Instead of high-speed rail . . . why not revive conventional rail?

Okay, let’s say 10 minutes. Amtrak marks the St. Louis-Chicago run at 284 miles and 5.5 hours. That’s an average of 51 mph. You can eliminate the intermediate stops (10 minutes each) and boost the speed to 67 mph. But of course, the good people of Alton, Carlinville, Springfield, Lincoln, Bloomington, Pontiac, Dwight Joliet, and Summit are less likely to support a train that doesn’t stop there and provides no local benefit.

And, far from being one-horse towns, metro Springfield has a population of 201,000, Bloomington-Normal has 150,000, Joliet (Will and Kendall County) add 550,000. Throw in the smaller cities and you’re talking over a million people.

All those advantages, huh? I wonder why no one else has built one in the US?? snaps fingers Say! Why don’t you get some venture capital and build one yourself? Work up a business plan demonstrating clearly how superior high speed rail would be to car and air travel and a proposal on how much it would cost, then take it to banks and other VC folks and get them to buy in on it? Then you could build it and make an absolute killing! Of course, since it’s you and the thought of all that nasty money would be distasteful, you could give it away to charity or something instead!

I think this is a great idea! When will you get started??

-XT

You know, I am reminded of the time when I was a graduate student in physics trying to write a short paper in which a new method for solving an equation was described. I was working on it for quite a while and wasn’t getting anywhere. So I mentioned to my advisor, “You know, maybe the reason nobody has ever solved the equation this way is because it simply can’t be done.”

My advsior said to me sternly, “If you think that way maybe you shouldn’t be a scientist.”

In other words, just because something hasn’t been done before is no reason why it can’t be done now.

And no one taking the train from Chicago or St Louis will want to waste their time stopping in the local Hootervilles.

The other part of the equation is that wherever the train DOES stop, there will need to be a comprehensive public transit system to get around locally. Otherwise people are virtually stranded at the station unless someone can come pick them up.

It is under 4 minutes. Caltrain has a Baby Bullet, with 4 stops along the way,it takes 57 minutes SJ-SF. The Limited, with 9 stops takes 67 minutes.

Unfortunately, it didn’t stay there.

From this link:

That’s very true. By the same token though, because something like this hasn’t been done should at least ring some cautionary bells to determine WHY it hasn’t been done.

As an engineer (to contrast from a scientists), I learned that just because you can do something doesn’t mean it’s a good idea. You have to look at what problem you are trying to solve, and weigh the costs vs the potential benefits, especially when you are talking about a project on the scale or with the costs associated of such a system. If the potential benefits outweigh the costs, and if there is a market for it that justifies both the initial capital costs and inconvenience, then my question would be, again, why hasn’t anyone done it? And if the costs DON’T outweigh the potential benefits, or if the market isn’t that solid (or is unknown or variable), then that is adequate justification for why it hasn’t been done before…and isn’t being done today (yet).

-XT

Every train does not have to stop at every town. A small town does not need the same coverage a big city does. Even buses have non local trips. They fill up a bus in the subs and go straight down town ,non stop.

Regarding high-speed trains and multiple stops along the way, has anything like this ever been proposed: you have a train and people are in various train cars designated by their stop. The first stop is in the train’s last car, the second stop in the second-to-last car, and so-on. At every stop, the car filled with people for that stop detaches from the rest of the train and comes to a stop at the station, while the rest of the train speeds along its merry way.

Albeit I admit there’s a lot of technical problems with getting the deserted train to stop and also to start moving again (perhaps a temporary transfer track while it waits for the next train to come by and re-attach?).

The way trains run now, they have stops at every Podunk town along the way, but they don’t stop at most of them. The train only stops if there’s someone getting on or off there. Granted, you might not be able to tell in advance which stops will be needed on any given run, but you can say statistically how many of them there will be.

Quoth xtisme:

By the same token, if the Interstate Highway System was such a great idea, why didn’t private entrepreneurs beat the government to that, too? Let the government give the railroads the same massive subsidies they do for automobiles, and then we’ll see how well they compete.

Wasn’t the IHS built more to provide logistics support of the Army? Before that I think there were private roads (and local and state), just not the interconnected system we have today.

Regardless, there was a MARKET for an interstate system, because people already had cars. Or, think of it this way…the government didn’t make the highway system in anticipation of having people buying cars to use it.

I thought that general maintenance of the highway system came out of gas taxes…no? Also, I thought the railroads WERE heavily subsidized (especially when they were originally built…all those rights of way and such). Regardless, though, you want to give the rail roads new subsidies (and I assume the initial capital to build the system in the first place) as air/highway so that they can provide a service that is already being provided and that people are generally happy with. Unless you feel that the road system is being crammed down an unwilling public’s throat.

YMMV, but I’m just not seeing it. To me it’s redundant, and expensive…and I think it would be very difficult to do legally and logistically anywhere it would actually matter (like the East Coast).

-XT

That is partly true, but there is a better answer: right of ways on that scale are impossible for private firms to acquire. Even small, local purchases can be held up.

Of course, if it had been done privately, it would be hilarious. You’d have road rent-a-cops, and people would have to have valid stickers or something to drive on it (a license to highway).

The difference is that the government levies large taxes on gasoline, which is effectively a user tax that is (arguably) equitably distributed (i.e. the more you drive the more you pay), whereas virtually all government-operated public transit systems are heavily subsidized by the tax base at large, regardless of what percentage uses the transit system. (You can make the argument that public transit benefits everyone in reducing congestion, allowing easier access to employment, education, et cetera, but it is very difficult to make a quantified cost vs. benefits analysis to justify this.)

The Interstate Highway System was actually developed as a civil defense measure in the 1950s to distribute the population outside of urban areas to lessen the thread of nuclear annihilation and allow an alternative method of distributing troops and war materiel. It was not primarily intended as a benefit to commerce per se, though it has obviously increase the value of real estate in suburb and exburb areas and allowed a larger capacity for distribution of commercial goods and services.

In general, large civil projects are risky endeavors for private investors, because even if they are ultimately profitable the duration before having a positive return may be decades, by which time the initial capital may be long exhausted. This doesn’t mean that public ventures shouldn’t be assessed on their viable self-sustenance as some measure of value, although there are other reasons why it may benefit the tax base to support some civil works project at a loss.

Stranger

Apples and oranges. You’re talking about a commuter train. I (and Robot Arm) were talking about Amtrak service, which includes one small door at each end of the car, and loading and unloading baggage. I have an Amtrak station two miles from me, I have loaded and unloaded family members there for years and you simply can’t do it in four minutes.

In the OP BrainGlutton asked about reviving conventional train over routes of a relatively long distance. Comparisons to Caltrain on the West Coast or Acela on the East Coast are… of limited relevance… in most of the rest of the U.S.

Or a big parking lot, some rental cars and taxis. Many airports in the US get by with that.

Yes, but largely as covered by business expenses or as an extravagance on vacation. Concepts like zipcar are useful in high population density areas where one can get by with only occasional car usage, but this doesn’t apply to most of the country, or even most mid-sized cities. If you rented a car as part of your regular commute you’d find the cost prohibitive.

Stranger

Why would it take 4 minutes to board a train?? On any modern train, the door opens in front of you, and you walk into it. That’s all there is to it. Same with getting off the train - you wait by the door before the train arrives at your stop, and you step out onto the platform. Doesn’t matter if it’s a commuter train or a trans-continental bullet train.

Japanese and European high-speed trains also have 2 doors per car (on each side), and usually stop for less than a minute at each stop. Each stop adds about 5 minutes to a high-speed train schedule, including the time it takes to decelerate from 120+ mph to a stop, and accelerate back up to that speed.

If we are discussing trains as a substitute for aircraft and cross-country road travel then you need to factor in luggage loading and unloading as well. This is especially problematic in a non-point-to-point train because luggage has to be arranged to be available for efficient offloading at each station. Of course, you could just have people carrying all of their own luggage onboard the train car, but then you’re going to have some people carrying and stowing multiple bags, which will then hold up your one minute (or four minute, for that matter) boarding schedule. Think of the time it takes people to board an aircraft and get settled.

Stranger

Aircraft board 150 people, or more, through one door, down a skinny aisle, hunting for space in the bins, and rows so small you have to shuffle people around to get to the middle or window seats. At the end of the trip, you’re not even allowed to stand up and start collecting your stuff until the plane is stopped, and there isn’t enough room for everyone to be primed and ready when the door opens.

At an intermediate train stop, there are only a handful of people (per train car) getting on or off, plenty of room to pack up and be ready, and two, wide doors. Stopping for only one minute, and a total delay of five minutes sounds about right to me.

Again, apples and oranges. On a long distance train you aren’t going to have big sliding doors, because you’ll need that space for rows of seats. You’ll have a front and back door. You won’t be able to get up and start unloading your luggage until the train comes to a full and complete stop, for the same reason the airlines don’t do it. So you’ll need a few minutes for the three or four passengers getting off at a stop to gather their belongings and exit, and a few more minutes for the three or four passengers getting on to show the conductor their tickets, stow their luggage and be seated. Meanwhile the checked baggage has to be unloaded and loaded into the baggage compartment. If the train is already crowded, it will take longer, just as the last few passengers getting on a plane take longer to get settled in.

Of course, you can’t just say “hey, if it takes a little longer now and then, so be it.” You have to schedule a reasonable time for all this to happen, because your train is sharing a set of tracks with other trains, and they all have to keep on schedule and you don’t want to find a 100-car long frieght train that was supposed to have a clear track from Omaha to Peoria stuck behind a passenger train with an engine and two cars and three more stops to make before it gets to a major switching point and you can get the nonstop freight in front.