Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How far can you go by train in 5h?

chronotrains-eu.vercel.app

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 457 posts

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#181

Post by ant6n »

skellera wrote: post #173
nickbauman wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it doesn't have a world class freight rail network. The North American rail infra is incredibly primitive. Most of it is "dark territory" (no track sensors), unlike Europe. I used to write rail automation software for a German firm. They were appalled at the state of affairs here. One of the most lucrative rail systems in the US had an average speed of their trains in the single digits MPH!

I think it’s easy to call something out as primitive but what changes could be made and how much impact would it have? It doesn’t seem like our freight trains are the bottleneck when moving goods around the country.

They kind of are if you consider how many goods are still shipped by trucks.

The US is perfect for rail - lots of long trips, with lots of goods. It could probably have more market share if goods could move more quickly and flexibly.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#182

Post by OJFord »

xenocratus wrote: post #152
OJFord wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Infamously similar in the UK, even despite being smaller. Particularly East-West travel anywhere much North of London. Many inter-city routes are via London. (I'm not complaining, j'habite à Londres ;))

> anywhere much North of London You don't need to go that much North - I used to live in Oxfordshire, trying to get to Cambridge for work was a joke (I don't drive). It would take 3.5h+ for a 140km journey from Oxford to Cambridge because train journeys were only through London (+ a railway station change), and there was only one coach that stopped in every town along the way (and which has been axed into two separat…

I didn't mean much North! Heh, another of those BrE words like 'quite'.

Oxford/Cambridge is a classic example, yes. (For those unfamiliar, they're like two spokes right next to each other on quite a small rim where London is the hub. But large enough (or close enough spokes) that 'in and back out' seems silly.)

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#183

Post by ClumsyPilot »

geraldwhen wrote: post #99
dr_dshiv wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But that means the modern USA misses out on the inherent benefits of density. This is a weird counter rational behavior— it is in everyone’s perceived best interest to live in big separate homes, but the collective social economic benefit of living together is evident. Also evident is how sprawl sucks vitality from culture.

No thank you. I live near enough howling dogs. I will never forget the peace and quiet when I stepped into my first house. Why anyone lives in apartments by choice is beyond me. The noise is absurd.

> Why anyone lives in apartments by choice is beyond me. The noise is absurd.

I am sorry but you westerners have no clue how to make decent apartments. London is full of 'luxury' highrises with basic design mistakes and complete failures.

In czech republic they would never build drywall separation between apartments, its always brick or concrete with real noise insulation.

The staircase is never attached to the walls of the unit, so you don't hear every step of people walking around

Premium towers here are built with zero green space. Buildings of 100's of units where every unit has their own boiler are a complete waste

Windows get built in such a way that it's impossible to clean them or install shades, etc.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#184

Post by TylerE »

Kon-Peki wrote: post #180
madcaptenor wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

or Levy's 2021 version for the whole US and adjacent bits of Canada: https://pedestrianobservations.com/2021/03/22/high-speed-rai... , which follows They did the math and decided to connect Florida to the main Eastern component (based on there being enough demand for Atlanta-Florida travel), so there are four components - the main Eastern component, Texas, California (+Vegas, Phoenix), Pacific Northwest (Portland to…

I don't think you can take any national plan seriously if it doesn't include Chicago/Memphis/Jackson/New Orleans. Passenger rail service has been in almost continuous operation on that route since a little after the Civil War. It has to be there for the symbolism alone.

An industry with incredible capital overhead and razor thin margins is no place for symbolism.

Times change.

In 1860 New Orleans was the 5th largest city in the country.

Today it is 52nd.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#185

Post by runarberg »

DrBazza wrote: post #91
qalmakka wrote: post #22

As a European it boggles my mind seeing how trains are basically non-existent in the USA (just look at Houston station), given how dominant the whole "Wild West" railroad rush is in everybody's immagination. Railroads are super ubiquitous here, and we've to work with a pretty hostile terrain - Italy has lots of mountains, hills, rivers, and yet has one of the best networks in the world. Most of the USA are basically…

I'm not convinced high speed rail would ever work in the US due to how entrenched the car culture is, regardless of the terrain. In Europe with we have spoke-and-hub railways - want to get into London? There's almost certainly a local station near you in the suburbs. Then jump on the Eurostar to Paris. Get to Paris, and then get a local line back out to wherever you want to go. Right now, it would have to be airport…

In the current planed and under construction high speed rail in the USA by far most large city stations are planned to go in (or near) the city center. Texas Central (planned) is only planning on building 2 big city stations which the go to the outskirts of Houston and Dallas respectively.

Meanwhile California High Speed Rail (under construction) is planning to build stations in downtown San Francisco (and anther close to the city center, and a third by the Airport in Millbrae), close to downtown San José, downtown Fresno, close to downtown Bakerfield and downtown Los Angeles. Palmdale is the only city over 100,000 which gets a station in the city outskirts in California, and Burbank gets one by the airport.

I’m guessing California High Speed Rail did the work and came to the opposite conclusion of yours, that it does—in fact—work to build mainline stations in many US city centers.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#186

Post by twawaaay »

nickbauman wrote: post #162
andjd wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The USA has a world-class _Freight_ rail network, and almost all existing track in the country is owned by the freight operators, who manage the track to optimize it for freight operations. In many cases, they are openly hostile to passenger service on their tracks. On top of this, most cities in the USA were built (or destroyed and rebuilt) for private cars being the primary mode of transportation. In Europe, one of…

No it doesn't have a world class freight rail network. The North American rail infra is incredibly primitive. Most of it is "dark territory" (no track sensors), unlike Europe. I used to write rail automation software for a German firm. They were appalled at the state of affairs here. One of the most lucrative rail systems in the US had an average speed of their trains in the single digits MPH!

I think the term "world class" is unfortunate with connection to freight rail networks.

Freight does not need to travel super fast or super high tech. What it needs is to be able to travel everywhere at high throughput and cheaply. US is doing quite well in that regard.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#187

Post by darksaints »

Robotbeat wrote: post #26
qalmakka wrote: post #22

As a European it boggles my mind seeing how trains are basically non-existent in the USA (just look at Houston station), given how dominant the whole "Wild West" railroad rush is in everybody's immagination. Railroads are super ubiquitous here, and we've to work with a pretty hostile terrain - Italy has lots of mountains, hills, rivers, and yet has one of the best networks in the world. Most of the USA are basically…

The fact the US is basically empty means the cost to build a HSR route to go between population centers is super high because of the sheer distances involved. You’re talking like 1000 miles, not 200. The places which are closer together, like the East Coast, do have some passenger rail but they’re also much denser, like Europe, and so they have the same kind of constraints (or worse). The US has a lot of freight rail…

The Midwest cluster of cities which include Chicago, Cleveland, Indianapolis, Minneapolis, St Louis, Columbus, and Detroit, have an extremely similar density and distance distribution compared to France, where high speed rail is incredibly successful. We could have successful high speed rail nearly everywhere in the US with a possible exception of the rocky mountain regions. I wish this density trope would die.

The real reason we don't have high speed rail is that right of way acquisition is ridiculously costly unless government is involved, and we don't trust our government to do it right. Probably justified, if urban rail costs are indicative.

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#188

Post by ErikCorry »

OJFord wrote: post #182
xenocratus wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> anywhere much North of London You don't need to go that much North - I used to live in Oxfordshire, trying to get to Cambridge for work was a joke (I don't drive). It would take 3.5h+ for a 140km journey from Oxford to Cambridge because train journeys were only through London (+ a railway station change), and there was only one coach that stopped in every town along the way (and which has been axed into two separat…

I didn't mean much North! Heh, another of those BrE words like 'quite'. Oxford/Cambridge is a classic example, yes. (For those unfamiliar, they're like two spokes right next to each other on quite a small rim where London is the hub. But large enough (or close enough spokes) that 'in and back out' seems silly.)

This is actually being fixed. Someone put huge telescopes on part of the old line, but they are building a new one. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_West_Rail https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mullard_Radio_Astronomy_Observ...

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#189

Post by Gwypaas »

madcaptenor wrote: post #155
wbsss4412 wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn’t make sense to connect Portland and SF, but there’s a lot of value to be gained in connecting Portland and Vancouver BC, and San Diego to SF/possibly Sacramento. We would definitely want to have a “constellation” of networks rather than one interconnected system given the geography of the US, and that’s fine. There’s never going to be a time when it makes more sense to travel from LA to NYC by rail instead…

Right. You don't want a line down the entire West Coast, even though it's tempting to draw. But a line from Vancouver to Portland makes sense, as does a "greater California" system - roughly lines from Los Angeles to SF, Sacramento, Vegas, San Diego. The latter is basically the California HSR system that's under construction, plus the proposed privately built line from LA to Vegas. (Levy also proposes LA to Phoenix;…

Why not? The great advantage of high speed rail is that with intermediate stops along the route you can service smaller cities which previously, or as you just did, would be considered flyover country. Thus making the value of the system greater than just the end terminuses.

Just looking at the towns between Portland and Sacramento Salem, Eugene and Medford exist. Neither would themselves ever be valuable enough for HSR, but as part of a larger system they definitely would bring value.

Especially since you would get 3.5 hour trains Bay Area Seattle and 4.5 hour trains to Vancouver.

That is right at the limit of when flying starts to make more sense from a time perspective.

Edit: Here's a good video on the concept. From a comment (by the author) he says that France and Spain has many lines in the range of 4 given his scoring. It just seems miniscule compared to the enormous potential of DC Boston corridor.

"U.S. High Speed Rail: What's Next? Analyzing Extensions and Expansions, and What Makes Sense"

https://youtu.be/zxiGY8p2rCo

Re: How far can you go by train in 5h?

#190

Post by throwaway0a5e »

hannasanarion wrote: post #126
OJFord wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know why this is down-voted so, but to me also outside the US it seems correct? You bill for travel between stations, there'd be a lot more track & travel between stations in the US, on average, if it were as ubiquitous. Intranational flight is a lot more common there. I imagine the economics of it are better, lower ticket price, and in many cases probably quicker too, even including airport BS.

Nobody's asking for an express train between Jackson and Billings. When you exclude the Mountain States and Alaska, the US has about the same population density as Western Europe. There's no good reason for us to have zero public transit options between Atlanta and Savannah, Madison and Milwaukee, Columbus and Cincinatti, Denver and Colorado Springs, or Mobile and New Orleans.

>There's no good reason for us to have zero public transit options between Atlanta and Savannah, Madison and Milwaukee, Columbus and Cincinatti, Denver and Colorado Springs, or Mobile and New Orleans.

Does regular bus service not count? Sure they're not publicly owned but does that result in any meaningful differences to the users?

Post reply on HN