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

Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#21

Post by legitster »

dc396 wrote: post #13
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #8

US rail is so pathetic. Not the rail’s fault per se, but it's pretty embarrassing for a a supposedly wealthy country to not be able to offer its citizens cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

Yes, US rail is pathetic, at least for passenger travel. However, a quick search on Google Flights shows a one-way ticket from LA to DC costs $98.00 on Frontier via Atlanta (YMMV) so I don't think it's correct to say there isn't cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

It's also worth pointing out that even at TGV speeds, a coast-to-coast train ride would take ~20 hours. It would have to be sooo much cheaper than an equivalent plane ticket to be worth it.

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#22

Post by mrpopo »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #17
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #8

US rail is so pathetic. Not the rail’s fault per se, but it's pretty embarrassing for a a supposedly wealthy country to not be able to offer its citizens cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

Most people don't want trains. Most places where people want trains have them (high density places).

Trains are just the most efficient way of moving people between cities. They benefit everyone, even people with cars.

You have a business trip and need to go from A to B by yourself? Take a train, it frees your brain and the highway for people traveling in groups or with lots of luggage.

Incidentally it also avoids moving 2 tonnes of material for no reason.

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#23

Post by ianburrell »

idiomat9000 wrote: post #12
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #8

US rail is so pathetic. Not the rail’s fault per se, but it's pretty embarrassing for a a supposedly wealthy country to not be able to offer its citizens cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

The rivers are to good as mass good transport medium. They make goods transport bx rail economically unviable for the core country, leaving only a ring of economic routes.

That is weird thing to say when US has the best freight rail in the world. Lots of containers are transported by rail from west coast to east coast ports. The competition is trucks, not barge.

If anything, that is one reason that passenger rail sucks because the freight companies own the rails. They delay passenger trains and don’t get punished. The freight companies don’t spend on maintenance, and have pulled up double track.

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#24

Post by mrpopo »

dc396 wrote: post #13
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #8

US rail is so pathetic. Not the rail’s fault per se, but it's pretty embarrassing for a a supposedly wealthy country to not be able to offer its citizens cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

Yes, US rail is pathetic, at least for passenger travel. However, a quick search on Google Flights shows a one-way ticket from LA to DC costs $98.00 on Frontier via Atlanta (YMMV) so I don't think it's correct to say there isn't cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

It's also 700kg of CO2, one of the best ways to worsen climate change per dollar spent

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#25

Post by bombcar »

dc396 wrote: post #13
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #8

US rail is so pathetic. Not the rail’s fault per se, but it's pretty embarrassing for a a supposedly wealthy country to not be able to offer its citizens cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

Yes, US rail is pathetic, at least for passenger travel. However, a quick search on Google Flights shows a one-way ticket from LA to DC costs $98.00 on Frontier via Atlanta (YMMV) so I don't think it's correct to say there isn't cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

This is exactly it.

The USA has solved two problems: cheap and easy travel across town (in your car) and cheap and easy travel across the country (in a plane).

Both COULD be done by rail, and some places do - sometimes on the same rail network.

And when the ONLY option for transcontinental travel was rail - the USA has some impressive shit.

Given the limitations and money available it’s surprising it’s as good as it is.

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#26

Post by tantalor »

legitster wrote: post #18
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #8

US rail is so pathetic. Not the rail’s fault per se, but it's pretty embarrassing for a a supposedly wealthy country to not be able to offer its citizens cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

The area in question (Northeast) is about the only place in the US that matches the population density of the parts of Europe served by high-speed rail. It's not a question of wealth but of efficiency. Even if you took every single meter of high speed rail that France has built in the last 50 years, you would barely cover 2/3 of the distance of a single line between New York and LA.

Florida has high speed rail

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brightline

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#27

Post by ReptileMan »

mrpopo wrote: post #22
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't want trains. Most places where people want trains have them (high density places).

Trains are just the most efficient way of moving people between cities. They benefit everyone, even people with cars. You have a business trip and need to go from A to B by yourself? Take a train, it frees your brain and the highway for people traveling in groups or with lots of luggage. Incidentally it also avoids moving 2 tonnes of material for no reason.

>Trains are just the most efficient way of moving people between cities.

If the cities are closer than 600 km. Trains are good for movement inside a typical state, but rarely between states.

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#28

Post by ryoshu »

garciasn wrote: post #20
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most people don't want trains. Most places where people want trains have them (high density places).

It’s a chicken or egg problem. Unfortunately, because train travel is slow and expensive, it’s simply less expensive and faster to fly. If the rail infrastructure was upgraded to allow for faster travel and the costs were lowered, Americans would find them more desirable—-guaranteed.

I'll take the Acela over flying any day. It's cheaper and less of a hassle. Time-to-commute is a wash when you do the airport security theater dance + delayed flights on the tarmac.

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#29

Post by rafram »

legitster wrote: post #18
bobbylarrybobby wrote: post #8

US rail is so pathetic. Not the rail’s fault per se, but it's pretty embarrassing for a a supposedly wealthy country to not be able to offer its citizens cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

The area in question (Northeast) is about the only place in the US that matches the population density of the parts of Europe served by high-speed rail. It's not a question of wealth but of efficiency. Even if you took every single meter of high speed rail that France has built in the last 50 years, you would barely cover 2/3 of the distance of a single line between New York and LA.

New York to LA would be a terrible high-speed rail route. Just way too far. But the US has many city pairs - SF and LA, LA and Vegas, Denver and Salt Lake, Chicago and Detroit, Pittsburgh and Philly, and so on - where high-speed rail could easily replace most flights if it were built.

Re: Amtrak's New Acela Trains Are Here. They're Moving Slower Than the Old Ones

#30

Post by mperham »

bombcar wrote: post #25
dc396 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, US rail is pathetic, at least for passenger travel. However, a quick search on Google Flights shows a one-way ticket from LA to DC costs $98.00 on Frontier via Atlanta (YMMV) so I don't think it's correct to say there isn't cheap, easy, high speed travel across the country.

This is exactly it. The USA has solved two problems: cheap and easy travel across town (in your car) and cheap and easy travel across the country (in a plane). Both COULD be done by rail, and some places do - sometimes on the same rail network. And when the ONLY option for transcontinental travel was rail - the USA has some impressive shit. Given the limitations and money available it’s surprising it’s as good as it…

> cheap and easy travel across town (in your car)

It's only cheap and easy if you discount omnipresent traffic jams, 50,000 deaths per year, ever-worsening climate change and the inability to walk/bike anywhere anymore.

Aside from that, it only costs the average American $1,000/mo to keep that cheap and easy transportation!

Post reply on HN