I can see an HSP between Chicago and St. Louis with one stop in Springfield (for the government folks) being a viable option. I would take in it a heartbeat – especially since parking a car in the Chicago downtown area is expensive and annoying. I would much rather take the train than drive. I’ve taken the Megabus, and I like the convenience, but something faster and more comfortable would be great!
This doesn’t need to replace the current rail service, but supplement it. I can see folks in Bloomington/Normal feeling left out (heck, my inlaws live there) but, hey, you can’t please everyone.
Heck, you don’t need to please everyone. But you’d better find a way to please the legislators in those 7 Illinois counties that will see the shiny new 120-mph train zip right past their constituents.
On a more serious note, when my kids have taken the train between Chicago and St. Louis, they always note that the largest number of embarking/debarking passengers is at Bloomington. Since Megabus deems it worthwile to stop in Bloomington, I guess that makes the list.
Of course you can’t just pass through Joliet, since it’s the biggest city on the route between Chicago and St. Louis. And you may as well stop at Alton because the train will be running at low speed through Madison County, anyway.
I think I’m coming up with a way to please everyone except the passengers that want to take a really fast train between Chicago and St. Louis. But hey, you can’t please everyone.
Your previous post mentioned commuting, but no matter. Even for long-distance travel, luggage for rail travel is limited to what passengers can carry to - and through - the train station. So of course all luggage will be carry-on.
An aircraft boards all passengers at once, and most flights are mostly full. On a non-point-to-point train, the number of passengers boarding and exiting the train is usually a small fraction of the train’s capacity. The aisles on trains are wider than airliners, and the luggage shelf larger and more accessible. There’s also much more leg room, where smaller pieces of luggage can be stowed for the trip.
Also consider that an airliner typically boards through one door. A large airliner can seat 400 or more passengers. A TGV Duplex trainset has 8 passenger cars, each with one door on each side. A trainset has a capacity of 545 passengers. So that’s one door per 68 passengers.
Where did you get that idea? Trains don’t have seat belt signs. Trains don’t have seatbelts. There’s no turbulence on trains, and no risky and bumpy takeoff/landing business. Passengers are free to walk about any time, or remain standing throughout the trip. Passengers are often encouraged to gather their luggage and wait by the door before arriving at their stop.
In other industrialized nations, baggage cars on trains disappeared about the same time steam locomotives did. There’s not much point in having checked baggage on trains anyway, since a train passenger’s luggage is limited to what he/she can bring to - and through - the train station. And of course it’d slow down the train too much.
Yes, it can take a bit longer, If a 30-second stop ends up taking 1 minute, that loss can usually be made up quickly.
Yes, on Caltrain there is a significant number of dudes going to the airports, etc, with luggage. I only saw one couple miss their stop, but it was their 1st time riding a train and they didn’t know their stop was coming up and didn’t start to gather their luggage until the train stopped. The train didn’t wait for them, they had to get off at the next stop and go back one.
Anyway, we’re mostly talking commuter trains anyway. They work- at least in some areas. I would like to see high speed rail Bay area to LA area (it’s planned), it’s just about the right distance for high speed rail. The train is supposed to have very limited stops.
Well, I assume the point is that one of the reasons for increased security in airplanes is that a terrorist could commandeer a plane, and then use it to fly into another even higher populated location. A train cannot, as tracks don’t run through buildings.
Well, even Amtrak doesn’t always do so: “Amtrak offers checked baggage service at many stations and on many trains and Amtrak Thruway motorcoaches throughout the country. *Not all trains and stations offer checked baggage services.”
*
But even today on small flights, most passengers only do “carry on”.
I’m reminded of a thread from a few months back from the IMHO or MPSIMS board about the value of travel. One of the points I made is that international travel shows that there is always another way to do something.
This is a case in point. In Europe and Japan, long distance trains don’t generally offer checked baggage. The trains stop for only about a minute in each intermediate station.
You have your baggage with you on the train platform. When the train pulls into the station, you shove it into the car as fast as you can. There is typically a baggage storage area near the doors. You have time to arrange your baggage into the storage area, and then find your seats, after the train starts moving again if necessary.
Before the train comes to your stop, you get our of your seats and get your baggage prepared at the door. When it stops, you shove it all out onto the platform as fast as possible.
I know I’m late, but yes, standard passenger rail is far to slow to be reasonable. It took me 12 hours to get from Riverside to San Francisco via Amtrak, a full 100% longer than driving.
So it wouldn’t work, except for all the times it would?
That’s been one of the problem in California. Every truck stop seems to want its own station, even though the town has fewer people than the damn train itself. I’m sure, you’d love a stop, Coalinga, but every stop in Central Valley makes the rail that much more useless to the people in the Bay Area and LA area, which- let’s face it- are the ones who’d be using it the most.
And don’t even get me started on the towns on the Peninsula.
I said baggage cars are obsolete in other industrialized nations. Amtrak should be used as an example of how not to run a conventional rail system. In terms of speed and reliability, it’s nowhere near the standards of conventional rail in other first-world nations, let alone high-speed rail.
[ul]
[li]Compared to airliners, there is much more room for storing carry-on luggage on a trains. Most trains have large shelves above the seat, and some have luggage corrals near the door. And of course, items don’t need to be secured for takeoff/landing, so you can keep stuff on your lap or in front of your legs. (There’s much more leg room on trains too.)[/li][li]Major train stations are serviced by public transport, so a train passenger’s luggage is limited to what he/she can carry on public transport anyway.[/li][li]Checked baggage service would slow down the train. Most passengers would rather have faster travel than checked luggage service.[/li][/ul]
The proposed route in California is not along the coast, although right-of-way costs could push the overall cost higher than the $45 billion. The recent drop in land values could be a good thing for the project, which I support.
There is this idea, which looks feasible, even if the video is narrated through a bizarre echo machine.
That’s the big knot. The smaller towns need rail servie more than the big cities. If I want to go from St. Louis to Chicago, I have 20 non-stop flights a day to choose from, and a few more one-stops. If I want to go from Springfield or Bloomington, they each offer two flights a day. Those are the only cities on the train route that have any scheduled air service. Hell, four of the Amtrak stops (Alton, Carlinville, Pontiac and Dwight) don’t even have intercity bus service.
So where does it make more sense to put your resources? Improve rail service between the two big cities – a route that’s already more than adequately served by the airlines (which will always be faster than trains) or focus on service to the underserved areas along the existing route and give up most of the long-haul service?
