Thirty hours coast to coast?

[dlagrua]

The distance from the east to west coast of the USA is about 3000 miles, yet it takes 4 days and three nights for an Amtrak cross country journey. Being that Amtrak already has trains that can run at 150 MPH, I've often wondered why the trip tales as long now as it did 80 years ago. Technology has greatly advanced since the 1930's but today train travel is no faster and in most cases less luxurious than it was back then.

If any of you history buffs remember the inaugural run of the Burlington Zephyr in the mid 1930's; that train ran from Denver to Chicago in about 13 hours and it was over 1000 miles! Triple that distance today and the time becomes 36 hours coast to coast. Point is that if Amtrak could attract far more passengers on the long trips if they considered more efficent trains and routes. We are way behind Europe and we shouldn't be.

 

[FrankStar]

Because the train has to stop enroute to load and unload passengers and also deal with track-owner issues. If the train were a direct coast-to-coast train, running on dedicated tracks, it could be much faster. But there would also be fewer riders overall.

 

[ThayerATM]

The distance from the east to west coast of the USA is about 3000 miles, yet it takes 4 days and three nights for an Amtrak cross country journey. Being that Amtrak already has trains that can run at 150 MPH, I've often wondered why the trip tales as long now as it did 80 years ago. Technology has greatly advanced since the 1930's but today train travel is no faster and in most cases less luxurious than it was back then. If any of you history buffs remember the inaugural run of the Burlington Zephyr in the mid 1930's; that train ran from Denver to Chicago in about 13 hours and it was over 1000 miles! Triple that distance today and the time becomes 36 hours coast to coast. Point is that if Amtrak could attract far more passengers on the long trips if they considered more efficent trains and routes. We are way behind Europe and we shouldn't be.

I'm sure a high speed train could get us from NYP to LAX in a heartbeat. <_< But wouldn't that take out about half the fun of a cross country train trip? I enjoy the time to slow down, relax, and enjoy the trip. I'd enjoy it even more if the train was being pulled by a huge 4-6-6-4 engine, and had to make frequent fuel/water stops. I'd like it if it took a week to cross the country on a single train. I enjoy the "slow" trip.

 

[Bootman4U]

I can comment on how it is done in Western Europe:

top speeds of 180-200 MPH. In France, totally dedicated segments for high speed TGV services in certain areas with roadbeds precisely measured AND maintained; in some cases entirely new and dedicated roadbeds have been laid out and down in rural areas and there has been no lack of ridership..in fact, the "market" for air service between cities such as Paris-Lyon has pretty much dried up thanks to the rail services offered.

In Germany, the dedicated high-speed line between Cologne and Frankfurt airport prompted Lufthansa to pretty much abandon that same route. The train (usually with one stop at Siegburg-Bonn) makes this trip in 57 minutes and NO, I disagree that getting there "the slow way" is any more enjoyable than whizzing by, and I mean FAST, those cars on the autobahns/autoroutes/autopistas which cannot keep up..it is a power/speed trip and yes it is great!

Spain: one of the busiest air routes has traditionally been Madrid-Barcelona with two airlines flying almost hourly both ways and a third, budget carrier also offering flights on this usually 1 hr to 1 hr and 10 minute route. Now we have seen the completion of the AVE high speed segment between these two cities..timing is several hours but it is city center to city center and it is already siphoning off air traffic.

So-called "goods trains" sharing the rails..sometimes but most of the routes I've taken are doubled (track-wise) and those "freights" do not seem to have nearly the heft that we see here.

 

[Tony]

The distance from the east to west coast of the USA is about 3000 miles, ...

If one drew a line from NYC to LA, crossing thru the center of all 48 states, a basic requirement to get the Senate to approve, minus AK and HI, it would be a lot longer than 3,000 miles.

 

[dlagrua]

The distance from the east to west coast of the USA is about 3000 miles, ...

If one drew a line from NYC to LA, crossing thru the center of all 48 states, a basic requirement to get the Senate to approve, minus AK and HI, it would be a lot longer than 3,000 miles.

Just did a Mapquest from NY to Los Angeles. Taking the highways it shows that the trip is 2784.59 miles, actually quite a bit less than 3000 miles. A high speed coast to coast train as they have in Europe, even with stops could make the trip in under 40 hours. The leisurely traveler would find this attractive but we are so far behind in high speed train development it might take decades before we get it going.

 

[Cho Cho Charlie]

Just did a Mapquest from NY to Los Angeles. Taking the highways it shows that the trip is 2784.59 miles, actually quite a bit less than 3000 miles.

And your choice of highways took you thru each and every one of the 48 states?

BTW, I think the joke from Tony, is that the Senate would never approve building a coast-to-coast HS rail, unless each senator could go back and tell his/hers constituents that there will be a station stop in their town. That would mean that the new rail would need to snake around all over the USA.

 

[dlagrua]

Just did a Mapquest from NY to Los Angeles. Taking the highways it shows that the trip is 2784.59 miles, actually quite a bit less than 3000 miles.

And your choice of highways took you thru each and every one of the 48 states?

BTW, I think the joke from Tony, is that the Senate would never approve building a coast-to-coast HS rail, unless each senator could go back and tell his/hers constituents that there will be a station stop in their town. That would mean that the new rail would need to snake around all over the USA.

OK now I get it. LOL.

 

[railiner]

The historic record run of the original Zephyr in 1934 was made in extraordinary circumstances that could not be duplicated today. The advance planning required the train to be 'given the railroad' the whole way. Switches had their points spiked down, all public crossings had two guards and private crossings, one. Speeds were operated that the FRA would never have allowed today, etc.

Comparing European TGV and similar is fine, except the distances they run still does not get anywhere close to transcontinental. Not to mention the vast open spaces across North America compared to the fairly densely populated European routes. And even thirty hours coast to coast would not have any impact on a five or six hour airplane flight.

People going coast to coast do so for the pleasure of the experience, not for serious transportation. So the current schedule is very adequate if it is operated on a reliable basis.

High speed rail is best for covering markets similar to what they do in Europe.

 

[skyguy]

Just did a Mapquest from NY to Los Angeles. Taking the highways it shows that the trip is 2784.59 miles, actually quite a bit less than 3000 miles.

And your choice of highways took you thru each and every one of the 48 states?

BTW, I think the joke from Tony, is that the Senate would never approve building a coast-to-coast HS rail, unless each senator could go back and tell his/hers constituents that there will be a station stop in their town. That would mean that the new rail would need to snake around all over the USA.

.... and make stops in each one.....

 

[user 1215]

Because the train has to stop enroute to load and unload passengers and also deal with track-owner issues. If the train were a direct coast-to-coast train, running on dedicated tracks, it could be much faster. But there would also be fewer riders overall.

I agree with everything but fewer riders. HSR needs to start in major hubs that have places to go. IE: San Francisco to LA/San Diego to the South and Sacramento and maybe Portland and Seattle to the North (but there is a LOT of rural inbetween). Another would be Washington DC to NYC/BOS to the North and Orlando/Miami to the South.

Then, you consider connecting these two corridors, and whether the ridership will be high enough to justify the cost. Sure, you can connect Dallas, SLC, Denver, Kansas City, Chicago, Indianapolis, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Atlanta, etc., but to connect these cities would either require too much winding, killing end to end time, or multiple routes, killing cost. Not to mention, any single route that is much more than 12 hours would require sleeping and dining cars - something that isn't common in high speed trains right now. In fact, Japan got rid of the dining cars on their Shinkansen 'cause the trip times got to be too short to serve enough people to make it profitable.

 

[AAARGH!]

The distance from the east to west coast of the USA is about 3000 miles, yet it takes 4 days and three nights for an Amtrak cross country journey. Being that Amtrak already has trains that can run at 150 MPH, I've often wondered why the trip tales as long now as it did 80 years ago. Technology has greatly advanced since the 1930's but today train travel is no faster and in most cases less luxurious than it was back then. If any of you history buffs remember the inaugural run of the Burlington Zephyr in the mid 1930's; that train ran from Denver to Chicago in about 13 hours and it was over 1000 miles! Triple that distance today and the time becomes 36 hours coast to coast. Point is that if Amtrak could attract far more passengers on the long trips if they considered more efficent trains and routes. We are way behind Europe and we shouldn't be.

One word... Track. US tracks simply can't handle the speed. They are not maintained to anywhere near the standards of the Euorpean systems. This is not to mention the freight traffic getting in the way.

 

[B&Ofan]

HSR across the country could be done and done with quite impressive speeds. There are a couple of reasons though it would be unlikely we will ever see it (but we can dream). First without a dedicated right of way trains high speed trains would have to meet FRA buffer strength regulations, so unless there is a breakthrough with carbon fiber or some other material, trains that mix with freights would be way too heavy to be practical. HSR is practically illegal in the US because it violates the laws of physics.

Unfortunately getting the laws changes to something more practical is rather difficult because no-one wants to take the blame if there is an accident and they discover that the old rules mights of saved lives. (forget about the fact that under the old rules the train couldn't exist and several times the lives were actually saved from getting the drivers off the roads!)

The freight railroads actually do a very good job of maintaining their track, however, you have to remember they they design it to handle very heavy moderate to low speed freight trains. What the railroads of yore did was to have very high super-elevations on curves. This is quite expensive to maintain if you keep trying to run slow heavy trains over it.

The good news (if you can call it that) is in many ways it can be easier to build a HSR. Electric lightweight trains can handle grades that would be impossible fo freight railroads. Straight track is more of the limiting factor.

I wish I had better news but right now it looks like the US is a long way from high speed trains.