A person could get really angry w/ freight trains when seeing how they obstruct passenger rail. I find that something to watch out for... I don't know if roads would be more messed up than ever if freight trains were summarily banned and all that cargo dispersed among tractor trailers.

Freight companies own most of the rails so of course they are going to give their stuff priority. As far messing roads up a single 80,000 pound truck does as much damage in one pass over a given piece of road as 5,000 cars. I don't think that would be the choice I would make. Not to mention the ungodly amount of lost time caused when a truck wrecks on an urban freeway, as well as the costs to the local populace to clean up the mess.

Aaron:)

One difference between now and the Vanderbilt days is that now millions of middle class people invest in the stock market and a lot of their money is in energy, autos and related companies. You probably don't want to tell them that their fortunes are going to be lost but, oh well, it's all in the name of progress. How can you convince these average people that it's better for them to sell their current stocks and invest in rails?
It's the buggy whip scenario. However, I think you are going to answer your own question:
Or can you convince the Big 3 auto companies to switch to building locomotives and cars? That sounds pretty good to a Michigander!

Freight companies own most of the rails so of course they are going to give their stuff priority. As far messing roads up a single 80,000 pound truck does as much damage in one pass over a given piece of road as 5,000 cars. I don't think that would be the choice I would make. Not to mention the ungodly amount of lost time caused when a truck wrecks on an urban freeway, as well as the costs to the local populace to clean up the mess.

Aaron:)


That's kind of what I was trying to say. It's easy to get annoyed w/ freight trains, but not really productive; in the big scheme of things they earn a lot of credit.

Freight companies own most of the rails so of course they are going to give their stuff priority. As far messing roads up a single 80,000 pound truck does as much damage in one pass over a given piece of road as 5,000 cars. I don't think that would be the choice I would make. Not to mention the ungodly amount of lost time caused when a truck wrecks on an urban freeway, as well as the costs to the local populace to clean up the mess.

Aaron:)
Aaron, I drove a truck for 25+ years and I hate to tell you, but a truck exerts less weight per square foot of contact than a car. The weight is spread out over 18 contact patches and a square footage area of 510 ft² vs 4 contact patches on 90 ft².

Truck Wheelbase: Length:Front axle to center of rearmost axle averages 60 ft, width is 8'6" (510 ft²) and I figured the weight on a flat 80,000 pounds, in actuality, most cargoes put the gross weight at more like 65,000 pounds or so due to trailer volume limits and weight distribution requirements re specific maximum axle weight requirements.

Car wheelbase averages 15 ft and 6 foot width and weight averages 2500-2800 pounds (90 ft²)

80,000/510/18=0.6 lbs/ft² vs 2800/90/4=7.7 pounds/ft²

I disagree with this. I think the cheaper, better/more viable option is chosen maybe 50% of the time. Just because it'd be better for us or cheaper to implement in no way means it'll be adopted.

Ah, but the requirement is that rail is cheaper and easier, not that it's better. People will always flock to what's cheaper and easier. I think most people would be willing to spend a few more hours in transit, if it cost less and were more comfortable. This is where traditional rail fails, it is far slower than air travel, being limited to 120km/h or so, and it's more expensive. Car travel is slower than rail or air, but it's also cheaper. Trains are, and always were, the most comfortable way to travel. Eventually, fuel prices will make air and car travel cost-prohibitive for many people, and electric high speed trains will take over as the long-distance transport of choice.

As has been stated, high-speed trains would be great in some areas and useless in others. I've taken many high speeds in europe and about half were for convenience and the rest for ambiance.

They will never replace air travel in larger countries, simply because they take way more time. I once took a Eurostar/TGV mix from Amsterdam to Toulouse which took about 11 hours in total. Flying would have been 1.5 hours (and cheaper). We chose the train because we wanted to see the countryside.

In Canada, they could only be economical for the Toronto-Montreal and Calgary-Edmonton corridors, but I have no idea how much it would cost (the one they are floating for Calgary-Edmonton is on the order of 2 billion, I think). I'm sure eventually it would be profitable, but how long before it is, is probably the main deterrent.

As has been stated, high-speed trains would be great in some areas and useless in others. I've taken many high speeds in europe and about half were for convenience and the rest for ambiance.

They will never replace air travel in larger countries, simply because they take way more time. I once took a Eurostar/TGV mix from Amsterdam to Toulouse which took about 11 hours in total. Flying would have been 1.5 hours (and cheaper). We chose the train because we wanted to see the countryside.

In Canada, they could only be economical for the Toronto-Montreal and Calgary-Edmonton corridors, but I have no idea how much it would cost (the one they are floating for Calgary-Edmonton is on the order of 2 billion, I think). I'm sure eventually it would be profitable, but how long before it is, is probably the main deterrent.

thats now, give it a few years, as the price of fuel increases it will reach a point where the brute efficiency of rail over any other form of travel will force the issue

according to the american trucking association, end of last year they posted an article on their website showing an 8.9% decrease in total tonnage of goods moved by truck, it wouldnt shock me at all if rail picked up alot of that-------people I know locally that work for conrail have been saying that in many places in the US they are being forced to upgrade tracks and add more trains to keep up with demand------very simple result of what happens when fuel prices almost double

cheap fuel makes it easy to abuse the situation and use forms of transport that arent nearly as economical as others

Tom, I think that's a bit disingenuous.
Force is equal, opposite, and only where the truck touches the road... ;)
This
o----M----o
and this
o-M-o
should cause *about the same wear to the road assuming the same mass/etc.

Truck tires are also way harder than car tires are. They give, and wear less. As well as cause proportionally more wear to the road. Then there's average BTE per ton, which is way higher at 30-40+% for trucks, compared to cars at ~10-20%. Motorists foot most of the bill for the damage caused to the highway system by trucking.

*Iirc there is some advantage to spreading out the wheels, but it's not significant compared to everything else. Truck tires are also slightly larger, but it's not like all that weight is distributed evenly over the entire cab/long box or pup. I really comes down mpg/ton imo.

No disingenuous intent...:eek:

Just a factor I hadn't thought of..looks like I have some number crunching to do to rethink my statement.....now you have me curious!

It now sounds like a polynomial topographic equation set. I'm going to base off of max loaded axle weight and the size of the contact patches and then factor in the square footage, see if I can come up with a distribution curve across the total square footage. After that it should come down to a ratio of weight/contact/area.

For fellow math geeks, the max axle loading = 12000 front and 34000 on each set of tandem axles

Assume 1.5 ft² contact patch on each truck tire (X18)

I'd appreciate any crosschecks on my assumptions here as far as the equations.....Laguerre polynomials?
Tom, I think that's a bit disingenuous.
Force is equal, opposite, and only where the truck touches the road... ;)
This
o----M----o
and this
o-M-o
should cause *about the same wear to the road assuming the same mass/etc.

Truck tires are also way harder than car tires are. They give, and wear less. As well as cause proportionally more wear to the road. Then there's average BTE per ton, which is way higher at 30-40+% for trucks, compared to cars at ~10-20%. Motorists foot most of the bill for the damage caused to the highway system by trucking.

*Iirc there is some advantage to spreading out the wheels, but it's not significant compared to everything else. Truck tires are also slightly larger, but it's not like all that weight is distributed evenly over the entire cab/long box or pup. I really comes down mpg/ton imo.

I'm also going to assume a 0.75 ft² contact patch/car tire (X4)

take the car weight divided by the tire pressure of one tire-----isnt exact but its a decent approximation

http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question506.htm

OK, I take back what I said earlier about the figures I quoted due to an incorrect assumption (Thanks, lyeinyoureye!):

Corrected figures
Truck: 3777.8 lbs/ft² based off the specific contact patch
Car: 933.3333333 lbs/ft²

Still not the equivalent damage of 1 truck = 5000 cars though, more like 4.047 cars.

mathematical model is:
12(5666.7)+2(6000)/1.5=3777.777777778lbs/ft² and 2800/4/0.75=933.3333333lbs/ft², thus rounded to 3777.8/933.3=4.047787421, or call it a round 4.05 cars/truck as it relates to highway stress.

This is as much as I can factor without more specific data, such as road foundation, coefficient of break strain of the rebar AND concrete matrix or Macadam matrix(Blacktop).

Tom, don't you need to know more about the road?
Well, if I wanted to get really technical, I could also factor in girder sheer strain and break strain of a bridge deck and average that in based off of total mileage of bridges/total road miles in the US and then break into 3 separate datasets for the average load capacity of state, US and Interstate Highway standards as published by the USDOT, but I think I came close enough with above to suit, and if I go further I'll make every bodies eyes glaze, if I haven't already!;) :eek: :D

Looks like I gotcha anyway, lye:D If you or a mod deleted it because you or they thought it's tick me off, no worries:D :p ;) It wouldn't.

Nah, I just saw you included it later and deleted it. :D Not mods pestering me, yet. ;)

With weight, it may just be 4 car equivalents, but there's still Crr
0.006 to 0.01 low rolling resistance car tire on a smooth road and truck tires on a smooth road
0.010 to 0.015 ordinary car tires on concrete
So that probably brings it up to ~5-8 car equivalents. Engine efficiency, trucks are about twice as efficient, so maybe ~10-16 car equivalents, and the change in road wear compared to weight. Which is where trucks really get hit.
The weight that heavy trucks carry causes more damage to the highways than automobiles. National and state studies suggest that costs associated with the design, construction and maintenance are greater for heavy trucks than for automobiles. The American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials' (AASHTO) Road Test Study found that the cost responsibility related to axle weight increases at a gradual rate up to 10,000 pounds and rapidly increases above 16,000 pounds. It also concluded that pavement damage increases exponentially as axle weight increases, and that the passage of an 80,000 pound five-axle tractor-trailer has about the same impact on highway deterioration as that of 9,600 automobiles.[5] An official with the Oregon Department of Transportation echoed these findings: "It is by now well established that building roads to accommodate truck traffic costs more than building roads for automobile and other light vehicle traffic only. Roads must be wider and stronger and bridges must be wider, higher and stronger to accommodate trucks. In addition, wear and tear on the roads increases dramatically as vehicle size and weight increases. Heavier axle loads increase the burden on the roads in an exponential manner. *For example, the conventional five-axle 'semi' operating at 80,000 pounds does approximately six times more damage than the same vehicle operating at 50,000 pounds."[6]
Otoh, road wear isn't the only cost. Even though trucks do way more damage to the road, they probably do less in terms of other costs.
There are limitations to using the motor fuel tax to allocate cost responsibility. First, there is a wide variety in the fuel efficiencies among vehicles. Consequently, highway users pay varying amounts for the same amount of mileage driven. Also, these taxes fail to account for the cost incurred by vehicles due to their differing weights and sizes.[2] For example, results of a 1986 Oregon Motor Vehicle Cost Responsibility Study indicate that the per-mile responsibility of an 80,000 pound truck is about ten times greater than the per-mile responsibility of an automobile. The 80,000 pound truck however, uses only about three times the fuel used by the average passenger car for a comparable amount of travel.
But they're still getting a significant tax break compared to costs.

*Probably why the guberment, and break bulk supervisors, are so insistent on weighs and reweighs.

Nah, I just saw you included it later and deleted it. :D Not mods pestering me, yet. ;)

With weight, it may just be 4 car equivalents, but there's still Crr

So that probably brings it up to ~6-8 car equivalents. Engine efficiency, trucks are about twice as efficient, so maybe ~12-16 car equivalents, and the change in road wear compared to weight. Which is where trucks really get hit.

Otoh, road wear isn't the only cost. Even though trucks do way more damage to the road, they probably do less in terms of other costs.

But they're still getting a significant tax break compared to costs.
I dunno about that.......

I peaked at $18,515.28 in road tax for the US and Canada for 1 tear I had to pay the last year I trucked!

EDIT: This didn't count fuel tax either.

I think that it's likely, given how many breaks the guberment gives to bidness. It's nothing compared to oil subsidies and the like, but it's still somethin'. Most of the road wear should be in road tax, there isn't nearly enough taxation on diesel to compensate for the wear of a 50,000lb rig compared to a 3,000lb car.

I think that it's likely, given how many breaks the guberment gives to bidness. It's nothing compared to oil subsidies and the like, but it's still somethin'. Most of the road wear should be in road tax, there isn't nearly enough taxation on diesel to compensate for the wear of a 50,000lb rig compared to a 3,000lb car.
By the way, nice to meet a fellow math geek!:D ;) :p

Jeje, likewise... I'm shocked I'm not alone! I think I should go back (and put in a decent effort) for my ms (one year away) or phd some time. What field/s are you in or going into? :beer:

Jeje, likewise... I'm shocked I'm not alone! I think I should go back (and put in a decent effort) for my ms (one year away) or phd some time. What field/s are you in or going into? :beer:
Headed for a PhD in Psychology, just started the process, 2nd year of college now. Not bad for a 47 year old retread trucker, eh? I'm looking at applications of social learning theory and motivation as it relates to sports and high intensity activities. In essence, a behavioral psychology major with a minor in Philosophy.

The biggest issue we'd face in this right now is the fact that there isn't a single track in the US that is designed for that kind of speed. We'd be talking a complete redesign and rebuild of the rail system.:(
They should just lay the tracks over the interstate highway system.

I think that it's likely, given how many breaks the guberment gives to bidness. It's nothing compared to oil subsidies and the like, but it's still somethin'. Most of the road wear should be in road tax, there isn't nearly enough taxation on diesel to compensate for the wear of a 50,000lb rig compared to a 3,000lb car.
You're missing the fact that a 3000# car riding on studded tires for six months of the year can do an incredible amount of road damage, all subsidized by other taxpayers.

They should just lay the tracks over the interstate highway system.
Won't work in the mountains, Randya, a train can climb a 4% grade, max and the interstate has a max grade of 7-8% and even exceeds that in some areas due to the nature of the terrain.:(

Aaron, I drove a truck for 25+ years and I hate to tell you, but a truck exerts less weight per square foot of contact than a car. The weight is spread out over 18 contact patches and a square footage area of 510 ft² vs 4 contact patches on 90 ft².

Truck Wheelbase: Length:Front axle to center of rearmost axle averages 60 ft, width is 8'6" (510 ft²) and I figured the weight on a flat 80,000 pounds, in actuality, most cargoes put the gross weight at more like 65,000 pounds or so due to trailer volume limits and weight distribution requirements re specific maximum axle weight requirements.

Car wheelbase averages 15 ft and 6 foot width and weight averages 2500-2800 pounds (90 ft²)

80,000/510/18=0.6 lbs/ft² vs 2800/90/4=7.7 pounds/ft²

Tom,
I think your math is flawed...I was talking with one of our DOT highway engineers the other day and the way they calculate it is strictly by psf/psi, per tire. That is who I was quoting in my post. Based on a rough guestimate of 36 square inch per tire for a car you get 19.4 pounds per square inch with a truck even allowing for a larger contact patch of 64 square inch per tire you get a load of 69.4 pounds per square inch. I realize that not all tires are loaded equally. I also realize that not all trucks are running at max GVW either, but here in NC the estimate by our DMV enforcement is that 1/4 of all semi's are running overweight on one or more axles. I drive a 25 yard gravel truck on some weekends and can get over weight very easily if I am not careful. Especially with the river rock or the crush and run. I also know we have some two lane roads that the trucks leaving the brick yards have destroyed, yet you go a 1/2 mile over to the next road and it is fine. No truck traffic but a higher car count. Regardless I consider trucks to be one of the least desirable means of moving freight. If we could get rails back to the point they were at 100 years ago there would be little need for trucks to move freight more than 500 miles in any given direction.

Aaron:)

My base assumptions were on the variables of weight and contact patch, but I based the contact patch off of our minivan @35 psi and my old tractor/trailer tires at 100 psi, it might be inaccurate as to exactitude of patch size, but the ratio will still be constant. If you change the variables and convert to Inches², I suspect you will still get the same 4:1 ratio, cars to truck +/- some decimals
Tom,
I think your math is flawed...I was talking with one of our DOT highway engineers the other day and the way they calculate it is strictly by psf/psi, per tire. That is who I was quoting in my post. Based on a rough guestimate of 36 square inch per tire for a car you get 19.4 pounds per square inch with a truck even allowing for a larger contact patch of 64 square inch per tire you get a load of 69.4 pounds per square inch. I realize that not all tires are loaded equally. I also realize that not all trucks are running at max GVW either, but here in NC the estimate by our DMV enforcement is that 1/4 of all semi's are running overweight on one or more axles. I drive a 25 yard gravel truck on some weekends and can get over weight very easily if I am not careful. Especially with the river rock or the crush and run. I also know we have some two lane roads that the trucks leaving the brick yards have destroyed, yet you go a 1/2 mile over to the next road and it is fine. No truck traffic but a higher car count. Regardless I consider trucks to be one of the least desirable means of moving freight. If we could get rails back to the point they were at 100 years ago there would be little need for trucks to move freight more than 500 miles in any given direction.

Aaron:)

I think that it's likely, given how many breaks the guberment gives to bidness. It's nothing compared to oil subsidies and the like, but it's still somethin'. Most of the road wear should be in road tax, there isn't nearly enough taxation on diesel to compensate for the wear of a 50,000lb rig compared to a 3,000lb car.

I agree but what happens when the diesel is being purchased by a small diesel user like a VeeDub driver...

Aaron:)

You're missing the fact that a 3000# car riding on studded tires for six months of the year can do an incredible amount of road damage, all subsidized by other taxpayers.
But that is only in about 1/3 of the country..no studs in AZ, FL or NC:p

Aaron:)

My base assumptions were on the variables of weight and contact patch, but I based the contact patch off of our minivan @35 psi and my old tractor/trailer tires at 100 psi, it might be inaccurate as to exactitude of patch size, but the ratio will still be constant. If you change the variables and convert to Inches², I suspect you will still get the same 4:1 ratio, cars to truck +/- some decimals
Apparently you and lyeinyoureye were posting your engineering calculations while I was still trying to wrap my brain around the basics. I can spell engineer so I aren't one:D The one I was talking to is actually a very good high school friend of mine (and good looking to boot, not too many of those out there;) ) She got me thru basic algebra and geomtry and I got her thru English Lit and History...:rolleyes:

Aaron:)

Won't work in the mountains, Randya, a train can climb a 4% grade, max and the interstate has a max grade of 7-8% and even exceeds that in some areas due to the nature of the terrain.:(

That's not entirely true, there are many light rail systems that have much higher grades, about the highest that makes sense, is 12%. It comes down to traction, and while rubber tires are maginally better on dry pavement, they are actually worse in wet, icy or snowy conditions. I have seen streetcars go up steep hills, where car drivers were unable to, in mid winter -- so I have seen this with my own eyes.

That's not entirely true, there are many light rail systems that have much higher grades, about the highest that makes sense, is 12%. It comes down to traction, and while rubber tires are maginally better on dry pavement, they are actually worse in wet, icy or snowy conditions. I have seen streetcars go up steep hills, where car drivers were unable to, in mid winter -- so I have seen this with my own eyes.

Depends on the type of system...IIRC the SF street cars are cable cars, then you have cog railways and variations of each type. I suspect a properly designed light rail with enough traction could exceed the 4% rule quite easily. With freight trains you have to consider the massive amount of weight against the small amount of contact/traction area on each engine. I know that a Dash8 locomotive weighs somewhere in the range of 400,000# then you have a bunch of cars behind it with gross weights approaching 240,000# each...no wonder it takes miles for the thing to stop.

Aaron:)

Depends on the type of system...IIRC the SF street cars are cable cars, then you have cog railways and variations of each type. I suspect a properly designed light rail with enough traction could exceed the 4% rule quite easily. With freight trains you have to consider the massive amount of weight against the small amount of contact/traction area on each engine. I know that a Dash8 locomotive weighs somewhere in the range of 400,000# then you have a bunch of cars behind it with gross weights approaching 240,000# each...no wonder it takes miles for the thing to stop.

Aaron:)

I meant conventional light rail cars, not cable or cog type cars, although there would always be a possibility if you had a really steep hill, to have cars that could have a retractable cog, with a rack in the track. I have seen a PCC street car exceed a 4% grade, in the middle of a raging blizzard, when cagers couldn't get up the same hill. The 4% rule is more of an urban myth, see the railways don't like hills, steep inclines cost fuel and time, so if you can make the track more level, by either going another way, or cut and fill, to flatten the route. One exception is when you have something unmovable in the way, like a mountain range. One solution is to go over it, another is to go through it, although going through it, is more expensive up front, it can reduce delays and additional fuel costs, making a line cheaper to operate long term.

Ever here of the Maglev
http://www.maglevpa.com/


Pennsylvania is going to get it looks like

Ever here of the Maglev
http://www.maglevpa.com/


Pennsylvania is going to get it looks like
I'd love to see a maglev, but wouldn't want to be on one if the system experienced a complete power failure at 200 mph and simultaneously experienced a failure on the back up power supply on the suspensive electromagnets!:eek: ;) You would have time to complete the thought "I think this might hurt!".:p

Did anybody read John McPhee's recent book on transportation? One section was about the massively long and heavy coal trains that run from coal mines in Wyoming to power plants back east. He compared these huge trains to a bicycle. A cool passage describes how the engineer feels even the slightest grade--less than one per cent--much like we can immediately tell when we're going uphill or downhill, even if the the slope is invisibly slight.

Did anybody read John McPhee's recent book on transportation? One section was about the massively long and heavy coal trains that run from coal mines in Wyoming to power plants back east. He compared these huge trains to a bicycle. A cool passage describes how the engineer feels even the slightest grade--less than one per cent--much like we can immediately tell when we're going uphill or downhill, even if the the slope is invisibly slight.
I read the 2 part essay McPhee wrote on coal trains when it appeared in The New Yorker in 2005. The most fascinating fact was that on the steeper hills the lead engines that crested the grade are braking the train while simultaneously the pusher engines at the rear are still applying more power to get the coal cars up the grade.

BTW I see and hear those trains all day on the BNSF main line, which runs parallel to about six miles bike commute route, 200 yards north.

Ever here of the Maglev
http://www.maglevpa.com/


Pennsylvania is going to get it looks like

LOL!

Nice. I would like to see it too but SEPTA is broke. The state squeezes SEPTA for every nickel and dime. I wonder how they're going to afford this billion dollar high speed train?

I'd love to see a maglev, but wouldn't want to be on one if the system experienced a complete power failure at 200 mph and simultaneously experienced a failure on the back up power supply on the suspensive electromagnets!:eek: ;) You would have time to complete the thought "I think this might hurt!".:p
When I used to do work in computer operations for the stock market we had three backup power supplies. I would hope that something as dangerous and power critical as a maglev would have at least double that, if not quadruple.

When I used to do work in computer operations for the stock market we had three backup power supplies. I would hope that something as dangerous and power critical as a maglev would have at least double that, if not quadruple.
I'm sure they would too, but just couldn't resist the comment!;)

Ah, but the requirement is that rail is cheaper and easier, not that it's better. People will always flock to what's cheaper and easier. I think most people would be willing to spend a few more hours in transit, if it cost less and were more comfortable. This is where traditional rail fails, it is far slower than air travel, being limited to 120km/h or so, and it's more expensive. Car travel is slower than rail or air, but it's also cheaper. Trains are, and always were, the most comfortable way to travel. Eventually, fuel prices will make air and car travel cost-prohibitive for many people, and electric high speed trains will take over as the long-distance transport of choice.

If you think people always flock to what's cheaper and easier, why do Cadillac Escalades exist? I think you'll have a tough time convincing anyone who owns such a vehicle that train travel is "easier" or "the most comfortable way to travel". Though I agree trains are a great idea, I wouldn't say taking the train is easier or more comfortable than a luxury SUV.

There is a huge problem in Western society with the gap between the rich and the poor. The problem is the rich make the decisions that affect the poor. The people who drive the Escalades are the people (government, businessmen, etc.) that have the power to make an improved rail system a reality.

But we are falling into the trap the OP specifically wanted to avoid, "this will never happen, we're too corrupt/screwed-up, etc." However, this discussion will inevitably fall into that trap because corruption/screwed-uppedness is the largest hurdle to bringing "high speed trains to the US.", IMO.


I live in Guelph, Ontario and it is annoying to me that if my wife and I want to go to downtown Toronto for whatever reason, it is cheaper to take our car then to take the train. And that accounts for gas, the ridiculous parking in downtown Toronto, etc. The cheapest is probably to drive to Toronto then take the subway downtown, but it is easier (perceived or actual, I'm not sure) to just drive ourselves to where we want to go. BTW, we do take the train on occasion, but mostly because it is a fun alternative or if we know traffic will be horrendous (likely because people or going to the same events we are).

If you think people always flock to what's cheaper and easier, why do Cadillac Escalades exist? I think you'll have a tough time convincing anyone who owns such a vehicle that train travel is "easier" or "the most comfortable way to travel". Though I agree trains are a great idea, I wouldn't say taking the train is easier or more comfortable than a luxury SUV.

I agree and this is why it's important to have a train system like the high speed France/Japan ones. Look, I'm not saying this'll stop anyone from BUYING an SUV. They'll still own it and drive it around their town. However, if someone's travelling from Boston to NY and you tell them they can drive there for 4 hours (including sitting in traffic for huge chunks of the 95 in NY) or they can sit on a train for 1 hour, at least 30% of the people will take the train.

The cost of gas for the trip is somewhere around $50-70 (given how many miles/gal, and people don't think about wear and tear on their car so they don't factor that in), so to hit even more people you will need to make the cost of the train somewhat comparable, say: $140 roundtrip for one person, $200 roundtrip for 2 or more people. But the KEY is the time. If you're cutting the trip down to 1/4 the time, you'll get a LOT of people taking the train instead of driving or flying. But I think even with current Acela pricing, if the train took 1-1.5 hours actual time, you'd see a huge increase in the # of people taking the train.

I read the 2 part essay McPhee wrote on coal trains when it appeared in The New Yorker in 2005. The most fascinating fact was that on the steeper hills the lead engines that crested the grade are braking the train while simultaneously the pusher engines at the rear are still applying more power to get the coal cars up the grade.

BTW I see and hear those trains all day on the BNSF main line, which runs parallel to about six miles bike commute route, 200 yards north.
You're just lucky you don't have to cross the tracks on your commute, or you might miss work some days. You probably remember the New Yorker two-part excerpt had some cute drawings. In the first part, a guy is sitting in a lawn chair beside his parked pickup, enjoying the sunshine while he waits for the coal train to pass. In the second article, the same guy is sitting at the same crossing, waiting on the same train, only by now the sun has set and he's under the stars.

I have to cross a train track on my way home from work. It's right next to a big power plant, and also a GM auto assembly plant. I've often been stuck there for 20 minutes or more, waiting either for a coal train or, most often, for an auto train-- over 200 RR cars, each filled with 18 brand new Cadillacs.

Sometimes I go out of my way to cross at a bridge, and sometimes I stop and watch the train. I enjoy contemplating the contrasts between my little bike and those huge trains--and one amazing similarity, that bike and freight train, for all the differences in scale, are the two most efficient transit machines in existence.

Another amusing thing is that often the cagers behind me honk at me after the gates lift and we can get going again. They've been waiting patiently for 20 minutes for the train to pass, then they're mad at me for "holding them up" for at the most 20 seconds!

Ah, but the requirement is that rail is cheaper and easier, not that it's better. People will always flock to what's cheaper and easier. I think most people would be willing to spend a few more hours in transit, if it cost less and were more comfortable. This is where traditional rail fails, it is far slower than air travel, being limited to 120km/h or so, and it's more expensive. Car travel is slower than rail or air, but it's also cheaper. Trains are, and always were, the most comfortable way to travel. Eventually, fuel prices will make air and car travel cost-prohibitive for many people, and electric high speed trains will take over as the long-distance transport of choice.

What is interesting, is that your argument doesn't deal with subsidies, for example air travel is heavily subsidized with hidden subsidies, landing fees don't come anywhere close to paying the costs for airports, air traffic control, etc. Car driving is also heavily subsidized, with hidden subsidies, gas taxes don't come anywhere close to covering the costs of roads. Railways on the other hand, need to pay all of their own costs, the railroad has to own and maintain all of the trackage (including the land under it), unless they can lease it from another railroad, and this is a huge hunk of the costs. Amtrak and Via (in Canada), both spend a lions share of their budgets on track leasing from the freight railroad. However, even with this massive cost, that air and car (or bus) travel do not need to deal with, it's still not that much more expensive for the passenger. Via for example now has a deal, where you can go from Toronto to Montreal for $59 ($118 return), that's into fly-by-nite airlines type rates. Yes Amtrak and Via do get subsidies, but the subsidies are tiny in comparison, and are visible rather then hidden.

I agree, electric trains are the answer, but while I expect certain select routes will be high speed, the majority will not, and people will just get used to taking longer to get somewhere. The voyage will become part of the holiday, just like it is in the majority of the world.

The voyage will become part of the holiday, just like it is in the majority of the world.You ever take AMTRAK for long distance travel? My wife and I have, from Portland, Oregon to Philadelphia, and back, with a stay in Chicago. I assure you, it was no dang holiday! Maybe it was better than hopping a freight or riding the rails, but not much; and certainly slower.

The only train trips I can recall taking that merit being called a holiday were a Steam Train Excursion from Nürnberg to Vienna. And Steam from Speyer to Pirmasens to Koblenz to Karlsruhe in 1999 on a Wochende DM40 ($20) ticket

You ever take AMTRAK for long distance travel? My wife and I have, from Portland, Oregon to Philadelphia, and back, with a stay in Chicago. I assure you, it was no dang holiday! Maybe it was better than hopping a freight or riding the rails, but not much; and certainly slower.

The only train trips I can recall taking that merit being called a holiday were a Steam Train Excursion from Nürnberg to Vienna. And Steam from Speyer to Pirmasens to Koblenz to Karlsruhe in 1999 on a Wochende DM40 ($20) ticket

Toronto-Montreal is a great ride. Usually on time, only a little slower than flying, when you add in airport driving, check in, waiting and boarding times, less expensive, and way less stressful. During a 1995 Europe trip I found the Paris-Frankfurt and Bochum-Hamburg train segments were great too.

You ever take AMTRAK for long distance travel? My wife and I have, from Portland, Oregon to Philadelphia, and back, with a stay in Chicago. I assure you, it was no dang holiday! Maybe it was better than hopping a freight or riding the rails, but not much; and certainly slower.

The only train trips I can recall taking that merit being called a holiday were a Steam Train Excursion from Nürnberg to Vienna. And Steam from Speyer to Pirmasens to Koblenz to Karlsruhe in 1999 on a Wochende DM40 ($20) ticket

No I have not taken AMTRAK for long distance travel, but just because you had one bad trip, doesn't mean that, that one trip is indictive of all rail travel everywhere. The problem in North America, is that since the 1950's rail travel has been abandoned, because people got this attitude that comfort could be forsaken for speed. Given that air travel is so heavily government subsidized, they could also compete on price. Now, of course fuel is making flying more expensive, when 5 Gallons per Mile is considered fuel efficient, fuel costs become a big part of the picture.

The real problem though, is that jet aircraft have no alternative to petroleum based fuels, so when the oil runs out, the jets get grounded, and because North America is so heavily based on air travel for longer distance trips it's going to be in big trouble. Trains can run on electric power, which can be derived from non petroleum sources, like coal, nuclear, solar, wind, water, etc. Ships can run on wind power, as they did for thousands of years or steam derived from coal, wood, nuclear as they did for over 100 years, and some ships still do.

To get back to the OP though, the key to bringing in high speed trains, is to make low speed trains a key part of the transportation system. Then speed up certain selected routes, for example the Boston-New York, Washington Coridor in the US, and the Windsor - Toronto - Montreal - Quebec city coridor in Canada are ripe for high speed rail, because of high volumes. I would expect that Toronto-New York would also be ripe for a high speed cross border line, probably best to cross East of Lake Ontario, s it could take advantage of the high speed tracks that should be laid between Toronto and Montreal. There may be other HSR lines that should be laid, where volumes indicate it would be needed.

I have a question about those high speed trains that are in other countries. Are they entirely grade separated from motor traffic?


High Speed Trains like the ICE in Germany and TGV in France usually run along purpose-built stretches to achieve maximum speeds. These purpose-built stretches are not intersected by other roads, or even other rail lines. Roads either go over or under.

When High Speed Trains run on normal rail sections, they basically go normal train speeds. A bit faster.

A technical question:
Does high speed passenger rail actually have a lower environmental impact than, for example, air travel? Obviously a train can carry a lot more passengers than a plane, but wind resistence is much lower at high altitudes, which is especially important at high speeds.


According to this website, trains are by far the most efficient mode of transportation for carrying large numbe rof people long distances.

http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html

Long distance service: Maximum efficiency possible in inter-city service
Approximate, assumes seats filled for all vehicles, no standees except where noted, see full table for details Mode Passenger-miles per gallon

Diesel‑electric commuter rail with standees 936
Electric Train (estimate - need more data) 800
High Speed Electric Train (300 km/h) 630
Highway coach 280
Diesel‑electric commuter rail 260
Toyota Prius 238
Ford Explorer 150
Hovercraft 80
Aircraft 70
Helicopter 20

Here's an idea. Instead of spending billions on high speed rail, why not build an extra lane of road and make it rapid bus transit. You'll block it off with a concrete so the other cars can't use it and since it's a private lane for bus only, they can zoom past the traffic jams. I suspect such a lane will set you back several hundred million but that's better than a couple of hundred billions.


Light Rail vs Freeways Cost: Basic at-grade light rail construction is currently running approximately $20-40 million per mile (including all capital costs, maintenance facilities, and rail cars), while new highway construction has typically cost $40 million per mile or much more.

http://www.tucsonlightrail.org/vsfreeways.htm

Toronto-Montreal is a great ride. Usually on time, only a little slower than flying, when you add in airport driving, check in, waiting and boarding times, less expensive, and way less stressful. During a 1995 Europe trip I found the Paris-Frankfurt and Bochum-Hamburg train segments were great too.
Oh I liked the Mannheim to Berlin ICE trips because they sure beat driving to Berlin on Autobahns that were still under construction. I also liked the train day trips I took with my bike on many spring and Summer weekends on the locals all over Southwestern Germany to various Auto Frei Tags. Great for drinking and riding all day and safely stumbling back home by bike from Mannheim or Heidelberg HBF late at night.

Another consideration for train buffs is tht the freeway system is almost worn out. The next couple decades will require massive investments to rebuild the freeways. many of the freeway "improvements" will include increainge capacity for cars and trucks. The money could be spent on railways instead, if that's what we decide we want.

To answer the OP's question, it all seems to boil down to persuading people that railroads are "what we want."