What we need in this country...
 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dw4zn-qw1oM

We should invest in a high speed rail network between all the major cities. Screw the airlines and interstates.


Who would ever fly or drive when you can get on a train in Boston and in total comfort run at 250mph to NY City, or DC, or Philly?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI9FCPrxY80
This, I want this, if I were President I'd be pushing for this.

I have been a proponent of a properly operated high speed rail system for YEARS. When I was a young man in Germany many years ago I was amazed at how well one could get around on their train system.

Amtrak has done a very effective job of souring the average American on the idea unfortunately.

Oh its horrible, plus the trains in our country are way to slow. 60-80 is to slow, you need to do at least twice that, or ideally much, much faster.

NY to LA for example is 2,500 miles +/- a few. So if we had a train like the Chinese did running you could do that trip in about 10 hours. If you bump the train up which I would expect we could do to say 350 mph you could do it in 7 hours...

No Airport security BS, on a totally comfortable train.

I agree. MagLev in fact. If I were O, I'd have been pushing for this kind of thing big time, instead of this stupid green energy crap and bank bailouts. Though I have to say I'd also have been looking to upgrade older infrastructure like the interstates.

- Peter.

Problem is that the TSA will attempt to impose airline-style security on the system. The numbnuts wankstains even searched passengers getting OFF a train in Savannah two years ago.

http://boardingarea.com/blogs/thewanderingaramean/2011/03/amtrak-fires-the-tsa/
http://theintelhub.com/2011/03/01/tsa-pat-down-savannah-train-video-full-first-hand-account-of-what-happened-during-tsa-search-after-getting-off-train/

Amtrak is pretty amazing I think: every time I used it it left on time; plenty of room; comfy seats, even if you don't go 1st class; always a decent stocked restaurant/bar. If you go first class, doesn't cost that much more, you get a free newspaper and coffee. And the best of all you can leave your seat for a walk with out someone taking it.

In comparison with Germany or Holland where the government spent's billions and billions of Euro's on public transport; trains hardly ever leave on time or don't even run at all; they are packed to the max; seats are uncomfortable; tickets are expensive for the amount of miles traveled; no restaurants on regular trains; some trains don't even have toilets; you can only buy a ticket if you have a national ATM or credit card...without it you're pretty much f*c#@*d.

The only good thing is it gets you every where...sort of.

What you say may be true for Germany and Holland (haven't been in a while), but I've taken Eurostar as well as local trains in France recently. The experience wasn't as bad as you described. I paid for the Eurostar ticket with a US card #. The other tickets I bought for good 'ol cash. Some had bathrooms, some didn't, but that didn't matter on the short-distance trains (BTW, some local trains in NJ also lack toilets).

The rail systems in Poland and the Czech Republic also worked pretty well when I used them. Crowded is a good thing, as long as people aren't stuck standing -- trains running empty don't make a whole lot of sense.

I had the same thought. I expect that the TSA would still have their hands in your pocket and who knows where else.

One of my friends from high school worked in her congressman's office on a huge project to try and promote high speed rail. I can't remember who the member was though, even if it was house or senate. I'll have to ask her if anything happened with it, she's in Belgium working on her PhD now so I don't think it went anywhere...

In the late sixties early seventies, you could only buy train tickets with cash as I recall. You could buy bus tickets with coins from a vending machine and maybe train tickets too.

When I traveled in Europe a lot in the early 2000's, paying with credit card was highly desirable for me so I don't remember if they took cash. I didn't use the train much, but I remember a relatively high speed train trip from Brussels to Paris. It was quite pleasant and seemed to get over 100mph or more in certain stretches. That was faster than US trains but I agree with Hat about a really high speed train being necessary in the US.

The high-speed train, the Thalys, you took witch travels from Amsterdam to Paris can only come to it's full potential (300km/h) between Brussels and Paris where it has it's own designated high speed track. Between Brussels and Amsterdam it shares the track with regular trains, something that could be easily avoided in the US. And an interesting fact is that Air France books seats on the Thalys between Paris and Brussels; no Air France flights from Paris to Brussels.

I would love to see a high-speed railroad system in the US and I'm amazed with the space we have here it's such a problem to achieve.

SNCF's TGV rocks. Period.
 

Say what you want bad about France but if SNCF sez the TGV to Lyon departs Paris Gare de Lyon at 10:51 you better damned well be inside the door at 10:50 because that MoFo is pulling out at 10:51 and they don't GAS if you're on it or not. Admirable.

Not so admirable is advertising the line from Montpellier to Carcassone as TGV...well, you do ride in a TGV trainset but at regular track speed. Once you leave Montpellier it is high speed business as usual. From a passenger and logistics standpoint it makes sense but being an outsider it isn't clear that the line is in actuality, regular rail service.

--------------------------------

Acela is pretty cool, whistles along at a fair clip and is capable of much more. The real estate to fix that limitation isn't going to come cheap.

FWIW, the USA isn't a good candidate for nationwide high-speed rail...too much ground to cover. At speeds between 150-200mph, the advantage is lost if you need to travel more than 300-400 miles. That's where aircraft come into their own.

However, there are plenty of corridors besides the NE that would benefit from 150+ mph rail service.

I knew it was fast but I didn't want to risk overstating it. It was very quiet and comfortable as well.

I'd say more like 600 miles is the break even point. 600 miles = 4 hr by train at 150 mph.

By plane, it's a 2 hr flight, including takeoff, landing, taxiing, and boarding. Add another hour for security/bag check/BS and another hour of travel to airports (which are often far from populated areas), and you have 4 hr. Trains can also stop at smaller cities along the way more easily than planes, making access faster.

I say 300-400 because if there's 600 mi between city centers you can't do 150 for the entire duration. For example the TGV runs regular rail from the various stations out to the dedicated TGV railway. I'd say that there's at least 20 miles of slow running from Gare de Lyon to the TGV railway. Takes a good half hour to 45min to run that distance. I don't have a feel for what the distance is at the other stops.

Of course, on the train you are generally closer to town than an airport.