Japan to begin huge sales push to sell bullet trains to United States cities

I agree it is old news, but modern corps are the successors to older land grants. Certainly the title to the property has transfered through. You are right however that we can't go back,,, too bad though.

I believe that BNSF comes from NP/GN/Milwaukee and a bunch of others that got land grants (and pretty good one at that) to build their roads.

T

 

The difference is, almost nobody wants to ride trains on a regular basis. That is why Amtrak is on life support. Nearly no demand.

 

I'm not against government making some investment to move people around. But it should represent the forms of transport people will actually utilize. Trains may work in some instances, but generally speaking they are very infrastructure intensive compared to bus routes. And without much modification, buses can use carpool lanes that are already in place.

Yet we see massively costly high speed rail projects sold in states like California as a means of easing congestion. Huh?

In the case of these massive rail projects, I just question whether dollars are being allocated properly based on the needs and desires of the mainstream public or whether the decisions are mainly political. Actually I don't question it - the answer is obvious.

 

To some great extent, the reason that people don't ride the train is that Amtrak has been so hobbled by short budgets, they can't make it convenient for folks. It works in the Boston-DC corridor because it can compete with planes on time, and with the dedicated ROW Amtrak has a much easier time scheduling track time.

The Eugene-Vancouver corridor can compete with cars, and come close to competing with air on the major sections. The issue is not enough trains, which to some extent they are at the mercy of the freight RR to, and since there are not trains often enough, people choose to drive. I would take the train from Bellingham to Seattle all the time, but since it only runs twice a day, it can't compete. If there were trains in both directions every hour a person could actually take the train, take care of business and get home in the same day.

The reality is the "don't tax me" crowd likes to make noise about what Amtrak costs, but what would it "cost" if we funded it properly? All those who would take a train over a bus on a 2+ hour trip, please rais your hand.

 

I find trains to be a much better transportation than flying almost all the time. When you include time spent from the moment you enter an airport, transfers, sitting on your neighbor's lap, inability to move around, and the insanity of searches I find it's not much longer to just take the train. Flying is SOMETIMES faster (time in the air is, but that's only part of airline time) and all the benefits of train travel like ability to walk around, get hot water to make your own instant meals, seating comfort, knowledge that if the vehicle quits you won't die, quantity of bathrooms, sight seeing capabilities, and all the rest trains make most sense to me even when time is factored in. I've traveled all around and across the country by train and recommend the experience fully.

 

A Money Maker route...... L.A. to Vegas!!!!!

 

The adage "build it and they will come" seems to have worked very well for cars. People drive because that's the infrastructure that has been provided for them. If the government had invested in street railways, instead of letting the car companies buy them up and rip them out, our cities - not to mention our current trade balance - would look very different.

 

I think these rail cars were replaced by the ones make by Siemens which has a manufacturing plant in central California valley when they are retired.

 

How many people routinely travel from LA to Vegas by private car/bus or plane. ~ 4 hours ~270 miles by car. ~ 1 hour by plane, plus travel time to some LA airport, plus check in, plus security, plus time to travel to down town Vegas,, I bet you would have to budget 4 hours to fly net/net.

High speed train @135 mph does it in 2 hours downtown to downtown. Call it 2.5 hours to account for getting in and out of the stations etc.

I'd do it in a heartbeat if it ran often enough. (assuming I ever went to Vegas!)

(if you can't build high speed rail across the desert where can you build it?)

 

That's not high speed rail, at least by world standards. TGVs have done 186mph in regular service for decades. Both China and Japan have plans for schedules averaging around 220mph. The current speed record is 575 kmh, which I think translates to something over 355mph. Japan's maglev is only slightly faster than France's more conventional design.

Otherwise, I agree. A relatively straight, flat route between Vegas and LA seems like a great spot to try it out. Plus, the money and traffic is there to support it. The party can start on the train.

 

Hyo,

I agree that 135 mph is pretty slow by modern standards, but a 135 mph average would be a damn sight faster than the 110 mph max allowed on conventional Amtrak route. That 110 mph max works our to less than 70 across the US prairies.

Tony

 

They have priced themselves out of the market.

I travel to NYC and when I do its by some Chinese bus line such as MVP, Premium etc for $35 round trip. Amtrak is usually over $100. The bus is a green solution when compared to the car but certainly an electrified train is even more efficient.

Very high labor costs are the primary component of the Amtrak price, not costs of energy or parts to maintain their trains. I am not sure if its union problems or just that they are very labor in-efficient but they need to control labor costs.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation AMTRAK Fiscal Year 2010

 

Well, here in Europe, trains are the primary mean of commutation. In the Czech, we have very dense railway network, with trains connecting every little village with several hundreds of inhabitants with the rest of the world.The trains are relatively cheap and a lot more people travel by train than by car.

Although our trains are somewhat obsolete and not very appealing, they are still the transportation method of choice for many people. The cars are very common here and almost every family has a car, but majority of people don't use them for regular commutation, but rather for occational trips or when they need to haul anything.

I myself don't commute by car either, I prefer the public transportation in the city, because it's very reliable, a lot cheaper and often faster method than a car. Underground trains seldom get stuck in a traffic jam :madgrin:.

 

GM used to build locomotives. High speed rail sounds great but who is going to lay the track? High speed trains can't run on our infrastructure. I have taken the train to NY but it is not convenient (change & wait in Trenton), takes longer, & costs more than driving the Prius. (Sorry Barbara.)

 

What's the big deal about laying track? How much subsidy does a mile of interstate hwy get? I hate the argument in the US that " we can't afford it"! It is a bs argument, as we can afford nearly anything if we are willing to pay for it, and perhaps give up something else.

I would argue that the greenhouse gasses saved by going with a good intercity rail system would more than pay for itself relative to what it would cost to cut those gasses from cars.

 

There is little demand for the product they currently provide outside the NEC, yes. However the idea that nobody wants to ride trains on a regular basis is yet another joke. Take a look at trains in NYC/NJ, DC, or Europe, Japan, etc.

Most people have no problem regularly riding a train when the service is good and the price is not out of line with alternatives. In fact in my experience I think people prefer the train when those conditions are met.

The problem, of course, is meeting those conditions.

 

It's all in the funding. If transportation dollars were meted out according to share of use, instead of all of us subsidising cars so heavily, we'd have much better choices.

 

Yes indeed. It helps a lot from an incentive standpoint when you have no cheap oil resources of your own, and are acutely aware of your dependence on foreign energy sources, often from politically unstable nations.
Both France and Japan have the lead in these HST arenas precisely for that reason.

 

Exactly so!

 

Don't want to offend anyone, but in the US train service is simply pre-historical.
I often went to CA for work in the Bay Area - quite densily populated, but nothing more than EU. The train service from SJ to SF is a joke. Almost 1hr to cover 48miles/77km with the "Baby Bullet" service. It should take 30mins. Munich-Augsburg (70km), takes 38mins. And it is not highspeed line. Munich-Nurnberg - (166km), 1hr - on a high speed line. And Munich is not connected with the best high speed connections.
If you want to take the train from SF (or SJ for that matter) to LA (381mi/611km via HWY5) - forget it - how long does it take? 8 to 10hrs....
Considering that most of the trip is done on flat land, a high speed line with average speed of 250km/h-155mph or faster, could cover that in 2-3hrs. Forget then of taking the car and even the airplane!
The real problem is then, you get to LA station and then what? then you are stranded in a urban sprawl without end, where the pedestrian pavements are sometimes and option, where you need a car to get *anywhere*. So either the train station has a rental car hub, is connected directly to a subway connected exactly where you want to go, or you are out of luck. Not considering LA traffic. Taxi is your best option. The situation is *much* better in SF, but it's one of a kind, together with NY.
So, in the US, building high-speed train connections between cities could be an excellent solution, but only one part of the problem. It doesn't help to get someplace if you don't know how to go further to your destination without a car. The car lobby is who you need to thank for being car slaves in the US. You need a car "to buy a liter of milk". Who is walking to get the newspaper/groceries? Honestly?

Land is often "easy for construction" (lot of flat areas, without cities, etc.) to build a high speed track compared to EU, but it would require complete separation from the roads, no same-level crossings and fencing for the whole track line. A 155mph train hitting something, and you are heading for hell. This is what for example is done in France, and so far they had only 1 minor accident. This is what they have done in Japan as well.
For example in Japan, Tokyo-Kyoto (511km/317mi) takes 6hr by car, 2.5hrs with the direct service. Extremely expensive (14050Yen / 150$), extremely fast, extremely convenient (a train every 10-20mins or more often).
Although car is cheaper on average (fuel costs, this does not take into account the overall costs of owning a car, BTW) than a train trip, the safety, peace of mind, (sometimes) the speed, the convenience, the saved time, is simply way better that being behind a steering wheel in a traffic jam on a highway.