When will the United States have high speed trains?

In 1969, the Pennsylvania Railroad introduced Metroliner service at 125 mph, narrowly meeting the contemporary definition of high-speed rail as 124 mph (200kph) or more. Amtrak inherited it.

In 2000, Amtrak created a somewhat faster train, the Acela, for 150 mph service.

Trains magazine, a U.S. railfan magazine, rates the U.S. as #11 among countries with high speed rail.

America's size is both a blessing and a curse. On one hand, it makes the needed land cheap. On the other, it makes the trackway expensive and the long distances futile. A HSR service from Chicago to San Francisco would still need sleeping cars.

Here's where it gets interesting. Read this article.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2... America's freight railroad business is so successful it's overloading the available track. Even worse, Amtrak and high speed freight (UPS, truck trailers, just-in-time auto parts) are trying to mix with low speed freight and local switchers on the same track and that's a mess. The freights want to build more track (with Federal help). Meanwhile, most parts of the country won't have enough passenger trains to justify a high speed line all by themselves. See an opportunity? Build the HSR and put all the hotshot traffic on it, let the freight help pay for the line.

When? Well, that'll be when the devil and all his imps are ice skating in hell.

If you could build it tomorrow and start running the next day, the trains would be virtually empty, because it isn't just the price of fuel that is at issue.

It's the "flash." Two story pick-up trucks that can drive over anything except the two story pick-up truck right in front of it, and they'll never see a day off road while getting that 12 mpg.

Hummers? Should be illegal to own. But, if we do get to buy them, we ought to be able to get them "fully loaded," to use Detroit's old terminology, which includes the roof mounted .50 Cal.

Next, get rid of all the useless crap on today's production models. SUV's loaded with electric everything: re-configure the seat arrangement, open and close doors, windows, sun roof, moon roof, rear hatch, etc., all at the push of a button. (Get rid of it and the vehicles will be lighter, therefore more fuel efficient, as well as having the extra benefit of an obese America burning off a few of those greasy, fast-food meals. We cab also get rid of a bunch of cup holders, too.)

Video cameras for backing up? Turn yur flippin' head, people, and quit paying to haul the extra weight around. 6 DVD players in an SUV? More unneeded weight. In my dad's car, "Sit sown and shut the hell up." was all the entertainment we needed. It is a means of transportation, not a rolling family room...

And most everything is 4 wheel drive today. Wanna own one? Fine. If you live in an area where there is less than 18" annual snow fall, pay a large "luxury tax" the same way people do on pleasure-boats and personal aircraft, so you can keep your gas guzzler and worry about how to keep it fueled and ready to roll... (A side note here: I have many people who live in the SF bay area say that the 4x4 is a 'back up' for travelling after 'the big one.' Idiots... unless you have a helicopter, you ain't going anywhere..)

Finally, anyone who was driving in the early '70's remembers the last engineered oil gouge, courtesey of OPEC. What was a good national approach to the problem? A 55 mph national speed limit. It helped then, it'll help now. I find it telling irony that most often, when someone sees the "think green" bumper stickers and other conservative measures emplazoned on the rear of a car, you gotta read fast because that car is moving past ya at 75+ mph.

All of which means, no. You're not going to see high speed rail in America, outside of a short commute corridor, perhaps.

So, slow down, don't buy into the "keeping up with the Jones' " mind set, or shut the hell up, and keep wasting fuel and money.

Why don't we have a better passenger rail system? To be completely honest I have no idea (sarcasm), ask your local congressman/woman. Actually, I think the people have spoken for some time now (a recent Harris Poll found nearly 70% of citizens think we should have a better rail system) but getting the government to act is another thing.

Ever since Amtrak was created in 1971 (under the Nixon Administration), unfortunately, it has been meant to fail. What has kept it going is the overwhelming support of the people, and Congress, to keep it going, albeit just enough to survive year-to-year.

So, to make a long story short, if we could get a unified Washington to back a dedicated, high-speed, passenger rail system (preferably with its own routes instead of using the private freight rail system) it would work wonders in this country to reduce congestion, fuel usage, and in the process cut down on emissions (but, unfortunately, none of the upcoming Presidential nominees have said a word about developing such). Per-fuel-mile nothing is more efficient at moving people or freight than railroads...

We gave up on trains for passenger service a long time ago (Sigh - The Super Chief was a LOT more fun than riding in the cheap seats today) We use airplanes for long distance travel The Chinese are using High Speed trains for long distance travel because they cannot afford (and do not want) the infrastructure required for aircraft Europe and Japan use High Speed Trains because the distances they need to travel are too short for efficient use of aircraft. In the USA, there are only certain high volume corridors where high speed rail makes sense Otherwise, air travel is more efficient High Speed Rail is a round peg Do not shove it in a square hole

We can't tell for sure, because high-speed trains require straight track, or even nearly-straight track(likewise in France's TGV, Japan's Shinkansen, and Taiwan's High Speed Rail(the cars are Shinkansen 700T models). The main reason for this is that it is most likely to derail when it comes to very curved track. And asides from that, the placement of the tracks may annoy residents in the vicinity of the railroad(such example is when the Taiwan High Speed Rail's first years of operation, a Taiwanese news channel report stating the residents living near the tracks complain about the high amount of noise generated when the trains pass by). In addition, high speed trains are exclusively for long-distance travel.

I'm always asking myself the same thing my friend. My answer to myself is usually how high do gas prices need to go ($5 or $7 or $10) to make Americans realize that I should change my transportation ways. (Some Americans are theory stubborn and I’ll admit I am too specially about this)

but in Europe it did help that they are theory close together but analysis have all ways know that building a high speed rail from New York to Chicago to San Francisco (or LA or Seattle) would not be worth it airlines will still hold that cut of transportation cake. but defiantly the fast short haul 260% worth it is already worth it. to take a train from Chicago to Milwaukee I can get there when I would be getting in the air on a plane (say that delays and security takes me more than an hour don't even get me started if there is bad weather denying me to take off or land) and in this section (short distance/ regional service) we have see some of the best growth in the system. draw up plans have been for short high speed in areas like a Midwest one more new York north east area and maybe a Ohio club to connect them. one and a Florida one to a Texas one to Oklahoma a California area one and north west by Seattle but when these plans/Ideas were made in 2004 they were planed for completion in 2050 but high gas prices my drive that sooner (hopefully) like the Quad cities rout in planning and executing stage. Europe’s high gas prices are the way they pay for they high speed trains and encourages them to use them. but here we believe that Amtrak is a big waste of money and dose nothing when it dose and how much money is pored in to the highway system like that Amtrak get less than 5% of the funding bill (airlines get a bigger chunk then Amtrak). But advances have been made that all anti-Amtrak bill has been defeated and that the Amtrak re authorization bill has been pass in the house or senate (I can’t remember right now). So there is hope but it’s going to come slowly. Defiantly some of the first or pioneers of speed travel was in the USA. (O how sick would it be for the north shore to return) and yes that our current system of Amtrak on freight tracks and getting screwed over by the freight railroad dose not help at all.

John-

I have been seeing this question appear quite frequently over the past few weeks now that fuel prices have nearly doubled from last year.

In Europe, Japan and the UK, the rail systems are all government controlled and owned, (regardless of what the other folks say). The governments in those countries set up those systems because of their populations and the fact that fuel over there was already $6.00 per gallon in the 1960's

Also, the high-speed trains they have over there do not share the same rail as the freight trains. The freight trains, are diesel electric, like they are here, and cannot be allowed to run under the gangways for the high tension wires, not can they be allowed to ride over the 3-Rail systems because of leaking oil and lubricants from the locomotives, let alone from any leaking equipment.

Also the passenger rail is not designed to carry freight, as the tonnage is greater, than that of carrying passengers.

Next issue is a matter of Real Estate. After WWII they countries over there knew they were going to have to make a change in how people moved from place to place. So they purchased the Real Estate to be able to lay the passenger rail accordingly.

Here in the US its a matter of logistics. Our major cities are considerably further apart. I don't mean by a few 10's of miles, but by a few hundred or a few thousand. This makes a huge difference.

Also, in some locations within the US it is not practical to install additional "passenger traffic only" rails. If you have a look at Google Earth and have a look at the Feather River Canyon, or Dunsmuir you will see exactly what I am talking about.

Next, the rail systems here are all private companies. These companies, (IE: Union Pacific), all own the land the rails are laying on. So with that said, since Passenger Traffic is not their business, they give priority to their freight trains.

So what about Amtrak?

Amtrak is what is left over from the closedown of passenger traffic by all of the railroads nation-wide. this was done in the late 70's as an attempt to preserve some resemblance of a railroad passenger system. Most of the railroads that Amtrak rolls their equipment on, is hosted by these other railroad companies, meaning Amtrak pays rent for operating their equipment on the hosting railroad's Right of Way.

Plus in certain locations, Amtrak is restricted to certain routes due to equipment and liability.

The only way this system is going to change is when we get more people to vote for politicans who support a nation-wide passenger system and improve Amtrak's operations by doing so.

This is all up to how long Americans are going to keep driving their 8 Cylinder Subdivisions around their zip codes. I guess when they are dropping $200.00 per tank they will decide to do something about it.

Just a personal note. I currently work for my partner's security company part time. We do patrol services in the Bay Area. We are currently phasing out all of our 6 and 8 cylinder vehicles in favor of 4 cylinder vehicles like Corollas and such. Why? The 8 Cylinder Ford Crown Victoria's cost $54.00 per fill up, (3 times per week). The 6 Cylinder Pick-Up trucks $49.00 per fill up, (3 times per week). Do the math over a month and you know where our fuel costs are. The 4 cylinder cars get almost double the fuel milage, and cost half as much to keep fueled.

But nevertheless, if you want this to change as much as I do, then start writing your congress-persons and have your voice heard. More importantly get out there and vote!

I hope this answered your question.

We'll have high-speed trains when it becomes uneconomical to fly short-haul within the US.

Until then, we've got too many eggs in the interstate highway and air travel baskets to build thousands upon thousands of miles of dedicated high speed track (which is needed for proper, SAFE high speed rail) Even if we only had regional high-speed service, just serving the east coast would be as big a project as Japan's entire high-speed rail system.

But ****, man, we're gonna have to do it sooner or later.

The US did have high speed trains once. Streamlined steam locos capable of 100mph+ and high speed diesels and electrics.

Sadly rail has become the poor cousin to the car and airliner as a form of transport in the US - though I read good reports of the standard of accommodation on US trains - if ever I visit the States it'd certainly be my choice of travel.

When the US government and big business realise that the oil boom is over I suspect that there will be a rail revival in the US. I hope so. A country that big deserves a decent rail system.

We already have one high-speed train, the Acela Express from Boston to Washington via New York. California might build one from LA to SF if the bond measure passes in November. Hopefully we will see more of these built if the gas prices keep going up.