Is this just in the U.S., or throughout the world? I remember Steve Goodman’s phrase “disappearing railroad blues,” which even Cecil has used. But is railroad mileage being abandoned and torn out elsewhere in the world as well as here? 
They’ve all been run out of town on a rail…
I have no answer for the OP, but I can tell you why I don’t take the train. They’re too expensive. I thought about taking a train from L.A. to New Orleans a few years ago, but when I checked the fares I found that it was much cheaper to fly. I like to think that the journey is as important as the destination, but since I have limited vacation time and there are usually things I need to do at the destination, it’s just not cost-effective to take the train. I guess they’d be okay for short trips within California, but there are very few places in CA I want to go.
Passenger trains are already operating at a deficit (I think – at least there was some discussion about it years ago), so I doubt fares will be coming down. High fares discourage people like me from taking the train, which means that demand is lower. If demand isn’t there and fares can’t be lowered, the only option is to close the service.
Freight trains are still making a buck because it’s cheaper to load them up than it is to dispatch enough trucks to carry the same amount. Often trailers are loaded onto a freight train, carried near their destination, and then offloaded for delivery my trucks.
There are tracks near my flat in West L.A., but they’re no longer used. Some have been pulled up where they cross roads. They go from Santa Monica to downtown L.A. Now freight and passengers have to get off downtown. Not that I’m not a “railroad fan”, but I do know there is a large yard in Barstow, CA (about 1/3 or 1/2 of the way from L.A. to Las Vegas).
There aren’t enough people riding trains because there aren’t enough trains to provide transportation at a competitive price. And there aren’t enough trains because there aren’t enough people to ride them. At least out west, there isn’t the necessary infrastructure. Sure there are the costal trains, but for serious travelling it’s for efficient (for me) to fly.
FWIW, I’ve heard there are new plans for a high-speed train similar to Japan’s “bullet train”. Let’s hope it works out. Trains are cool.
Freight trains are not only surviving (although the Surface Transportation Board has allowed the largest class carriers to merge several times to become just two lines: the Burlington Northern-Santa Fe and Union Pacific) they are slowly growing.
Freight train lines were in serious trouble for a long time to to tremendous inefficiencies, enormously overpaid and bloated workforces, and the existence of several key bottlenecks in our transportation system (several of which still exist, especially in the South and Southwest). You may recall the fuss and horror in the media when the rail lines tried to remove the cabooses, because that would put so many people out of work, and how the Rail Unions threatened to bankrupt the companies over removing the cabooses, because that would eliminate one job per train, etc. The unions fought long and hard, and then one day realized that it was actually possible - just maybe - that management wasn’t lying when they said they were about to go under, and soon we would have a Federally-run “Amtrack for Freight” system.
So there were concessions. And mergers and huge layoffs, plus some new innovations in car design and engine design. So afterwards, freight train lines are not doing so badly. Although car shortages are a recurring problem.
In fact, there is a new freight line that is being built to deliver coal from the Powder River Basin in Wyoming to the barge terminals on the upper Mississippi - the Dakota, Minnesota, and Eastern. IIRC, they just recently received approval to build their final $1B in track. I spoke with their Vice President on two occasions over the last year, and he is pretty upbeat that this will just be the start of a large amount of expanded, new track throughout the Midwest and Southwest possibly.
The main obstacle preventing any new lines are environmentalists. That’s right - the same environmentalists that demand that we all take mass transport are the ones that scream bloody murder whenever ANY new rail line is put in through the wilderness. Or any existing rail line is expanded upon.
Passenger rail in the US - IMO, there are a couple reasons that this does not work, and they are:
- They are too slow for business travellers.
- They are too expensive for leisure travellers.
- They do not go to as many cities as aircraft.
Item (1) could be remedied by high-speed rail for many small commutes. I mean real high speed rail, that has trains that leave every 15 to 30 minutes, instead of a couple times a day. I have travelled through Europe on several occasions on their rail system, including taking the Eurostar from London to Paris through the Chunnel. It works very well, has trains leaving all day on a half-hour or so schedule, has only a 30 minute longer trip than taking the plane, and a First Class ticket is only about $250 roundtrip.
Another problem is here in the US we are much more spread out than Europe. I think nothing of getting on a plane in KC and going to Boston, as it is only a 2.5 to 3 hour trip. By even the fastest train, it would be quite a bit longer.
Item (2) you wouldn’t think is true, until you consider things like rental car costs when you get to your destination. It is still cheaper, albeit longer and more tiring, to take your car and drive most places. And cheaper does count here, especially when you have the rather strange phenomenon of people cancelling entire vacations because the price of gas goes up by $0.25 per gallon. Not to criticize unfairly, but if 25 cents per gallon makes or breaks yuour vacation, you have serious problems to look into regarding finances. You can drive across the whole US and back (say 4000 miles) with a 20 mpg gar, and this differential cost is 200 gallons times 25 cents/gallon, or $50.
And yes, if you count car ownership and maintenance, it may not seem cheaper. But that is sort of a hidden cost to the consumer.
Item 3 is a more minor consideration, but still true.
Long story short, passenger service in the US is in serious trouble still IMO, but freight service is doing pretty well. And IIRC, coal accounts for nearly 40% to 45% of all rail tonnage shipped on freight lines. I shudder to think of how else one would get 3 - 110 car 100 ton unit-trains of coal a week from Wyoming to Tennessee - that would require having about 1500 to 1700 trucks per week on the road, driving to and from the plant to Wyoming. And nobody wants that…
Huh. No wonder the Erie & Lackawanna used to be called “The Road of Anthracite.”
I knew an Anthracite and/or Phoebe Snow reference would come out of this. 