Pie in the Sky idea? "Sunday Train: A Nationwide Freight and Passenger Regional HSR System"

I for one, (maybe the only one!) would be in favor of a plan like this.  BUT, Amtrak is now 45 years ago and many plans, promises and dreams have come and gone.  Actually, when Amtrak was first formed nobody thought it would be around for more than a few years so we're all surprised to see it last this long.

As to High Speed Rail, we have several medium high speed rail projects under way:  witness the Michigan ROW between Detroit and Indiana and the route through Illinois between Chicago and St. Louis.  These are both medium speed routes of ab out 110 mph tops, but that's still better than the 79 mph limit on most of the railroads.  And, then, there's the Eastern seaboard route, which regularly runs at 140 mph where they're not doing track work.

Of course, the big factor is economics.  Who's going to pay for such a national system as is being proposed?

Paul Fischer

"Lucky Lindy", as SPIRIT OF ST LOUIS, said one thing which was correct back in the beginnings of air travel.  He said the air industry should pay for everything, and keep the Government out.  The man was REALLY ahead of his time!

What about CHI-DEN?  That would be logical!

Lets all try and remember that ALL the high speed rail systems in Europe, Japan, and Chine are ALL funded, paid for, and maintained by their respective governments, i.e. TAXPAYERS.

Additionally, I remember seeing a very interesting graphic recently, concerning all the talk about the high speed rail system in Europe, where an image of the state of Texas was played over the map of Europe. Texas was LARGER! The distances between U.S. cities are so much greater than Europe, the land and electricity requirements would be simply horrendous. Are we the TAXPAYERS really prepared for astronomical costs?

One of the links from the aforementioned site goes to this:

http://railsolution.org/projec...-interstate-concept/

ELEMENTS OF STEEL INTERSTATE DESIGN: A minimum of two grade-separated through tracks, engineered, signaled, and dispatched for 79 MPH to 110 MPH, offering frequent, reliable service. The electrified Steel Interstate System would create adequate capacity to divert most non-local truck freight to intermodal trains, and to accommodate passenger trains without impairing freight operations.

I understand the skepticism about government boondoggle projects, but federal subsidies of other forms of transportation have gone overboard for several decades. The logic of this idea is to create more efficient rail transportation as summarized in the graphic. Don't know how serious this group is; it sounds like think-tank stuff. But I especially like the part about getting long-haul trucks off the road.

I completely understand this concept, but at the present time who or what would be transported? Coal traffic is down, probably permanently, and there was never a requirement to transport any mineral at high speeds anyway. With the opening of the new and widened Suez canal, there will be less "land bridge" traffic for the railroads. For passengers, many interstate speed limits are now at least 70 mph, so even a high speed RR at 125+ mph may not be high enough, and there are advantages to autos that trains will never have, like convenience, etc. I believe that the RR's and the FRA still classify track from 1 to 6, with corresponding operating speeds and also maintenance requirements, that is one reason why freight and passenger traffic does not mix well. And then there is the cost of building and maintaining such a system. I think that the taxes would increase significantly unless funds were diverted from the state highway system and the air travel system. That ain't gonna happen.....

Bottom line is little traffic due to cost of the system and its energy requirements, and few riders. So that makes this a non starter.

I think there is a good possibility rail travel will be substantially if not totally replaced over the coming decades with robotic, self-driving trucks and automobiles.  The infrastructure is already in place and the technology is about to take off.  Most people will prefer being in a single vehicle for short to medium distance travel rather than a passenger car.  Most companies will prefer the flexibility and lower expense of robotic trucks for freight shipping.  Railroads are yesterday's technology, much the way steam locomotives and horse drawn vehicles are yesterday's technology.  The medium to long term future is almost certainly robotic vehicles and electric powered vehicles (employing solar and other non-polluting sources of electricity). The benefits will be much less air pollution (and lower rates of vascular and lung disease, not to mention cancer), much less time wasted in traffic, increased productivity for everyone with office jobs,  and tens of thousands of fewer deaths per year.   The downside will be increased unemployment for those currently involved in the trucking industry as drivers.

So while on balance this seems attractive for the short haul, it's probably a dinosaur for the medium to long haul.  Railroads will likely remain cost effective for some cargoes, but since oil and coal are yesterday's fuels, not tomorrow's, it's not clear, at least to me,  what those cargoes will be, if any.

I cannot imagine US Citizens giving up their cars for mass transportation. With a car, you come and go as you please, to and from exactly where you want to go.
I suspect that the places where passenger rail service makes sense already have it. Just recently I read that the train station that services Albany, NY is one of the busiest ones in the country. Why?..... because Albany is the capital of NYS, but a lot of state business is also conducted in New York City, so a lot of people travel between the two cities by rail. Driving is difficult due to traffic congestion in the NYC area, and there is a shortage of parking. Plus, when government employees travel on the state's dime, they are required to travel by train because it is less expensive than reimbursing people for the use of their automobiles.

People who propose and advocate such systems have no grasp of reality.  Connecting America's heartland with high speed passenger railroad is a ludicrous idea.  Far too few people, going to far too many places, at far too great of an expense.  Someone mentioned Amtrak's Michigan service.  I ran some numbers a couple of years ago, and I think the state of Michigan (not the federal government, just Michigan) subsidizes each ticket sold on those trains to the tune of about $30.  In Indiana, I think we kick in about $20 for each ticket on the Hoosier State, and NEITHER of these services truly provide car competitive service.  They generally serve people who want to place the burden of transportation expense onto someone else.  As far as freight, I'm IN the trucking business, and such a low percentage of the freight that moves has even the SLIGHTEST chance of ever going even part way by rail. The rails are too slow, too costly and don't go enough places.  A big part of our business is hauling truckloads of ice cream from the factory to Midwest distribution centers.  It's all under 300 miles, and neither the factory or ANY of the distribution centers have rail service.  We haul lots of other consumer and industrial products, and the story is same.  Too small of quantities going to too many places and needed ASAP, and usual no rail infrastructure to get it there anyway. There IS room for rail growth, but we are talking percentage points, not even a fraction of what it would cost to re-design the national rail network.  There has been a plan to connect Columbus Ohio with Chicago via Fort Wayne for some time.  The proponents have ZERO CONCEPT of the millions of dollars a mile it would cost to convert the old Pennsy route to a true high speed corridor, never mind what it would cost to equip, maintain and staff it, assuming the current owners even want to sell the line, which they have given no indication of doing.  And for what?  So a few dozen people a day can go between these two points can avoid getting in a car or using a bus or plane?  We could connect every city in the US with HSR, and we would STILL need the interstates to do all the REAL work of the nation.  Yes, we subsidize the highways and the airlines.  Why do we want to subsidize a third option that as a rule isn't anywhere close to being as useful to the other two?  I have learned that over the years that arguing these points on rail forums is a lost cause, because all most of the people wan to do is "ride the choo-choo."  Frankly, I have spent a fair amount of time on the SouthShore, Metra, and the L, and honestly,  if I had to do that more than once in a while, I'd shoot myself.

I have a hard time seeing railroads being replaced by robo-trucks--our highway system is in many places overburdened and under-maintained as it is...unless you have a massive expansion of the highway system to accommodate all the self-driving trucks that are going to be needed to "replace" railroads.

Just as much of a non-$tarter, I would think.

---PCJ

I don't see trucks replacing the railroads any more than the railroads will replace trucks.  A massive expansion of the highway system may be what needs to happen, and we won't be able to do it if we waste all the money on a far less useful HSR system.

As I have said for several years since there are on average 10 grade crossing incidents in our county every day there is great need to separate the roads from the railroads. In the meantime one thing that should be done is to install 3 way traffic signals at all public railroad grade crossings just like there is now at most road intersections. I have seen this in Newark, New Jersey and it works there.

Ed G. (Along the Northeast Corridor in Westchester County, NY of Metro-North and Amtrak)

Why should railroads or the taxpayers pay to eliminate or provide redundant measures to careless people from driving into and in front of trains?  Why not crossing gates at highway intersections?  A simple stop sign should suffice just fine in rural areas, where stopping to check for a train is not a traffic issue, and simple flashers for crossings where you don't want traffic to have to stop. Why people don't treat a railroad crossing like any other vehicular intersection is beyond my ability to comprehend, and I have no energy left to ponder why or to feel sorry for them.

Dieselbob posted:

Why should railroads or the taxpayers pay to eliminate or provide redundant measures to careless people from driving into and in front of trains?  Why not crossing gates at highway intersections?  A simple stop sign should suffice just fine in rural areas, where stopping to check for a train is not a traffic issue, and simple flashers for crossings where you don't want traffic to have to stop. Why people don't treat a railroad crossing like any other vehicular intersection is beyond my ability to comprehend, and I have no energy left to ponder why or to feel sorry for them.

Well, when you have drivers who act like the early Daffy Duck, bouncing off the walls, and saying, "Mine, mine, mine", then no signal, lane marking, or LAW is going to work.

NOW, BACK TO TOPIC:  I think there should be some new freight bypasses around some cities and towns. Use the present ones better, like the three in Chicago. Or like the LA "trench", a railroad toll road.  But there might be a speed up on some lines with the use of PTC.  I think using the "toothpaste tube" philosophy on spending might be a better use of money.

$200 million to put a 2.25-mile grade-separated rail corridor through Reno Nevada!  But it is going to prove its worth for decades to come. Government needs to be involved with these sorts of projects because it's not just an improvement for the railroad, it eliminates numerous grade crossings and disruption to highway traffic. The Northeast Corridor has full grade separation and that is needed in other strategic places around the country as a step towards more efficient transportation (road AND rail) and higher rail speeds.

Landsteiner posted:

I think there is a good possibility rail travel will be substantially if not totally replaced over the coming decades with robotic, self-driving trucks and automobiles.  The infrastructure is already in place and the technology is about to take off.  Most people will prefer being in a single vehicle for short to medium distance travel rather than a passenger car.  Most companies will prefer the flexibility and lower expense of robotic trucks for freight shipping.  Railroads are yesterday's technology, much the way steam locomotives and horse drawn vehicles are yesterday's technology.  The medium to long term future is almost certainly robotic vehicles and electric powered vehicles (employing solar and other non-polluting sources of electricity). The benefits will be much less air pollution (and lower rates of vascular and lung disease, not to mention cancer), much less time wasted in traffic, increased productivity for everyone with office jobs,  and tens of thousands of fewer deaths per year.   The downside will be increased unemployment for those currently involved in the trucking industry as drivers.

 

So while on balance this seems attractive for the short haul, it's probably a dinosaur for the medium to long haul.  Railroads will likely remain cost effective for some cargoes, but since oil and coal are yesterday's fuels, not tomorrow's, it's not clear, at least to me,  what those cargoes will be, if any.

I totally agree that self-drive trucks and cars will be the normal mode of highway transportation within 50 years.  People born this year may not need to learn to drive a car just as I didn't need to learn how to ride a horse.  Existing highway capacity will be greatly increased because self-drive vehicles will be able to travel closer together at higher speeds than cars can today.  Accidents and traffic jams will be greatly reduced because self-drive vehicles will not bunch up, suddenly brake for no reason, cut other cars off or do all the other stupid things we humans do when we drive.  Unlike humans, a self-drive vehicle will always pay attention to its driving and to the other cars around it.  

Trucks will be much more efficient because they can be kept constantly on the road.  There will be no driver rest periods.  They will only need to stop to refuel and for maintenance.  This will eliminate most driving jobs which will be a downside.

Self-driving vehicles will change transportation in the 21st century  just as the invention of gas powered cars and trucks changed transportation in the early 20th century.  I would love to come back in 50 years and see the bright new transportation world.  

Freight trains will still be needed to transport large bulky loads that are not time sensitive.  Grain, minerals, bulk chemicals, forest products, airplane sections, and some intermodal loads come to mind.  Passenger trains will play a role between major population centers but long haul passenger trains will most likely be gone.

NH Joe 

New Haven Joe posted:

I totally agree that self-drive trucks and cars will be the normal mode of highway transportation within 50 years ...

Freight trains will still be needed to transport large bulky loads that are not time sensitive.  Grain, minerals, bulk chemicals, forest products, airplane sections, and some intermodal loads come to mind.  Passenger trains will play a role between major population centers but long haul passenger trains will most likely be gone.

NH Joe 

 Yeah, in 1956 GM was predicting self-drive cars for the 1970's. Wait and see.

https://youtu.be/Rx6keHpeYak?t=93

Characterizing railroads as primarily bulk-haulers is a serious over-generalization. It makes a lot more sense to put long-haul trucks/containers on railroads between major hubs and let trucks do the local deliveries. Clear the highways of long-haul heavy trucks to make it safer for automobiles.

Railroads have an inherent efficiency with self-guided steel wheels on steel rails which becomes increasingly important with higher speeds and higher fuel prices. And it's proven technology which is cost effective for widespread use as compared to maglev or untested future technologies.

If the USA ever develops high-speed grade-separated rail passenger service as already exists in France-Germany-Japan-China, rail passenger service will become increasingly attractive for medium-range trips of 1000+ miles. China has 5000+ miles of 124+mph rail routes with heavy usage.

France built their TGV network with new dedicated high-speed cross-country routes, but the trains can still run on connecting conventional tracks into city terminals, which helped keep the costs of construction manageable.

We're falling way behind in high-speed rail because of the highway culture in this country. Sure we want our personal automobiles, but a balanced transportation system will ultimately  include high-speed rail for multiple reasons: fuel/energy efficiency, highway and airline congestion, less sensitive to weather disruptions, cost effectiveness as compared to alternatives, environmental factors, etc.

Self-drive cars will be no panacea for the cities. You still have highway and parking congestion to deal with. Self-drive vehicles may be theoretically possible but the technical complexity and costs and safety will be major issues for any wide-spread use. If we put too much faith in technology we could be crippled by satellite outages or software corruption or low-tech EMP weapons from rogue states. "Can't run the car, the computer is down."

We have 30,000+ vehicle-related fatalities annually in the USA. You want to believe that self-drive cars will fix that?

If we put too much faith in technology we could be crippled by satellite outages or software corruption or low-tech EMP weapons from rogue states. "Can't run the car, the computer is down."

Remember HAL from the movie 2001?

Also, if the car is on auto drive, Big Brother will know where you, or at least where your car is.  Do we as a nation want that?

"

Remember HAL from the movie 2001?"

Sure, it was dystopian science fiction.  The world is a much better place than every previous era, despite the increased potential for technologic tyranny.  You don't need technology for tyranny. Anyone for the Roman Empire? 

Privacy vs. 30-35,000 deaths per year, tens or hundreds of billions of unnecessary medical costs, untold suffering?  An easy call for me.  If you want privacy, move to Antarctica and don't have a computer or a cell phone while you are there.  The frontier is gone otherwise.

Robotic cars and trucks are the future, the technology is almost here, and they will likely completely solve the problem of road traffic deaths, alcohol based stupidity, congestion in cities, parking, etc.  Most people will probably not ever own a car personally eventually, and garages can be used for a higher purpose such as large layouts .

I'm still waiting for my flying car!

Also, if the car is on auto drive, Big Brother will know where you, or at least where your car is.  Do we as a nation want that?

Even before cell phones, if you used a credit card, or a store discount card, "they" knew where you were.
Have a cell phone? ...... they know where you are.
Use a computer ...... they know where you are, and what you are viewing online. They really don't need cookies any more.
Then there is EZ Pass.

Even if you don't use any of these things, some police cars are equipped with license plate readers. Last I read, there is no purge criteria.
And there are cameras all over the place.

Big brother is already here, and knows what you are up to. Might as well enjoy that auto drive.

Dominic Mazoch posted:

... Remember HAL from the movie 2001?

Also, if the car is on auto drive, Big Brother will know where you, or at least where your car is.  Do we as a nation want that?

Ironically, HAL was following his orders to the letter. The crew members hadn't been informed of all the facts behind the mission and political incompetents specified HAL's programming with faulty priorities.

Big Brother already knows where your car is if it has GPS features. Big Brother is developing remote sensing capabilities to monitor vehicle emissions and potentially shut down your car remotely if emissions are out of spec. But relax, it's all part of our wonderful new technology to oversee every aspect of your life.

Remote Sensing of Automobile Emissions Using Raman LIDAR

If self-drive cars are going to rely on GPS the mapping databases will need huge amounts of additional information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPS_navigation_device

GPS navigation device
Mishaps
GPS maps and directions are occasionally imprecise. Some people have gotten lost by asking for the shortest route, like a couple in the United States who were looking for the shortest route from South Oregon to Jackpot, Nevada.[21][22]

In August 2009 a young mother and her six-year-old son became stranded in Death Valley after following GPS directions that led her up an unpaved dead end road. When they were found five days later, her son had died from the effects of heat and dehydration.[23]

In May 2012, Japanese tourists in Australia were stranded when traveling to North Stradbroke Island and their GPS receiver instructed them to drive into Moreton Bay.[24]

Other hazards involve an alley being listed as a street, a lane being identified as a road,[25] or rail tracks as a road.[26]

Obsolete maps sometimes cause the unit to lead a user on an indirect, time-wasting route, because roads may change by as much as 15% in a year. Smartphone GPS information is usually updated automatically, and free of additional charge. Manufacturers of separate GPS devices also offer map update services for their merchandise, usually for a fee.