Why do trains in the US take so long?

[freeradical]

Don't worry. It will not be long before we need to have an internal passport for rail and probably bus travel like it is needed for air travel in 2020.

[Filliam H. Muffman]

M A V I C, the posted speed at the curve before crossing I-5 was 30 mph, the train was traveling 79 mph before the brakes were engaged. There are a couple of locations like this where the train has to slow because the curves are too tight. Amtrak trains can climb 50% steeper grades but ice on the rails can make it very difficult to get up and down hills when there are special tracks for passenger trains with steeper grades.

There isn't a country-wide map showing speed limited locations. Curves can add 200% to the distance compared to highways going up hills.

[DeusxMac]

Robert M wrote:
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.

IF more Americans begin talking trains instead of airplanes, it’s almost a certainty that “waiting to get through security and such” would be required for train travel as well.

[davester]

raz wrote:
[quote=space-time]
They could use GPS to trigger when arriving at a certain location. Also just attack on train alone would be bad enough.

Like this
Six killed? That hardly qualifies as even a monthly mass shooting in the US.

[mrbigstuff]

macphanatic wrote:
From DC to downtown Boston is roughly 440 miles. With a high speed rail on dedicated tracks, the trip should take roughly 2.5 hours with stops at major rail stations along the way. Bump it to 3 if you want to do more stops. It currently takes almost 7 hrs, partially because they have to change engines in NYC as the northern rail isn't electrified.

If the trip took 3 hrs, more people would take the train along the eastern corridor. With the time it takes to get to or from an airport and the time dealing with security/waiting for a flight, a 3 hr train from DC to Boston would be competitive with a flight. Plus, you can take your own beverages on board, don't pay for luggage (unless excessive) and get a seat that you can actually fit in.

The train is now fully electrified from dc to Boston. It's been something like 15 years, I believe.

[M A V I C]

Filliam H. Muffman wrote:
M A V I C, the posted speed at the curve before crossing I-5 was 30 mph, the train was traveling 79 mph before the brakes were engaged. There are a couple of locations like this where the train has to slow because the curves are too tight. Amtrak trains can climb 50% steeper grades but ice on the rails can make it very difficult to get up and down hills when there are special tracks for passenger trains with steeper grades.

There isn't a country-wide map showing speed limited locations. Curves can add 200% to the distance compared to highways going up hills.

That adds some clarity. Thanks.

[vision63]

Gov Newsom didn't cancel the High Speed Rail project.

[Grumpyguy]

For Pete's sake, does no one use a transporter? tartrek61:

[Paul F.]

vision63 wrote:
Gov Newsom didn't cancel the High Speed Rail project.

I'm not even sure he CAN, since it was a voter-passed ballot initiative.

[MrNoBody]

I agree with most of what has been posted.
The one thing I've always believed is no US public transportation project can
be accomplished economically due to:

• Political Incompetency
  
• Political Corruption
  
• Outright lying to the public about cost & benefits (see phantom job creation)
  
• Outdated construction technology
  
• Political Corruption (Worth Repeating)
  

Without being specific, I've read about one 14-mile 'rail project' in the East that
would have cost almost half the final cost of the dual tube, 35.5-mile Gotthard Base Tunnel
under the Alps (world's longest railway and deepest traffic tunnel)!
And, it was mostly above ground :dunno: