Why do trains in the US take so long?

[JoeH]

Paul F. wrote:
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.

Is that to any tracks, or just tracks that carry passenger trains? Rail freight usually covers a lot more areas than are in service for passengers.

[mrbigstuff]

The key to much of train travel is to locate you with in the city center, otherwise the disadvantage if having to negotiate a secondary trip will probably negate the train trip. If high speed, or any rail travel, fails to do this, it's immediately at a disadvantage.

And I'm old enough, since it was not long ago, that traveling from Boston to D.C. meant that you had to switch trains in NY, because that's where the train went from diesel to electric.

[Acer]

Put $500 billion and a promise of perpetual maintenance and updating afterward, funded 90% by taxes, into passenger rail and see what you get. That's what we did for the car--just the interstate system part.

[Paul F.]

JoeH wrote:
[quote=Paul F.]
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.

Is that to any tracks, or just tracks that carry passenger trains? Rail freight usually covers a lot more areas than are in service for passengers.
Both... This part of California last had trains running in the 1980's. The tracks are still there, but have had zero maintenance, and some bits have fallen into rivers, slides have covered rail beds, and in one spot, slid into the ocean. There's a 5 mile stretch that does a "speeder run" during the summer for touristy purposes, but only 3-4 days a year.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

I think it's a multitude of things. The trains don't run often enough, so they sit in the stations waiting for passengers. Rail routes built 150 years ago weren't designed for continuous 90 mph, more like 5 - 10 mph going up hills. The curves are too tight (train derailed in DuPont because it was going too fast) and are in terrible shape. Communities have grown too close, crossing sites aren't well designed and people complain when they go too fast through town. Car companies are also to blame, they tried to cripple rail (and public transportation in general) in the late 40's and 50's.

[Paul F.]

Acer wrote:
Put $500 billion and a promise of perpetual maintenance and updating afterward, funded 90% by taxes, into passenger rail see what you get. That's what we did for the car--just the interstate system part.

What you'll get is a projected 3 trillion dollar project that never gets started because they need more money, but somehow manages to spend all $500 billion and have a staff of thousands, despite not actually building anything.
We've lost the bubble on infrastructure projects like that.

[raz]

Agreed with all of the above.

OTOH, when the wife and I go to NYC for vacation from Pittsburgh, Amtrak is 9 hours vs 6.5 for driving.

But ...

1) we end up in the middle of the city
2) we pay less for train tickets than to park for the week
3) no stress dealing with auto traffic
4) big wide seats with lots of leg room versus air travel
5) we don't have to take off our shoes to ride

So, it's a win as long as we're not in a hurry.

[3d]

Ten years ago NYC Penn Station renovated the men and women bathrooms by the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) waiting area.

The cost?
$5,000,000.00

FIVE MILLION dollars to renovate 2 bathrooms. I can't.

[M A V I C]

FWIW, the segment I'm looking at is essentially Seattle to San Francisco. 13hr drive, 27hr train ride, 2.5hr flight.

Filliam H. Muffman wrote: The curves are too tight (train derailed in DuPont because it was going too fast) and are in terrible shape.

IIRC, the train was doing 90 and that curve was rated 60. Even with that curve where it was supposed to slow down, that's still nearly double the average that I'm looking at. But if they're doing 10mph up hills, yeah, that will slow it down.

[Robert M]

Paul,

Key difference for driving from NJ to north of NYC is Long Island. The moment Long island is a factor, the entire dynamic of the drive changes dramatically. My wife commutes from our area of Long Island to Greenwich, CT. It can take from 45 minutes to 2 hours, depending on traffic and road conditions. That’s an easy drive.

Our part of LI to Boston can take 4 to 5 hours to _much_ longer, depending on issues with the bridges, traffic and road conditions. I’ve done the drive many times. Next time, we’re taking a train and renting a car.

It once took my wife and I eleven hours to get from Long Island, NY to Centreville, VA. It should’ve been a 5 or 6 hour drive. Next time, we’re taking the train to DC and renting a car. The drive just isn’t worth the agita anymore.

Why would I choose the train over a plane? Airport agita. It’s annoying enough for just my wife and I. With Little M in tow? It takes the annoyance and agita and steps it up multiple notches and that’s despite having TSA Precheck.

Robert



> 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.