Why do trains in the US take so long?

[Robert M]

Paul,

That's the thing. Travel by rail is going to be more and more common in many cases because of all of the time spent waiting to get through security and such at airports. I'd seriously consider rail over plane when traveling from Long Island, NY to various places northeast of NY, to mid-Atlantic and even going west of NY. 'course, it may be just as easy to drive but, while less expensive, traveling by car has its own issues and agita. None of it compares to the sheer annoyance of air travel and security, though. Especially with a toddler involved!

Robert

[testcase]

Granted, here in the U.S. we cover FAR more distances that many of the cities of Europe. Also, after WWII, I expect MANY (most?) of Europe's rail systems had to be rebuilt, thus offering the opportunity of updating technology. Trains in the U.S. are still largely 19th & early 20th Century technology. That's why.

After WWII, air travel skyrocketed in the U.S. and, our rail system languished. Imagine if, when the Eisenhower Interstate Highway System was built, it had rail lines next to (or better still, in the center medians) of at least some of the interstate highways. Say I40 & I-80 running coast to coast and, three or four north / south routes.

If they had installed water conduits then, the flood and fire control would be far easier too. Maybe in our next lifetimes.

[TLB]

Ditto everything mentioned. And as a result, there is very often no efficient path from point A to B. A bit of hyperbole, but we were looking at leisure train travel to the west coast and it was like we had to travel over 2x the distance the crow flies to get there--plus train changes and layovers. I would take half our vacation just to get there. So usually, a train in the US has no real advantage in time, cost or even comfort.

[Thrift Store Scott]

Paul F. wrote:
Passenger rail service is an afterthought in this country. They make money by shipping cargo, and maintain passenger service as a loss-leading "lip service" to keep their subsidies coming in.

Except for a few corridors, no one wants to spend 3x longer on a train, when they could take a plane, or drive. In the Western U.S. especially, there is ZERO advantage to a train vs flying or driving.

Can I take it then that you're not real torn up about Governor Newsom finally canceling the multi-billion dollar pork-barrel boondoggle known as the LA-SF High Speed Railway?:devil:

[Kraniac]

It's the railroad infrastructure..not just the tracks your train is riding on..the other tracks play in as well...they build in lots of extra time for bouncing along merrily on shitty trackbed

[davester]

macphanatic wrote:
The biggest issue is that a lot of the rail that Amtrak runs on is owned by the freight tail lines. So, their trains have the right of way.

This, and the refusal to spend money to upgrade tracks to support higher speeds are the two major reasons that long-distance train travel is ridiculous in the US for anything except the experience of sitting on the train.

It is so nice travelling in France, Italy, etc on trains...fast, convenient, with train stations right in the city centers. The high speed routes travel at 300 kph (186 mph) and have speedometers in the cars. It's interesting to watch the telephone poles flying past as though they're a picket fence.

[Paul F.]

A project sold to the voters as a 6 billion dollar project, that has ballooned to more than $90 BILLION? You can take it, and everyone who pushed it, out behind the barn and put a bullet in their head.
If we had the capability to build large infrastructure projects in this country without a 500% "Bureaucracy tax", I would have been all for it. Seriously. But as soon as the very FIRST budget "estimate" after the Ballot Proposition more than DOUBLED the budget, I knew it was going to skyrocket from there....

Thrift Store Scott wrote:
[quote=Paul F.]
Passenger rail service is an afterthought in this country. They make money by shipping cargo, and maintain passenger service as a loss-leading "lip service" to keep their subsidies coming in.

Except for a few corridors, no one wants to spend 3x longer on a train, when they could take a plane, or drive. In the Western U.S. especially, there is ZERO advantage to a train vs flying or driving.

Can I take it then that you're not real torn up about Governor Newsom finally canceling the multi-billion dollar pork-barrel boondoggle known as the LA-SF High Speed Railway?:devil:

[numbered]

MAVIC wrote:
One train in the US I'm looking at takes 27 hours. It's about 900 miles. That means it averages about 33mph. I've read "More than half of Amtrak trains operate at top speeds of 100 mph". Still, that means they spend most of their time stopped or going extra slow.

As has been said above, the reasons are many. The key point is that the service from DC to NY (and then to Boston) is fast, convenient and very busy. There are lots of sold out trains at peak periods. This service runs above 100 frequently. Notably, there are no grade crossings anymore.

Almost all the rest of the trains run on the four big private railroads. They compete with freight, and the freight does not need to go fast. (In fact, the national rail speed limit is 79 mph on tracks with grade crossings.) The private guys are forced to allow Amtrak because they wanted to abandon their own passenger services in the 1970's. And the slow Amtrak trains are very politically popular. Some railroads are good to Amtrak (BNSF) and give it priority, while others work hard to screw Amtrak (UP) and place it behind slow freights. Amtrak pays bonuses for good behavior, but there is an attitude as well.

Just think of your 900 mile journey as a land cruise and you will be fine.

[SteveG]

around here, it's more like:

"The Long Island Rail Road-A complete inability to master a 19^th Century technology"

[Paul F.]

Robert;
Being on different coasts, I think we have vastly different views on the efficiency and utility of train travel. I am a good four hour (well, three and change, four if I stop for a couple stretch/pee/gas/snacks breaks) drive from the nearest train station, or even working train tracks.

To me, the driving distance from New Jersey to north of NYC seems trivial - but I know that given vastly different traffic conditions there vs here in the far-west, it's far from it.
As I said, there ARE "corridors" where trains make sense... then there's the other 95% of the United States.

Robert M wrote:
Paul,

That's the thing. Travel by rail is going to be more and more common in many cases because of all of the time spent waiting to get through security and such at airports. I'd seriously consider rail over plane when traveling from Long Island, NY to various places northeast of NY, to mid-Atlantic and even going west of NY. 'course, it may be just as easy to drive but, while less expensive, traveling by car has its own issues and agita. None of it compares to the sheer annoyance of air travel and security, though. Especially with a toddler involved!

Robert