Is it time to invest in companies who make railroad passenger equipment?

[BenBurch]

Looks to me like the airline sector is basically OVER.

Except for crossing oceans, in a few years there will be NO air travel; Oil prices will prohibit this except for the rich.

Which means, I think, that we will see huge growth in the railroad sector at all levels, and possibly even entirely new rail lines built for passenger use.

For example, an LA to LV maglev line has recently been authorized.

And on ALL existing Amtrak lines, passenger traffic is at or near capacity, and they just do not have enough equipment to add the extra coaches and extra movements they would need to carry demand at peak times.

What do you all think?

[bobrayner]

Looks to me like the airline sector is basically OVER.

Except for crossing oceans, in a few years there will be NO air travel; Oil prices will prohibit this except for the rich.

Then why do the makers of airliners have huge order-books? The airlines reckon they'll need thousands more airliners in future.

Boeing have a backlog of 3645 airliners (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm).

Airbus have a backlog of 3655 airliners (http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/).

Most of these orders are for short-haul aircraft.

Which means, I think, that we will see huge growth in the railroad sector at all levels, and possibly even entirely new rail lines built for passenger use.

New railways are already being built in some places. Construction never stopped; it just slowed down.

For example, an LA to LV maglev line has recently been authorized.

A practical (ie. affordable, reliable) maglev system has supposedly been Just Around The Corner for decades.

Also, incompatibility with existing infrastructure means that key advantages of existing railways are lost. Good luck building completely new routes and termini in congested cities!

And on ALL existing Amtrak lines, passenger traffic is at or near capacity, and they just do not have enough equipment to add the extra coaches and extra movements they would need to carry demand at peak times.

What do you all think?

I think that makers of rolling-stock have traditionally been rather fragmented (though there's been some consolidation lately) and many have had trouble getting into the 21st century. ;-)

Some will have rich times ahead, but some will not - good luck picking the one that'll catch the next big wave of orders.

The UK has already had a surge of orders over the last few years - enough to shrink the average age of rolling-stock by 7 years (http://www.rail-reg.gov.uk/upload/pdf/330-rev4.pdf) between 2000 and 2006.

[balrog666]

Looks to me like the airline sector is basically OVER.

Except for crossing oceans, in a few years there will be NO air travel; Oil prices will prohibit this except for the rich.

Which means, I think, that we will see huge growth in the railroad sector at all levels, and possibly even entirely new rail lines built for passenger use.

For example, an LA to LV maglev line has recently been authorized.

And on ALL existing Amtrak lines, passenger traffic is at or near capacity, and they just do not have enough equipment to add the extra coaches and extra movements they would need to carry demand at peak times.

What do you all think?


Not gonna happen.

Railroad usage is already over capacity just for freight. "Someone" is going to have to finance the laying of another 50000 miles of brand new high-speed track before anything happens with passenger rail. So, BOHICA.

[bobrayner]

Some might be interested in this:
http://edition.cnn.com/2008/TRAVEL/06/25/highspeed.rail/

[Roboramma]

China certainly sees the need to expand it's rail network - shanghai's already got a small test maglev line in the city, and there has been talk building one to nearby cities.

Then there's the huge high-speed rail project that will link Shanghai and Beijing:
http://www.railway-technology.com/projects/beijing/
The new high-speed line will be designed for 300km/h (186mph) operation and reduce the journey time between Beijing and Shanghai from 14 hours to just five. An estimated 220,000 passengers per day will use the trains.

[Roboramma]

Not gonna happen.

Railroad usage is already over capacity just for freight. "Someone" is going to have to finance the laying of another 50000 miles of brand new high-speed track before anything happens with passenger rail. So, BOHICA.

Why do all 50,000 miles have to be laid at once?
It's it's economical to open up a passenger rail from two, not too far apart cities, then it'll be done.
If passenger travel is high enough in demand, it could be more economical than freight, and cars could be converted.
And as they make money on passenger travel, the railway companies will have the funds to open up more passenger routes.

[BenBurch]

If we divert the money from interstate roads projects to rail projects, 50,000 miles can be done in a decade or less. If you look at the VAST network of interurban electric "light" railways that existed in the USA before 1920, growing from almost nothing in 1890, and which disappeared with the coming of the automobile, you can see how to proceed.

Because we don't really have a choice.

BTW - expect those back-orders of aircraft to dry up somewhat and for almost all existing aircraft to be grounded in favor of the most fuel-efficient new ones that can be bought.

[dudalb]

If we divert the money from interstate roads projects to rail projects, 50,000 miles can be done in a decade or less. If you look at the VAST network of interurban electric "light" railways that existed in the USA before 1920, growing from almost nothing in 1890, and which disappeared with the coming of the automobile, you can see how to proceed.

Because we don't really have a choice.

BTW - expect those back-orders of aircraft to dry up somewhat and for almost all existing aircraft to be grounded in favor of the most fuel-efficient new ones that can be bought.

God, you really WANT America to go back to about 1890, don't you, because somehow you think that will make a "better, more just" society.

[bobrayner]

I doubt http://www.railway-technology.com/ is the best source.
How about Railway Gazette (http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2008/05/8450/network_expansion_plan_aims_to_reach_100000nbspkm_ by_2020.html)?

If we divert the money from interstate roads projects to rail projects, 50,000 miles can be done in a decade or less. If you look at the VAST network of interurban electric "light" railways that existed in the USA before 1920, growing from almost nothing in 1890, and which disappeared with the coming of the automobile, you can see how to proceed.

Because we don't really have a choice.

I'm not sure that a transport system predating car ownership is the best template for 21st century transport planning.

Still, modal shift would be a Good Thing. (The EU supports various projects (http://ec.europa.eu/ten/transport/projects/doc/2008_ten_t_implementation_en.pdf) on this basis)

BTW - expect those back-orders of aircraft to dry up somewhat and for almost all existing aircraft to be grounded in favor of the most fuel-efficient new ones that can be bought.

Are you sure? Why would orders dry up if airlines are going to replace old aircraft with new ones?

The order books have got bigger recently, not smaller.

[balrog666]

Why do all 50,000 miles have to be laid at once?
It's it's economical to open up a passenger rail from two, not too far apart cities, then it'll be done.


They don't have to be laid all at once, but you cannot start a service without rail rights. Which you don't have without building a line.

And you overlook the fact that there is not a single private railroad company in the entire US even involved in passenger service and there hasn't been one for thirty-five years.

So, if you want to expand taxpayer-subsidized AMTRAK, which loses about $100 for every non-commuter passenger, you must first get the President to propose, and the Congress to pass, a trillion dollar Railroads Improvement Act to rebuild the railroads so we can subsidize them even further.

If passenger travel is high enough in demand, it could be more economical than freight, and cars could be converted.
And as they make money on passenger travel, the railway companies will have the funds to open up more passenger routes.


It's not. There is no real demand and passenger service hasn't made a profit in the US in over 50 years.

You overlook the fact, that, by law, freight service has priority right-of-way on their own rails and that would be all long distance tracks. So, for passengers, it's very slow, inconvenient, and a complete waste of time and dollars. Again, it's back to that trillion dollar taxpayer proposal or it's nothing.

So ... not gonna happen.

[balrog666]

Why do all 50,000 miles have to be laid at once?
It's it's economical to open up a passenger rail from two, not too far apart cities, then it'll be done.
If passenger travel is high enough in demand, it could be more economical than freight, and cars could be converted.
And as they make money on passenger travel, the railway companies will have the funds to open up more passenger routes.

If we divert the money from interstate roads projects to rail projects, 50,000 miles can be done in a decade or less. If you look at the VAST network of interurban electric "light" railways that existed in the USA before 1920, growing from almost nothing in 1890, and which disappeared with the coming of the automobile, you can see how to proceed.

Because we don't really have a choice.

BTW - expect those back-orders of aircraft to dry up somewhat and for almost all existing aircraft to be grounded in favor of the most fuel-efficient new ones that can be bought.


You overlook one more fact, and that is that railroads go from where you aren't (rural/industrial freight depots) to where you don't want to go (urban or semi-urban freight depots).

So, if you want nice new service to go from new passenger terminals to someplace useful, like other passenger terminals with parking and storage and urban access, you have to relocate and rebuild every single rail depot in the USA, add support buildings, parking, and man the staffing requirements, and, even before that, get new rail rights-of-way to build the brand new rail lines that aren't there now.


Not gonna happen.

[Francesca R]

Looks to me like the airline sector is basically OVER.

[ . . . ]

What do you all think?With respect, I think that is ridiculous. :) Aeroplanes will more likely fly on other stuff. Who knows? :)

[a_unique_person]

With respect, I think that is ridiculous. :) Aeroplanes will more likely fly on other stuff. Who knows? :)

Pixie Dust?

[Francesca R]

Pixie Dust?There is rather more groundwork done that that so far. Alternative energy exusts in the future, but not, IMO, in pixieland.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11565685

[a_unique_person]

There is rather more groundwork done that that so far. Alternative energy exusts in the future, but not, IMO, in pixieland.

http://www.economist.com/specialreports/displayStory.cfm?story_id=11565685

I'm all in favour of alternative energy, but that's not going to support a growing air sector that relies on a high density energy source.

[a_unique_person]

Then why do the makers of airliners have huge order-books? The airlines reckon they'll need thousands more airliners in future.

Boeing have a backlog of 3645 airliners (http://active.boeing.com/commercial/orders/index.cfm).

Airbus have a backlog of 3655 airliners (http://www.airbus.com/en/corporate/orders_and_deliveries/).

Most of these orders are for short-haul aircraft.



They are not backlogs, they are planned turnover and planned growth based on the previously expected cost of energy.

[coalesce]

Just using Metro-North as an example (the commuter rail service between NYC and upstate New York, which I ride for 140 miles every day), there has been a steady increase in passengers in the last two years. The company is presently laying more track to accommodate the increase demand and it is exceedingly reliable (unlike the Long Island Rail Road). The PATH train, which connects New York City to New Jersey, has also seen a 4% increase in their passengers in the last couple of months, as gas has exceeded $4 per gallon here in New York and more people are choosing the train over their cars. I can certainly see a greater investment in capital for existing rail networks, but I don't think that rails are going to replace airplane travel any time soon, if at all, mainly because of the time factor. People want to get from New York to Miami in 2.5 hours, not in the 8-or-so hours it would take a high-speed rail train to travel the same distance.

Michael

ETA:

I suck in math, so my "8-or-so hours" figure was meant to cover my prodigious posterior.

[bobrayner]

They are not backlogs, they are planned turnover and planned growth based on the previously expected cost of energy.

Presumably you're thinking of a "previously expected cost of energy" that's much lower?

Why, then, are airlines been racing to buy more fuel-efficient designs? Why have manufacturers (like Airbus and Boeing) been under such intense pressure to make innovations in fuel-efficiency over the last few years?

Airlines, and airliner-makers, aren't ignoring the fuel price trends. They're adapting.

[Doubt]

Well, thanks to working in the heat treatment of metals, I can say that you would not need to invest in passenger equipment specifically. Keep in mind that all rolling stock is similar.

If there was a shift to more rail traffic I would look at cargo instead of people. Fewer trucks and more box cars. Although there are already plenty of hybrid truck trailer/rail cars in existence now too.

My recent trip to India was to start up equipment used to make bearings for railroad cars. The bearings are the same regardless of what rides on top of the wheels.

Since the rise of aviation, passenger trains have not done well in the US. IMHO, this is not likely to change in the near future. The usefulness of rail traffic compared to aircraft depends on a lot more than fuel cost. Population densities are one factor. Travel time also is a cost for those on business trips. Then you have investments in large, not very flexible infrastructure to consider. And as somebody already mentioned, the legal right of way for the railroads is not cheap to get.

[BenBurch]

God, you really WANT America to go back to about 1890, don't you, because somehow you think that will make a "better, more just" society.

Wow, please stop misrepresenting what I am saying.

First, I used that as an example of just how fast a network can grow given need. ALL of that network of hundreds of interurban lines was established with private capital in ~ 30 years.

Second, EVEN if we went with that model again, the Interurban has never died and in places really modern interurban cars are in use today, for example the Chicago, South Shore and South Bend line.

Third there even were HIGH SPEED Interurban lines; The Chicago North Shore and Milwaukee Railroad had the Electroliners which could navigate city street grade level trackage with the typical impossible radius curves but which could hit 80 mph on the graded main line up to Milwaukee. You could do better today I am sure.

Finally, I will thank you very much not to impose your straw man ideas of what Progressives think on what I am saying now and in the future. Remember that Teddy Roosevelt was a Progressive, for example, and understand that the concept is that we can IMPROVE the world we live in.

I do not want this because its "more fair" or "more democratic" or "more green" but because it is possible to run with fixed-plant power such as that you can get burning coal or burning garbage or burning oil shale directly or from nuclear, wind, tidal, hydroelectric and solar power stations - Liquid fuels are going to be a huge industrial problem and perhaps we need to think about how to travel from one place to another without them, eh?

If we keep on as we have been keeping on, I know how we will travel in 100 years;

http://www.legendsofamerica.com.nyud.net/photos-oldwest/CoveredWagon1886-500.jpg

[BenBurch]

... And as somebody already mentioned, the legal right of way for the railroads is not cheap to get.

Its called the Federal highway system. It already goes everywhere people will want to travel, and in most places is acceptably graded for passenger rail operations.

[balrog666]

Its called the Federal highway system. It already goes everywhere people will want to travel, and in most places is acceptably graded for passenger rail operations.


You will have to reconstruct every bridge, overpass, and underpass; you will need barriers to keep idiots off the rails on every mile of track you lay; there are no entrance/exitways and no contingencies for them; and there are no passenger depots anywhere there is not current commuter service (the Northeast and Chicago).

You can't spark demand before you have service.

And while there will always be a few people who would willing travel on railways to get to someplace in 3-4 days that they could have flown to in 4 hours, they generally will usually do that only if it is significantly cheaper to do - which it cannot be unless it is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Fat chance there.

Not gonna happen.

[imjohn]

Long distance rail travel died so quickly because it was slow, unpleasant and dangerous.

[BenBurch]

You will have to reconstruct every bridge, overpass, and underpass; you will need barriers to keep idiots off the rails on every mile of track you lay; there are no entrance/exitways and no contingencies for them; and there are no passenger depots anywhere there is not current commuter service (the Northeast and Chicago).

You can't spark demand before you have service.

And while there will always be a few people who would willing travel on railways to get to someplace in 3-4 days that they could have flown to in 4 hours, they generally will usually do that only if it is significantly cheaper to do - which it cannot be unless it is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Fat chance there.

Not gonna happen.

All solvable.

The alternative is we fuel automobiles and jetliners how, exactly?

[bobrayner]

Long distance rail travel died so quickly because it was slow, unpleasant and dangerous.

Which long-distance rail travel are you thinking of? Perhaps in one specific country?

In many places, it's popular, fast, and comfortable. (The former springs from the latter two).

At the moment I live in a nondescript town in the UK; if I want to go see friends in Belgium then I have a choice between air, car, or rail. Rail is the fastest and the cheapest - and I can even work on my laptop, or read a book, whilst in transit. Try doing that when shuffling between checkpoints at the airport.

Long-distance rail travel is, as a rule, much safer than driving. I could dig up some accident statistics if you want?

[BenBurch]

Which long-distance rail travel are you thinking of? Perhaps in one specific country?

In many places, it's popular, fast, and comfortable. (The former springs from the latter two).

...

I took "The Super Chief" from Chicago to LA in 1966 and it was comfortable, safe and fast.

It was driving BACK in the back seat of my Aunt Mary's 1961 Chevy on Route 66 that was hot, slow, and dangerous.

[a_unique_person]

You will have to reconstruct every bridge, overpass, and underpass; you will need barriers to keep idiots off the rails on every mile of track you lay; there are no entrance/exitways and no contingencies for them; and there are no passenger depots anywhere there is not current commuter service (the Northeast and Chicago).

You can't spark demand before you have service.

And while there will always be a few people who would willing travel on railways to get to someplace in 3-4 days that they could have flown to in 4 hours, they generally will usually do that only if it is significantly cheaper to do - which it cannot be unless it is heavily subsidized by taxpayers. Fat chance there.

Not gonna happen.

What they did in the Australian city of Perth in recent years was put rail down the middle of new freeways. It has been an excellent investment, and makes the laying of new rail much cheaper.

[Kestrel]

I took "The Super Chief" from Chicago to LA in 1966 and it was comfortable, safe and fast.

It was driving BACK in the back seat of my Aunt Mary's 1961 Chevy on Route 66 that was hot, slow, and dangerous.

I had a somewhat hot trip on the San Francisco Zephyr in 1977. The steam powered air conditioner on our train car broke down.

[balrog666]

Which long-distance rail travel are you thinking of? Perhaps in one specific country?

In many places, it's popular, fast, and comfortable. (The former springs from the latter two).

At the moment I live in a nondescript town in the UK; if I want to go see friends in Belgium then I have a choice between air, car, or rail. Rail is the fastest and the cheapest - and I can even work on my laptop, or read a book, whilst in transit. Try doing that when shuffling between checkpoints at the airport.

Long-distance rail travel is, as a rule, much safer than driving. I could dig up some accident statistics if you want?

Belgium? That's what, 200 km away?

It's all a matter of scale and population density which makes it infeasible and unprofitable here. For example, if you want to get from Chicago to LA, that's over 2000 km. Want to go from LA to Jacksonville, a popular straight-line rail route? That's 3500 km and it currently takes seven days or more to get from one end to the other.

And let's hope you don't have to stop at every podunk cow town along the way ...

not gonna happen.

[balrog666]

What they did in the Australian city of Perth in recent years was put rail down the middle of new freeways. It has been an excellent investment, and makes the laying of new rail much cheaper.

Most of our interstate highway system was laid out 50 years ago and has been overbuilt and expanded where the traffic is highest and many such areas don't really have any median left, just a concrete divider.

And following highway lines through the mountains won't work because the vehicular grades are too steep for railroads.

Not gonna happen and :iblamelisa:

[Rob Lister]

Most of our interstate highway system was laid out 50 years ago and has been overbuilt and expanded where the traffic is highest and many such areas don't really have any median left, just a concrete divider.

And following highway lines through the mountains won't work because the vehicular grades are too steep for railroads.

Not gonna happen and :iblamelisa:

maybe, but wouldn't it have been nice to include dual rail lines (where applicable) at the time we were laying those highways? After all, it's the grading that is the biggest cost (excepting unions of course, but that's a different thread!)

The individual railroads could then pay their own way in terms of access. Could'a, would'a, should'a, I suppose.

As too opening post...no, bad investment until such time as the political problems with the railroad unions are fixed. Until then they will always be losers, no matter how much they make.

[Kestrel]

As too opening post...no, bad investment until such time as the political problems with the railroad unions are fixed. Until then they will always be losers, no matter how much they make.

Europe has both unions and and a well functioning passenger rail system.

[Rob Lister]

Europe has both unions and and a well functioning passenger rail system.

No doubt. Unions do not necessarily a failed business make, but the railroad unions in the U.S. have been so influential that they're even included themselves (so to speak) as a line-item on our standard income tax form. Subsidies are the only way our railroads currently survive. It could be fixed if the political initiative was strong enough. I suspect gas would have to go to at least $12/g before that happens though. They're very, very entrenched.

[bobrayner]

Belgium? That's what, 200 km away?

Google maps says 460km by road from here, but that's neither here nor there.

It's all a matter of scale and population density which makes it infeasible and unprofitable here. For example, if you want to get from Chicago to LA, that's over 2000 km. Want to go from LA to Jacksonville, a popular straight-line rail route? That's 3500 km and it currently takes seven days or more to get from one end to the other.

Quite. What proportion of journeys (including rail, air, car, hovercraft, &c) are 2000km or more?

I hope nobody's suggesting that high speed rail should be used for everything. Just for what it's good at. Does the USA have any clusters of cities separated by shorter distances, with heavy passenger flows between them? In the Northeast, perhaps, or California, or around Chicago?

I once travelled to Hong Kong by rail, with a very zigzag route, but that was just for fun. The flight home was much faster (four weeks faster, in fact).

[Kestrel]

Belgium? That's what, 200 km away?

It's all a matter of scale and population density which makes it infeasible and unprofitable here. For example, if you want to get from Chicago to LA, that's over 2000 km. Want to go from LA to Jacksonville, a popular straight-line rail route? That's 3500 km and it currently takes seven days or more to get from one end to the other.

Where rail can be competitive is short trips between major cities. If the journey by train is two hours or less, the speed advantage of air travel disappears. The fight itself may be quick, but once you add in the time to get to and from the airport on each end, the train is faster.

How many city pairs can be linked this way depends on the train speed. Rail travel between Boston and NYC on 120 MPH trains is competitive with air travel between these cities. Crank up the train speed to 150 MPH and lots of other city pairs could such as Miami to Tampa, Houston to Dallas, or Los Angeles to Las Vegas could have competitive rail service.

When you start linking US cities with 200 MPH trains an interesting thing happens. The linked city pairs where train service competes with air travel become a national network that connects with almost every major city.

[Kestrel]

No doubt. Unions do not necessarily a failed business make, but the railroad unions in the U.S. have been so influential that they're even included themselves (so to speak) as a line-item on our standard income tax form. Subsidies are the only way our railroads currently survive. It could be fixed if the political initiative was strong enough. I suspect gas would have to go to at least $12/g before that happens though. They're very, very entrenched.

Actually railroads in the US have been profitable for a couple of decades. Blaming unions for the plight of the railroads went out of fashion sometime back in the 1970s.

[Rob Lister]

Actually railroads in the US have been profitable for a couple of decades.

Not if you subtract the subsidies.

[BenBurch]

Not if you subtract the subsidies.

What subsidies would those be? ONLY passenger rail (which is governmentally run anyway) gets actual subsidies. The best the railroads get is property tax breaks.

LOL.

Now, compare to the interstate trucking industry which pays almost nothing compared to the actual costs of the roads on which it operates.

Were the playing field leveled, almost nothing would move by truck.

[balrog666]

Europe has both unions and and a well functioning passenger rail system.


And a much higher population density.


Google maps says 460km by road from here, but that's neither here nor there.



Quite. What proportion of journeys (including rail, air, car, hovercraft, &c) are 2000km or more?

I hope nobody's suggesting that high speed rail should be used for everything. Just for what it's good at. Does the USA have any clusters of cities separated by shorter distances, with heavy passenger flows between them? In the Northeast, perhaps, or California, or around Chicago?

I once travelled to Hong Kong by rail, with a very zigzag route, but that was just for fun. The flight home was much faster (four weeks faster, in fact).


The Northeast corridor Boston-New York City-Washington DC is essentially one giant urban and semi-urban district. This is one of the few places where passenger rail works and AMTRAK makes a profit. Attempts to greatly expand service there have met with failure and/or extremely high costs.

Chicago is a big railroad hub connecting the NE, SW, NW, and Southern USA rail lines. Attempting a major upgrade there for passenger service is no longer feasible, either economically or politically.

[Travis]

They've been planning a high speed rail line in California for many years now. In fact I believe funding for it will be on the ballot this November. I hope it passes as I support such things.

[Kestrel]

The Northeast corridor Boston-New York City-Washington DC is essentially one giant urban and semi-urban district. This is one of the few places where passenger rail works and AMTRAK makes a profit. Attempts to greatly expand service there have met with failure and/or extremely high costs.

Chicago is a big railroad hub connecting the NE, SW, NW, and Southern USA rail lines. Attempting a major upgrade there for passenger service is no longer feasible, either economically or politically.

At one time, the USA was a nation that could do damn near anything.

But now the prevailing attitude seems to be that we are incapable of such tasks. France figured out how to build a nationwide high speed rail network linking it's major cities. Is our nation less competent than France?

[technoextreme]

At one time, the USA was a nation that could do damn near anything.

But now the prevailing attitude seems to be that we are incapable of such tasks. France figured out how to build a nationwide high speed rail network linking it's major cities. Is our nation less competent than France?
Appeal from emotion and a stupid comparison. Balrogg gave the reason why the re aren't more rail lines. The population density fluctuates wildly between city to city that it just isn't worth it in most cases to have rail lines going from city to city.

[balrog666]

At one time, the USA was a nation that could do damn near anything.

But now the prevailing attitude seems to be that we are incapable of such tasks. France figured out how to build a nationwide high speed rail network linking it's major cities. Is our nation less competent than France?


Florida passed a Constitutional Amendment to build a high-speed railroad line linking the 5 biggest cities in the state. It also passed a Constitutional Amendment not to fund the $19 billion it would cost to build it (ha!-look at the overruns on the Big Dig) and the $1 billion that would be needed to subsidize it's operation every single year.

Borrowing a few trillion to build a new nationwide passenger rail system from the ground up, for which there is no demand or market, seems pretty foolish to me. And the political shenanigans Congress would throw in would be overwhelmingly detrimental, including at least one line through every single state capital and congressional district and probably a bridge to Hawaii or some such nonsense.

[technoextreme]

Florida passed a Constitutional Amendment to build a high-speed railroad line linking the 5 biggest cities in the state. It also passed a Constitutional Amendment not to fund the $19 billion it would cost to build it (ha!-look at the overruns on the Big Dig) and the $1 billion that would be needed to subsidize it's operation every single year.

Borrowing a few trillion to build a new nationwide passenger rail system from the ground up, for which there is no demand or market, seems pretty foolish to me. And the political shenanigans Congress would throw in would be overwhelmingly detrimental, including at least one line through every single state capital and congressional district and probably a bridge to Hawaii or some such nonsense.
How do you know there isn't any demand for it? Trends seem to indicate that the demand is rising namely because of studies showing more people are riding.

[AvarianParakeet]

The problem is that the demand is going to be difficult to prepare for. An airplane can shift routes and cover new demands if markets change. Good luck doing that with a railroad system unless every single square inch of the United States is covered by a nearby railway network.

I do think that trains should get another look. I heard some good things about Chicago's network to its suburbs. That is the only way a rail network would survive. It needs constant almost daily demand for travel at a budget cost. Commuters are the only thing that fulfill this need. You will not have enough traffic between anything but the biggest cities for this to be remotely profitable. If you consider the massive initial expense, then it's no wonder that they haven't been built.

The other thing I'd like to ask is how is this necessarily better. It makes the same argument that environmentalist state about the electric car. It's not really cleaner, the pollution is just being shifted somewhere else. I don't have much research on this myself (hence why I'm asking here) but I don't see how this would necessarily be more viable in the long run given our current energy strain. Putting this kind of burden on the power grid may not be reasonable without immense expansion.

[BenBurch]

Well, I also champion the building of ~3000 500 MW nuclear power stations and part of that calculation was the electrification of the railroads and the synthesis of chemical fuels for those things that could not be electrified.

[Kestrel]

Appeal from emotion and a stupid comparison. Balrogg gave the reason why the re aren't more rail lines. The population density fluctuates wildly between city to city that it just isn't worth it in most cases to have rail lines going from city to city.

Balrogg also stated that building high speed rail in Chicago was infeasible due to existing rail lines. Cities in Europe also had existing rail connections, and were transportation hubs. They figured out how to build high speed rail into those cities. How can you claim that a problem that has already been solved elsewhere can't be solved?

[Kestrel]

The other thing I'd like to ask is how is this necessarily better. It makes the same argument that environmentalist state about the electric car. It's not really cleaner, the pollution is just being shifted somewhere else. I don't have much research on this myself (hence why I'm asking here) but I don't see how this would necessarily be more viable in the long run given our current energy strain. Putting this kind of burden on the power grid may not be reasonable without immense expansion.

Our current problem is with oil and other fossil fuels. Moving more intercity traffic to rail may increase demand for electricity, but you don't have to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. Use nuclear power to generate the electricity and you are not just moving pollution around.

[balrog666]

Our current problem is with oil and other fossil fuels. Moving more intercity traffic to rail may increase demand for electricity, but you don't have to burn fossil fuels to generate electricity. Use nuclear power to generate the electricity and you are not just moving pollution around.


You have the cart before the horse - first you have to build those nuclear power plants, staff them, arrange for waste disposal, arrange for power distribution, have enough excess cheap power for railroads (or electric cars), and build enough high-speed rail lines to matter to prospective passengers who need such transportation, as opposed to tourists and commuters whose objectives are completely different.

And, it's not that it can't be done, but that it would cost more than it would ever save in the next hundred years, even if the electricity was free. All such studies involve trade-offs of benefits versus costs, and if you can't cross that initial hurdle, no private company is going to fund it. Even for governments, it comes down to localized, or specialized, benefits versus distributed costs and it must successfully compete against every other stupid US government program for a place in line for the limited subsidies available in the budget.

Not gonna happen.