is Three Million Dollars per Mile. This is along an already established right of way with no or few grade crossings.

Now take that number and double it. Because odds are, that's what it'll average out to to build an HSR corridor. Just for a single track mainline and the associated switches and signals. Minimum. And is likely even higher. Even if we stick with 6 million per mile, every 180 miles of track is a staggering one billion dollars (just over actually 1.08 to be precise) Just to connect Indianapolis with Chicago would cost 1.1 billion. They're only 182 miles apart. Tack on Milwaukee and were up to over 1.6 billion. For one corridor with a single track. That doesn't even begin to include the cost to purchase the land either. Add that in, and you can probably double it again.

Double it? Between Chicago and Milwaukee. A lot more than that, a lot of that area is highly urbanized.

 

[Not James Stockdale]

There are only two HSR routes in the world that make money: Tokaido Shinkansen from Tokyo to Osaka and LGV Sud-Est from Paris to Lyon. Everything else is supposed to be "worth it" on externalities. The real focus in the US should be on higher-speed corridor routes, like what Amtrak is doing around Chicago. A train with regular stops needs to be going at least 100 mph to match a car's average speed on a highway, so you probably need to be running 110 mph outside cities. At these speeds, you match the car's time advantage over normal trains and you carry the ease-of-use advantage associated with comfort and not having to park a car in the city center.

FRA regulations allow passenger trains to run up to 110 mph on lines with unarmored grade crossings. The crossings to have to be modified with four-quadrant gates but that's not really much trouble. Grade crossings are allowed up to 125 mph but require an "impenetrable barrier" that is supposed to keep a car off the tracks. Those are a lot more expensive so 125 mph track with grade crossings doesn't really exist.

 

[SsgtC]

Double it? Between Chicago and Milwaukee. A lot more than that, a lot of that area is highly urbanized.

I was low balling it. I didn't want people to think I was throwing some wild number out there. More realistically, just a line from Indy to Chicago would probably be 5-6 billion dollars minimum when you factor in purchase cost of the land.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

lower wages for them means lower prices for everyone else.

You American or European? Do you not understand how illegal, migrant, or cheap labor work in the US. If your paying people cash or under the table you can pay certain people lower wages. If your an illegal your not getting tax for your wage and other stuff often times. Your boss is also paying you off record. A 12 year old kid from Mexico who looks like he 20 can be paid 5 dollars a hour. Also a lot of blue collar labor jobs here don’t pay you by the hour but by the amount of work you do so it can vary. Honestly, a lot of employers pay immigrants more money then native Americans because they think their more reliable and better workers then most Americans.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

I'd put that dividing line along Interstate 29 south to KC, then I-35 to the Mexican border. East of that line, you have a network of cities and large enough towns to support a transportation network. To the west, you have only a handful of corridors to the west coast. Even the west coast is spread out enough to isolate the population centers.

What about central and coastal California? Or is the terrain too much?

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Not a chance. Appalachians make MUCH more money than Guatemalans or Mexicans. The median Mississippian (poorest state in the Union) earns over twice as much as the average Mexican and over 4 times the average Guatemalan.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_...territories_ranked_by_median_household_income

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)_per_capita

I’m talking about how much they make within the United States not their home country. Most American employers rather hire Mexicans over a lot of Appalachians.

 

[Johnrankins]

I’m talking about how much they make within the United States not their home country. Most American employers rather hire Mexicans over a lot of Appalachians.

Then they aren't competition, are they?By your logic, the Mexicans are which is the point.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

Then they aren't competition, are they? The Mexicans are which is the point.

I say this from experience but a lot of immigrants or even Americans finances aren’t reported or filed. America has a lot of people getting paid in cash and not filing taxes or even doing them. If I get paid 1000 in cash for a job I can easily tell the government 500 when I file it. As long as you don’t buy anything that can be tracked or put the money in the bank the irs usually can’t track you. You just can’t be buying cars and a house with the money you pocket. You use that money for stuff like gas, food, and stuff like that.

Also, Appalachian, blacks, and southern whites do consider Mexicans and Hispanic competition in the workplace because they compete over many of the same labor jobs. Without getting into deals about it just imagine the views people in America associate with Appalachians, poor white, and blacks then imagine the more positive stereotypes associated with Mexicans. That the main reason employers rather often hire Hispanics. The only reason I think a bunch of Appalachians going to Montana to work is because of mining. They did that in Wyoming in otl. I think that is one job even most immigrants are unwilling to do given the other options they have. Additionally, most of the poor white population in America lives east of the Rockies. The rural areas in the Rockies are very empty. Your rural people in the Rockies are much better off then the rural people more east. America gets the most migrant workers and immigrants in regions that lack a large native lower class. That is one reason California and Chicago gets more immigrants then Mississippi.

 

[kernals12]

You American or European? Do you not understand how illegal, migrant, or cheap labor work in the US. If your paying people cash or under the table you can pay certain people lower wages. If your an illegal your not getting tax for your wage and other stuff often times. Your boss is also paying you off record. A 12 year old kid from Mexico who looks like he 20 can be paid 5 dollars a hour. Also a lot of blue collar labor jobs here don’t pay you by the hour but by the amount of work you do so it can vary. Honestly, a lot of employers pay immigrants more money then native Americans because they think their more reliable and better workers then most Americans.

You're getting way too far into modern day politics.

 

[Modern Imperialism]

You're getting way too far into modern day politics.

Sorry, thought that would relate over to population movement within America when talking about the impact of the rail system on the country and its people

 

[SsgtC]

So, seeing as we're talking railroads here, I figured I'd just share this interesting tidbit:

The Union Pacific 4014 Big Boy steam locomotive is officially moving under her own power for the first time in 60 years. The world's largest operating steam locomotive. The UP Steam Crew is taking her out on a break in run as we speak.

 

[marathag]

So, seeing as we're talking railroads here, I figured I'd just share this interesting tidbit:

The Union Pacific 4014 Big Boy steam locomotive is officially moving under her own power for the first time in 60 years. The world's largest operating steam locomotive. The UP Steam Crew is taking her out on a break in run as we speak.

The Great Race to Ogden – No. 844 and No. 4014
Big Boy No. 4014 will leave Cheyenne with the Living Legend No. 844 May 4 following a 9:30 a.m. MT christening ceremony at the historic Cheyenne Depot and arrive in Ogden for the May 9 celebratory event. The event will be streamed live at 10:30 a.m. MT via the Union Pacific Facebook page.

The Big Boy and Living Legend will make several brief stops in communities on their way to Ogden.

Saturday, May 4
Christening
Depart 9:30 a.m. MT
10:00 a.m. MT Cheyenne, Wyo.
Cheyenne Depot Museum
121 W. 15th Street

 

[Mark E.]

What about central and coastal California? Or is the terrain too much?

Much of central California links well in itself but the coast is rugged.

 

[DougM]

Don’t forget that a true high speed rail system needs to be double tracked. The single track with passing siding design so common in the US does not work well if you are going high speed as you have to slow down for the turnouts and obviously one train has to stop to allow the other to pass. And stopping a high speed train absolutely defeats the point of the high speed.
As has been pointed out the stops are what kills the time.

I have traveled a lot around the US by car. And while speed limits vary from 60 to 70 mph. Tending to be 65 or 70 now days. But you still have trouble averaging over 50 maybe 55 miles per hour due to traffic lights on secondary roads as well as fuel stops, rest stops and food stops. If traveling 500 miles. You have about 7h 10m of travel time. Add in say 10 m on each end for slower travel on surface roads and you are at 7 1/2 hours. Add in lunch at half an hour. Gas at 15 min. And tw 15 rest stops and you are up to 8 1/2 hours. And poof you are down to 58 miles per hour. Call it 60. So you dropped about 14% off your top end speed.
The same logic holds true for trains. You want an economic train get it up to a hundred or 110 and keep it there. Run shorter trains and more of them don’t take a long train and stop at every station. Run one train on the two end sections and one in the middle and stop the through train only at the middle station. Now instead of 6 stops for 15 min you get one. And stop waiting for freight trains. In the end you can save an hour and a half right Thier. In an 400 mile run you go from 5:45 to 4:15.. or from70 mph to 88.88 mph.
The problem is the cost. You have to run Three of four trains. Not cheep.
Add in that for the user it is not very advantageous. You need an hour or so to get to the station and get your train then say 15 min at the other end and you are looking at 5.5 hours for a train vs 6 or 6 1/2 by car. And you don’t have to pay for the train and you don’t have to go when the train wants and where the train goes and you have your car at the other end.
So we are back to it only working between major cities.
And while we seam obsessed by cities the reality is most folks live in the suburbs or the country and they don’t want to pay for a system that the city folks use. Many of them already pay taxes to help subsidize the city so you are going to get resists to doing it for a train.
So the problem is below 400 miles and the car is a better option. Over about 600 miles the plane is a better option and even in that little window between you have most pain the US not having easy access to it so they don’t want to pay for it. Thus it is just not happening. Only in very congested locations such as Japan or in places that subsidize things and tax “bad” behavior to control what the citizens do such as France does the system work. And those countyare small enough that with only a few lines everyone is close enough to feel like they COULD use it.
Build a system up the two coasts of the US and from Chicago to the gulf coast and you still have most of the population of the US living to far from a line to be able to use it so why should they pay for it? The suggestion of a regional system paid for by the region is the only real option. And in effect that is what you have in Europe. France pays for France and Germany pays for Germany. They are “countries “ but in size the are about the size of a multi state region is in the US. Much easier to convince a region to pay for a train they may be able to use then someone living 1000 miles away.

 

[Duke Andrew of Dank]

The way I see it, HSR in the US at this point would only work in certain places.

- Chicago to Milwaukee
- New York to Buffalo via Albany
- Los Angeles to San Diego
- Florida