High-speed trains have special requirements of their tracks (large turning radius, smooth joins, etc.), and most rail doesn’t meet those requirements, but if you do have rail designed for high speed, I don’t see any reason why ordinary trains couldn’t use it.
And, in fact, when the North East Corridor was upgraded for moderately high speed rail, the slow trains used the new tracks with no issues.
It’s not a different gauge or anything, just higher quality track.
It doesn’t necessarily have to be a different gauge, at least.
However, in Japan, for example, most railroads have historically used a narrow gauge (1067mm / 3’ 6") – narrow gauge track generally work better in mountainous terrain, such as occurs in much of that country. When they built their high-speed Shinkansen train system, they built custom tracks for it, which use a wider gauge: the “standard gauge” (1435mm / 4’ 8 1/2", which is used in the U.S., among other countries). The wider gauge was deemed to be needed in order for the trains to be able to take turns safely at high speed.
In Japan at least the Shinkansen do have their own tracks. And they still have “stop at every station”, “stop at many stations” and “stop at only the biggest cities” trains. Usually there is a center line at the smaller stations where the express trains run through while the every station train is stopped.
See my post above for at least one reason why the Shinkansen have their own tracks.
A lot depends on how you define “high speed”. Speeds of passenger trains on regular/existing tracks in the UK (which can be shared with freight) go up to about 125mph on limited-stop services, but we use “high speed” to mean services like the French TGV, its Spanish equivalent and the Channel Tunnel Eurostar, which get up to 200+mph. The latter definitely require their own tracks, fewer intermediate stops and enlarged station facilities to accommodate the larger numbers of passengers per train. In the UK we have one such line for Channel Tunnel trains out of London, and a line from London to the Midlands and (perhaps) ultimately to the North is under construction, but has been and remains controversial.
A high speed train can go 250 miles in the time it takes to check in and go through security.
The Chunnel Train definitely requires a lack of intermediate stops.
It isn’t solely in a tunnel, you know. The Paris services sometimes stop at Lille (and there are a couple of potential intermediate stops in the UK), and Amsterdam trains stop in Brussels and Rotterdam.
I think that was just a joke about it being under water.
And I’ve taken the chunnel from London to Brussels.
Phoenix to LA is about 400 miles +/-. The drive takes six hours, door to door, the flight takes but one,
But the flight, for a work trip, requires
drive/ride to the airport (half hour for me, more if you live in Queen Creek or Sun City)
Parking (optional, probably half hour for off site parking)
Arrive at the airport two hours before (recommended)
needless taxiing and fiddle-fartery at the airport, waiting to deplane, get luggage, walk through airport (half hour, more)
Get rental car, half hour to hour, depending on lines
drive to destination (say half hour, if traffic supports)
Total time: flying 5 minimum, drive 6. Driving is way less stressful. And if there are stupid delays, driving is definitely quicker.
I’d live a high speed rail, but you know the TSA and other things would bump it up to as long as the flight. And, where are the train stations?
eta: I did a business trip to Lexington Kentucky. My coworker flew, I drove. Obviously his trip was shorter, but it involved two different planes, probaby 6-8 hours flying time, weather delays and generally hasslery. I took three days, he took one. I think I had the more pleasant trip. YMMV.
ISTM a lot of the arguments about relative times are glossing over a few realities.
- Getting to the airport vs. getting to the train. Everyone has to spend time getting somewhere. Most big city train stations are downtown. Great if you live downtown, but not so much if you live in the suburbs. Neither airports or train stations are universally convenient, so throw that out.
- Parking. The two train stations I’m most familiar with are St. Louis and Chicago. Long-term parking is almost non-existent nearby, and what is available is ghastly expensive. The traveler’s best bet is to leave the car at home and take some sort of public transportation. By contrast, most airports have acres of long-term parking and a shuttle to and from the terminal every few minutes.
- Security. Here’s one place where the train definitely has an advantage. But all it will take is one or two horrifying incidents and you’ll be as held up at train security as you are at TSA.
In my experience, airport parking is also ghastly expensive, so I usually take an Uber or other transport to the airport.
I wonder, reading these most recent comments, how much suburban parking is a train option. We live south of Boston, and instead of parking in a garage somewhere near the first two stops in town (South Station, Back Bay), it’s way easier to park a little more south (Route 128) or even more south (Providence, RI), where there’s plenty of parking. In particular, parking at 128 is $7/day, which is a steal. But even Providence at $22/day is a bargain compared to parking in town.
Likely depends entirely on the train line in question. I know that some Amtrak trains that originate at Chicago’s Union Station do make some stops in the suburbs.
OTOH, the topic of this thread is hypothetical high-speed rail in the U.S.; as several posters have noted, one of the features which true high-speed rail would likely need to feature is not making frequent stops in suburbs and smaller cities.
When I lived in the Philadelphia suburbs (Villanova), Amtrak was usually the most convenient way to visit family. The line ran right through campus, but didn’t stop there. I had the option of taking public transit (on the exact same rails) east to downtown or west to… I can’t remember what the station was called, but it was the westernmost SEPTA stop, to catch the Amtrak train. All else equal, I would have preferred downtown (it was a beautiful old station, with much nicer facilities), but the station out in the boonies was both quicker (since I was traveling west) and cheaper.
Of course, it would have been even more convenient if I could have just gotten on the Amtrak train at the same station I got on the SEPTA, right on campus. But I understand why that would be impractical for them.
Sure, but show me a 250 mile segment of high speed track that has no intermediate stops.
Naw, if there’s a major train line to the city, there’s also a convenient station in commuter territory with parking. At least, on the northeast corridor:
If you live or work in Boston, you board downtown. If you live in the burbs, you can park and board at 128
If you live/work in NYC, you board at Penn station. If you live in the northern burbs, you can park and board at Stamford (or further in, but Stamford is big and has parking.) From the southern burbs, there’s a lot of parking at Secaucus.
If you live/work in DC, you board at Union station. But from the burbs, you can use New Carrollton.
You might need to take a local from the station with parking to one with fast trains. (Especially if your local station is tiny, like Princeton Junction.) But getting to the train system is, in my experience, always faster, cheaper, and less stressful than getting to the airport.
They have “stop at every station” for Shinkansen, but it means “stop at every Shinkansen station”, not stop at every town. For example, between Tokyo and Osaka the fastest Shinkansen has six stops and the slowest has 17 stops. The middle level is inbetween that.
There aren’t any direct express trains from Tokyo to Osaka that aren’t Shinkansen but if there were, they would have dozens of stops. Purely local trains would have hundreds of stops.
The Fukuoka (Hakata) to Kagoshima Shinkansen (about 257 km, 160 mil) was completed in 2011. The fastest one has three to four stops and takes 1 hr 20 minutes. The slowest Shinkansen is about two hours and 12 stops. Previously, limited express trains look four hours and had up to 15 stops.
As you say, there are additional tracks in stations where the slower shinkansen trains wait for the faster ones to go by.
Someone working for me who padded their trips this much would quickly be working elsewhere. For DCA and everywhere I’ve lived or worked in DC and NOVA, I leave the house or office 60 min before the flight leaves. Same as Union Station, which is a pain in the ass to get to except for when I lived in Cleveland Park, as they’re both on the red line. When I get to my destination airport, I walk directly to the rental car of my choice, show my ID at the gate, and get on the road. No checked bag unless it’s a vacation for more than a week.
I can wake up at a normal time, have a four hour meeting in East Hartford (350 miles by car), and be home in time to cook my wife dinner. Door to meeting in three hours. I know because I was doing this once a quarter for three years. Northeast Corridor, even if they ever speed it up, would leave me in New Haven. Which is fine for if I’m visiting startups spun out from Yale, and I’d probably prefer it even if New Haven had a real airport. But not so fine for other parts of the state.
Boston area (450 miles) has a similar flying timeline.