A window into the plight of America’s railways: Are Amtrak’s long-distance routes coming to an end?

Cars are the money, environment and human life destroyers; trains are the way to go!

 

No; leave the ultra-dangerous automobile in the ash heap of history where it belongs.

 

Cars SEVENTEEN times more likely to kill you than trains:

https://www.vox.com/2015/5/14/8606195/train-safety-driving-crashes

 

"Trains are significantly safer than automobiles."

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...n-cars-buses-passengers-experts-say/82613144/

 

"Cars are the most dangerous method of transportation by a wide margin."

http://time.com/3857202/amtrak-philadelphia-crash-safety/

 

Planes are cheaper and safer.

 

I agree..but not on the tax payer's nickel. If the private sector can make them work at a profit...I am 100% for them. Running at a loss by the government...I am 100% against them.

I believe the Interstate's should be privatized as their massive privatization is one of the reason's high speed rail cannot get a foothold in America.

 

High speed rail is a boondoggle in most places it's been tried. There are a few routes in Japan that are economically successful. A NY/DC high speed train would be useful, but that's really about it in the U.S.

 

Trains don't do much good for travelling to rural small towns. Cars are much better for most things in the U.S. We simply don't have the population density (outside of the East coast) for trains to be useful.

 

Moving freight is the only real reason to have long distance rail at all these days. I don't oppose limited commuter rail, say within a 50 mile radius or such, but beyond that its too expensive, too inconvenient, and too restrictive at the end of the line...

 

Depends where you're going, but trains can be made even more economical, and our deadly dependence on cars ended.

 

Some good points, though the goobermint needs to be involved to some degree if trains are to be our future.

Works great for the USPS, even with Congress trying to kill it.

 

If you build it, we will ride.

 

Rural areas ARE an issue, but with shuttles and so forth, it can be managed. Our grandparents, and their parents, and their parents and so on did it. We can too.

 

Some good points, and the golden 50 miles are crucial, but with supplemental shuttling, it's doable on a bigger scale!

 

Back during America's good old day, passenger trains were like being on a cruise ship.

Finest food in the dining car. White linen table tops, real china and silverware. Four star meals.
Always a parlor car or lounge with a bar.
Private sleeping cars if you were rich.
Pullman made the best passenger cars in the world.
Even the seats in coach were better than any first class seat you see on airplanes today. They were made so you could sleep in them.

Then there were the Harvey Houses and the Harvey Girls found along all of the rail lines in the West, except along the Burlington RR lines.



The Harvey House in Barstow California. It's still standing.


Harvey Girls 1946

r
Dining car


I remember America before there was an Amtrak.

 

^ Thread win so massive it defies belief.

 

Money is wasted if you try to fix ancient Amtrak monopoly.
Money is not wasted if you build 150 mph train, that takes 8 hours to get to Florida from Illinois.

 

Whatever it takes, but you have me drooling!

 

We can argue over the subjective experience of train vs plane travel ... if I've got the time, I personally much prefer trains ... but there it's just a matter of taste, and de gustibus non disputandem est.

The second question is whether I should make taxpayers pay for part of my journey, as Amtrak does now. You can make a case for market-distorting subsidies, but it should be made openly. (I love Amtrak by the way, and have made numerous journeys on it. I recommend it to everyone. The food is great, and the sleeping arrangements, if you can afford a berth, are tolerable. Don't count on long-distance runs keeping to their timetable, however, as freight trains have priority on the tracks.)

But really, this argument is rapidly becoming irrelevant. Trains, even more than cars and planes, should be ripe for near-total automation. Many train accidents are caused by incompetent operators, probably drunk or stoned, running them too fast. Let a machine do this. That's the first step. (But it will cause consternation among Left and Right: eliminating most of the operating crew would probably make trains affordable without subsidy, so that, plus smashing the railworkers' union, should appeal to the Right. But the latter would upset the Left, who still haven't accepted the loss of buggy-whip maker jobs when the automobile came in.)

The second step is being pioneered by Elon Musk: make your trains maglev, so they can go really fast, not having to worry about friction with the rails or having to come down exactly on a rail if there is a bump ... the Japanese, Chinese and Germans have already done that. Then ... put them into near-vacuum tunnels, so that air resistance is dramatically lowered -- the reason passenger jets fly at 30 to 40 thousand feet. What is the upper speed limit then? I don't think anyone knows. We might have airline-speed-or-better transportation at passenger train levels of comfort and safety. Coast to coast in an hour?

If that can be shown to be technically and economically feasible ... then we can knit the world together with a set of ultrahigh speed vacuum trains ... New York to Moscow in two hours, London to Melbourne in the same time. Live in Costa Rica and commute to work in Houston.

But that would cost a lot of money and effort ... the engineering project of the century ... better to put all that energy and talent and resources into building more effective weapons of war. Look! A supersonic fighter jet that can hover! Well worth a trillion bucks!

 

I never learned to drive due to my disabilities being a risk to others and myself, however Greyhound can go long distance cheap compared to trains which for the same distance would cost me ten times more and would a high speed train from Tampa to Milwaukee cost me for a round trip and my discounts average $90? Is flying going to cost that on a major airline? So for the POOR the only option is Greyhound and even in countries you idolize the POOR take buses the rail can be too expensive if your low income especially if traveling with others in a group like a family.

Most people drive if they don't opt to drive then they fly then if poor opt for Greyhound the rail as it is now is just to expensive and not that much faster than buses.

 

Yes ... Greyhound is an American icon. I had a number of uncomfortable trips between New York state, where I was attending university, and my home in Texas, on Greyhound. Sometimes sitting on a suitcase. Later I learned about Driveaway, which you should check out if you don't know about it.

Amtrak is seldom full. People with disabilities, and people in other categories such as students, veterans, etc ought to be able to buy cheap tickets for it.

You refer to "countries [you] idolize". What countries are those? I don't idolize any countries, although there are countries that do this or that better than other countries, from which the latter could learn.

Another advantage of trains is that the rail network can be electrified, so they can be driven entirely by nuclear-power-generated electricity (and windturbine electricity too, of course).

 

Knock yourself out. Just don't drag the rest of us along with you.

 

Flight time from Miami to Chicago, Ill is 3 hours 21 minutes.

 

America has been gone since the 1960s. We just didn't notice it till now.