7 ms·

There is no secret lost knowledge that enabled a steam-powered train to go from New York to Chicago in 16 hours in the 1930s. We simply do not care to run fast

by aposm 1y ago

There is no secret lost knowledge that enabled a steam-powered train to go from New York to Chicago in 16 hours in the 1930s. We simply do not care to run fast passenger trains anymore since they have largely been replaced by domestic air travel. The current NYC to Chicago train takes 20 hours and is routinely several hours delayed... all we have to do is invest in infrastructure and rebuild our rail system, but that won't happen unless it's "sexy" and can compete with air travel, and the best way to do that is with HSR. So while our passenger rail system _could_ be a lot faster (without true HSR) if it was run well, I don't think that's going to happen until we get the marketability/"sexiness" of HSR.

JoshTriplett 1y ago
> We simply do not care to run fast passenger trains anymore since they have largely been replaced by domestic air travel. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. First-class passenger trains are much more comfortable, roomier, and less expensive, but as long as they're so wildly slower, they have a hard time competing with air travel.
- alwa 1y ago
  I'm not sure they're much less expensive. To pick an arbitrary weeklong Tuesday-to-Tuesday trip in May, between New York and Chicago, the cheapest direct Amtrak fare—in coach, not in first class as you mentioned—is $336 (and 19 hours each way), whereas the same trip on Spirit Air is $96 (and 2 hours 30 minutes each way). The cheapest first class train fare is $1,621 for the round trip, vs $385 for first class airfare.
  - TrainedMonkey 1y ago
    Per hour they will be much cheaper. Part of self-fulfilling prophecy is that per hour price is mostly inelastic, so as trains get slower and take more time the price rises. And higher price means less people take trains...
    - zeroonetwothree 1y ago
      Per hour walking is even cheaper.
    - rimunroe 1y ago
      > Per hour they will be much cheaper. How many people do you think care about the per-hour cost of travel. I feel confident saying that the vast majority of the traveling public wants to spend as little time and money as possible to get to their destinations.
      - Jgrubb 1y ago
        If I’m not mistaken, that’s the joke.
        rimunroe 1y ago
        D’oh! It completely flew over my head. Thanks. I’ve heard people who are really into trains bill rail travel as being worth it purely for the experience, so it sounded plausible that they were arguing it seriously
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        I think it's less a joke than an observation. There's some per hour cost that's approximately fixed, so for a given mode of travel the slower it gets the more expensive it becomes. The lack of investment in rail is a vicious cycle.
  - deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
  - Mistletoe 1y ago
    Train fares are just smoking crack and it’s so frustrating, because I want to take trains. I love everything about it but the price.
  - jpalawaga 1y ago
    plus an hour on the train, or a hundred bucks in a taxi on the new york side, and likewise on the chicago side, plus security screening. and luggage is free too, I think? so mostly just faster.
- alephnerd 1y ago
  > First-class passenger trains are much more comfortable, roomier, and less expensive, but as long as they're so wildly slower, they have a hard time competing with air travel. Maybe, but around a third of all tourism spend in the US is business travel related [0]. You cannot justify spending an overnight train ride from NYC to Chicago when you can reach there within 2 hours by flight. The US is MASSIVE - much larger than most countries, and population centers are extremely spread out once you leave the Northeast. Outside the NE, the math (time wise or financially) doesn't play out well for rail based public transit. You see the same dynamics in China as well - the overwhelming majority of medium-long distance public transit is along the extremely dense coast. Expecting a French style TGV is unrealistic as long as San Francisco to Los Angeles is the same distance as Paris to Berlin - except with almost no major population centers in between, and plenty of massive mountain ranges. Same for the rest of the US outside of the NE. Similar extent with NY to Chicago as well (roughly the same distance as Berlin to St Petersburg) [0] - https://www.statista.com/topics/1832/business-travel/#topicOverview https://www.statista.com/topics/1832/business-travel/#topicO...
  - seabass-labrax 1y ago
    I don't see why it's a problem for a potential rail service for San Francisco and Los Angeles that there are no heavily populated areas between the two cities. There's no reason why you couldn't fill up a train with passengers at the start and travel non-stop to the destination, just as the vast majority of airlines operate. Trains still have all their usual benefits including better passenger comfort and higher energy efficiency, and there is the option to build intermediate stations if the demand increases in the future. I would also question the claim that overnight trains cannot be justified for business travel. If the cost is comparable to a hotel room - which is a big 'if', granted - this allows employees to be better rested and therefore work more effectively during the day.
    - alephnerd 1y ago
      > between the two cities. There's no reason why you couldn't fill up a train with passengers at the start and travel non-stop to the destination, just as the vast majority of airlines operate. This isn't flat land. There are expansive mountain ranges that make it difficult to build and any flat land that is buildable is ALSO prime agricultural land that is worth millions. Just to recoup the cost you end up with ticket prices comparable to a flight. > I would also question the claim that overnight trains cannot be justified for business travel. If the cost is comparable to a hotel room - which is a big 'if', granted - this allows employees to be better rested and therefore work more effectively during the day. Yeah no. I don't want employees to come in unshowered, and they still need a place to keep their luggage. Furthermore, plenty of people like maintaining their daily routine or spending time with their SOs. Flying a couple hours, staying at a hotel overnight, getting work done, and immediately bugging out back home is the norm.
- jakelazaroff 1y ago
  China’s new high speed train from Beijing to Shanghai — about the same distance as between New York and Chicago — takes a little less than four and a half hours. That’s about two hours longer than a flight between the two cities. If you include the time spent arriving early, going through security, etc, it probably comes out about even.
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    And the region between Beijing to Shanghai is fairly flat and densely populated (Tianjin, Shandong, Jiangsu, Hebei), which makes it easier to justify and build out the associated infra, as plenty of other slower lines can also be run concurrently - specifically by connecting Tianjin (one of the most important cities in China) Meanwhile, the only major population centers between NY and Chicago are Pittsburg and Columbus - both of whom combined have a fraction of the population that Jiagnsu or Shandong have. Furthermore, land acquisition is different in a country like the US versus China. Mass expropriation or eminent domain of land is politically untenable in the US, but something that is easier to implement in China as a significant amount of land remains under local municipal ownership instead of private ownership.
    - jakelazaroff 1y ago
      If you pass Columbus, you’d also go through Indianapolis. Or you could go north and pass through Cleveland and Detroit. Anyway, if you only support building infrastructure in regions of the U.S. that are as densely populated as eastern China, you’d basically never build anything.
      - alephnerd 1y ago
        > If you pass Columbus, you’d also go through Indianapolis. Or you could go north and pass through Cleveland and Detroit. Which 1. Already exists 2. Leads to the same problem as before - the population size just does not justify those investments, nor is there any business demand when a flight will always remain faster. > Anyway, if you only support building infrastructure in regions of the U.S. that are as densely populated as eastern China, you’d basically never build anything I support building infrastructure that solves an actual problem - and public transit connectivity between NY and Chicago isn't one of those. It will remain slower than flight transit (so most business and plenty of personal travel will remain flight based) and car ownership remains high in the US, so for personal travel, the independence of driving would still outcompete rail. Those billions of dollars on such a hypothetical are better spent on plenty of other alternative programs - for example the local transit expansion grants which the Biden admin bundled as part of the IIJA, which helped expand bus and local rail transit instead. Even China has stopped financing these kinds of mega-projects becuase of tightening financial due dilligence, and tries to tie investments with an actual business case [0]. Heck, now prices are roughly the same between a domestic flight and HSR on the major lines in China. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/china-bullet-trains-ticket-prices.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/china-bullet-tra... ---------- The only network that could even justify a high speed rail is the DC-Philadelphia-NYC-Boston corridor (so an extended Acela Line), but are you also fine with the federal government expropriating land to speed up development OR spending decades democratically building consensus. And even then DCA to JFK or Logan will remain time competitive for business travel
roenxi 1y ago
Without disagreeing, it is a weird one to see described as a marketing problem. The political process is extremely low bandwidth; it is tough to express an opinion on more than one issue with one vote and usually the priority is not transport. Presumably the major reason that HSR isn't being deployed is that it is uneconomic or there is no legal way to do it.
panny 1y ago
>We simply do not care to run fast passenger trains anymore since they have largely been replaced by domestic air travel. Trains replace road trips, not air travel. You can travel from New York to Miami for $175 on Amtrak. That's a lot cheaper and much more comfortable than driving 1300 miles. Saying you can do this faster or possibly cheaper on a budget airline is missing the point, because traveling on a budget airline is not enjoyable. There's no scenery. You're packed in like sardines. Best case scenario, every hour you spend in the plane is miserable. Every hour you spend waiting in airport security lines is miserable. Every hour spent waiting on the runway for delays is miserable. Waiting for your baggage only to find it is lost again is miserable. You can't get up to stretch your legs, sit down, the seat belt light is on. On the Amtrak there are dining cars, cafe cars, observation cars. There's five toilets on each car, you never have to wait. There's free wifi. There are no middle seats to be miserable in. You can bring your own beer and drink it on the train. You can't do any of that in car or on an airline. Riding the train is more fun than flying, and a lot less hazardous than driving. If it takes a little longer than flying, that just means more time for fun.
- pseudo0 1y ago
  Except that NY to Miami route you cited takes 28 to 33 hours... You could do that trip in a single long day driving, plus save money if you're a group of 3+ people. And then you'd have a car at your destination, which is pretty mandatory in most parts of the US. It might be decent for a solo traveler, but for the stereotypical family road trip to Florida, the car still wins out.
  - panny 1y ago
    You're not going to drive 18 hours straight. It would be wildly dangerous for you to try as you will fall asleep at the wheel. Even if you tried it, you're going to have to make stops for gas, bathroom, and to eat, which will push the trip beyond one day. Which means you're going to have to get at least one hotel room along the way (more expense and time). And, you're assuming perfect traffic conditions, which doesn't exist, we all know. You can go to the bathroom on the train. You can sleep on the train. You can eat on the train. Which means the 28 hours is the total time and the $175 is total price. Avg gas price is 3.37/gal. (https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_gas_price https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_gas_price) Avg new car milage is 25 mpg, 52*3.37 is ... $175. Same as the train fare, but that's just the gas. Taking the car is just dangerous and miserable IMO. Train wins.
6510 1y ago
https://darienite.com/great-10-hour-new-york-chicago-railroad-never-cameron-transportation-20577 https://darienite.com/great-10-hour-new-york-chicago-railroa... They do Beijing to Shanghai in 5 hours so you have to make New York to Chicago in 4 or it doesn't count. The numbers are funny. Flying from New York to Chicago takes less than 2 hours but all things considered you lose 8 hours https://www.trippy.com/fly/New-York-City-to-Chicago https://www.trippy.com/fly/New-York-City-to-Chicago You might as well drive it in 12.

by aposm 1y ago

JoshTriplett 1y ago

> We simply do not care to run fast passenger trains anymore since they have largely been replaced by domestic air travel. That's a self-fulfilling prophecy. First-class passenger trains are much more comfortable, roomier, and less expensive, but as long as they're so wildly slower, they have a hard time competing with air travel.

alwa 1y ago
I'm not sure they're much less expensive. To pick an arbitrary weeklong Tuesday-to-Tuesday trip in May, between New York and Chicago, the cheapest direct Amtrak fare—in coach, not in first class as you mentioned—is $336 (and 19 hours each way), whereas the same trip on Spirit Air is $96 (and 2 hours 30 minutes each way). The cheapest first class train fare is $1,621 for the round trip, vs $385 for first class airfare.
- TrainedMonkey 1y ago
  Per hour they will be much cheaper. Part of self-fulfilling prophecy is that per hour price is mostly inelastic, so as trains get slower and take more time the price rises. And higher price means less people take trains...
  - zeroonetwothree 1y ago
    Per hour walking is even cheaper.
  - rimunroe 1y ago
    > Per hour they will be much cheaper. How many people do you think care about the per-hour cost of travel. I feel confident saying that the vast majority of the traveling public wants to spend as little time and money as possible to get to their destinations.
    - Jgrubb 1y ago
      If I’m not mistaken, that’s the joke.
      - rimunroe 1y ago
        D’oh! It completely flew over my head. Thanks. I’ve heard people who are really into trains bill rail travel as being worth it purely for the experience, so it sounded plausible that they were arguing it seriously
        fc417fc802 1y ago
        I think it's less a joke than an observation. There's some per hour cost that's approximately fixed, so for a given mode of travel the slower it gets the more expensive it becomes. The lack of investment in rail is a vicious cycle.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- Mistletoe 1y ago
  Train fares are just smoking crack and it’s so frustrating, because I want to take trains. I love everything about it but the price.
- jpalawaga 1y ago
  plus an hour on the train, or a hundred bucks in a taxi on the new york side, and likewise on the chicago side, plus security screening. and luggage is free too, I think? so mostly just faster.
alephnerd 1y ago
> First-class passenger trains are much more comfortable, roomier, and less expensive, but as long as they're so wildly slower, they have a hard time competing with air travel. Maybe, but around a third of all tourism spend in the US is business travel related [0]. You cannot justify spending an overnight train ride from NYC to Chicago when you can reach there within 2 hours by flight. The US is MASSIVE - much larger than most countries, and population centers are extremely spread out once you leave the Northeast. Outside the NE, the math (time wise or financially) doesn't play out well for rail based public transit. You see the same dynamics in China as well - the overwhelming majority of medium-long distance public transit is along the extremely dense coast. Expecting a French style TGV is unrealistic as long as San Francisco to Los Angeles is the same distance as Paris to Berlin - except with almost no major population centers in between, and plenty of massive mountain ranges. Same for the rest of the US outside of the NE. Similar extent with NY to Chicago as well (roughly the same distance as Berlin to St Petersburg) [0] - https://www.statista.com/topics/1832/business-travel/#topicOverview https://www.statista.com/topics/1832/business-travel/#topicO...
- seabass-labrax 1y ago
  I don't see why it's a problem for a potential rail service for San Francisco and Los Angeles that there are no heavily populated areas between the two cities. There's no reason why you couldn't fill up a train with passengers at the start and travel non-stop to the destination, just as the vast majority of airlines operate. Trains still have all their usual benefits including better passenger comfort and higher energy efficiency, and there is the option to build intermediate stations if the demand increases in the future. I would also question the claim that overnight trains cannot be justified for business travel. If the cost is comparable to a hotel room - which is a big 'if', granted - this allows employees to be better rested and therefore work more effectively during the day.
  - alephnerd 1y ago
    > between the two cities. There's no reason why you couldn't fill up a train with passengers at the start and travel non-stop to the destination, just as the vast majority of airlines operate. This isn't flat land. There are expansive mountain ranges that make it difficult to build and any flat land that is buildable is ALSO prime agricultural land that is worth millions. Just to recoup the cost you end up with ticket prices comparable to a flight. > I would also question the claim that overnight trains cannot be justified for business travel. If the cost is comparable to a hotel room - which is a big 'if', granted - this allows employees to be better rested and therefore work more effectively during the day. Yeah no. I don't want employees to come in unshowered, and they still need a place to keep their luggage. Furthermore, plenty of people like maintaining their daily routine or spending time with their SOs. Flying a couple hours, staying at a hotel overnight, getting work done, and immediately bugging out back home is the norm.
jakelazaroff 1y ago
China’s new high speed train from Beijing to Shanghai — about the same distance as between New York and Chicago — takes a little less than four and a half hours. That’s about two hours longer than a flight between the two cities. If you include the time spent arriving early, going through security, etc, it probably comes out about even.
- alephnerd 1y ago
  And the region between Beijing to Shanghai is fairly flat and densely populated (Tianjin, Shandong, Jiangsu, Hebei), which makes it easier to justify and build out the associated infra, as plenty of other slower lines can also be run concurrently - specifically by connecting Tianjin (one of the most important cities in China) Meanwhile, the only major population centers between NY and Chicago are Pittsburg and Columbus - both of whom combined have a fraction of the population that Jiagnsu or Shandong have. Furthermore, land acquisition is different in a country like the US versus China. Mass expropriation or eminent domain of land is politically untenable in the US, but something that is easier to implement in China as a significant amount of land remains under local municipal ownership instead of private ownership.
  - jakelazaroff 1y ago
    If you pass Columbus, you’d also go through Indianapolis. Or you could go north and pass through Cleveland and Detroit. Anyway, if you only support building infrastructure in regions of the U.S. that are as densely populated as eastern China, you’d basically never build anything.
    - alephnerd 1y ago
      > If you pass Columbus, you’d also go through Indianapolis. Or you could go north and pass through Cleveland and Detroit. Which 1. Already exists 2. Leads to the same problem as before - the population size just does not justify those investments, nor is there any business demand when a flight will always remain faster. > Anyway, if you only support building infrastructure in regions of the U.S. that are as densely populated as eastern China, you’d basically never build anything I support building infrastructure that solves an actual problem - and public transit connectivity between NY and Chicago isn't one of those. It will remain slower than flight transit (so most business and plenty of personal travel will remain flight based) and car ownership remains high in the US, so for personal travel, the independence of driving would still outcompete rail. Those billions of dollars on such a hypothetical are better spent on plenty of other alternative programs - for example the local transit expansion grants which the Biden admin bundled as part of the IIJA, which helped expand bus and local rail transit instead. Even China has stopped financing these kinds of mega-projects becuase of tightening financial due dilligence, and tries to tie investments with an actual business case [0]. Heck, now prices are roughly the same between a domestic flight and HSR on the major lines in China. [0] - https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/china-bullet-trains-ticket-prices.html https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/13/business/china-bullet-tra... ---------- The only network that could even justify a high speed rail is the DC-Philadelphia-NYC-Boston corridor (so an extended Acela Line), but are you also fine with the federal government expropriating land to speed up development OR spending decades democratically building consensus. And even then DCA to JFK or Logan will remain time competitive for business travel

roenxi 1y ago

Without disagreeing, it is a weird one to see described as a marketing problem. The political process is extremely low bandwidth; it is tough to express an opinion on more than one issue with one vote and usually the priority is not transport. Presumably the major reason that HSR isn't being deployed is that it is uneconomic or there is no legal way to do it.

panny 1y ago

>We simply do not care to run fast passenger trains anymore since they have largely been replaced by domestic air travel. Trains replace road trips, not air travel. You can travel from New York to Miami for $175 on Amtrak. That's a lot cheaper and much more comfortable than driving 1300 miles. Saying you can do this faster or possibly cheaper on a budget airline is missing the point, because traveling on a budget airline is not enjoyable. There's no scenery. You're packed in like sardines. Best case scenario, every hour you spend in the plane is miserable. Every hour you spend waiting in airport security lines is miserable. Every hour spent waiting on the runway for delays is miserable. Waiting for your baggage only to find it is lost again is miserable. You can't get up to stretch your legs, sit down, the seat belt light is on. On the Amtrak there are dining cars, cafe cars, observation cars. There's five toilets on each car, you never have to wait. There's free wifi. There are no middle seats to be miserable in. You can bring your own beer and drink it on the train. You can't do any of that in car or on an airline. Riding the train is more fun than flying, and a lot less hazardous than driving. If it takes a little longer than flying, that just means more time for fun.

pseudo0 1y ago
Except that NY to Miami route you cited takes 28 to 33 hours... You could do that trip in a single long day driving, plus save money if you're a group of 3+ people. And then you'd have a car at your destination, which is pretty mandatory in most parts of the US. It might be decent for a solo traveler, but for the stereotypical family road trip to Florida, the car still wins out.
- panny 1y ago
  You're not going to drive 18 hours straight. It would be wildly dangerous for you to try as you will fall asleep at the wheel. Even if you tried it, you're going to have to make stops for gas, bathroom, and to eat, which will push the trip beyond one day. Which means you're going to have to get at least one hotel room along the way (more expense and time). And, you're assuming perfect traffic conditions, which doesn't exist, we all know. You can go to the bathroom on the train. You can sleep on the train. You can eat on the train. Which means the 28 hours is the total time and the $175 is total price. Avg gas price is 3.37/gal. (https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_gas_price https://ycharts.com/indicators/us_gas_price) Avg new car milage is 25 mpg, 52*3.37 is ... $175. Same as the train fare, but that's just the gas. Taking the car is just dangerous and miserable IMO. Train wins.

6510 1y ago

https://darienite.com/great-10-hour-new-york-chicago-railroad-never-cameron-transportation-20577 https://darienite.com/great-10-hour-new-york-chicago-railroa... They do Beijing to Shanghai in 5 hours so you have to make New York to Chicago in 4 or it doesn't count. The numbers are funny. Flying from New York to Chicago takes less than 2 hours but all things considered you lose 8 hours https://www.trippy.com/fly/New-York-City-to-Chicago https://www.trippy.com/fly/New-York-City-to-Chicago You might as well drive it in 12.