Member of the Month

partyandBS
December, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

We need more trains in this damn country

profile picture
clive_bixby
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 499
I'm in the train right now, first time riding it and I think it's fantastic. I wish America would get their shit together and vastly update and build a new rail system. This shit is great. Inb4 cool story. I'm gonna go to the food car and get some cool ones.
Jun 5 2013 9:26AM
72 16
profile picture
BrewskiJr
Posts: 5738 - Karma: 1,478
Your name and icon are awesome. I approve of this thread simply because of that.
Jun 5 2013 9:34AM
5 0
profile picture
Petey.
Posts: 5736 - Karma: 4,885
Hell yeah man. especially a couple of those high speed trains that could get us across the country in a few hours.
Jun 5 2013 9:40AM
6 0
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627
I've been saying this forever. Gah I wish trains were more prevalent, it is such a nice productive and relaxing way to travel- and you can get shitty while you travel which is always fun too.
Jun 5 2013 9:43AM
1 1
profile picture
BMB
Posts: 3138 - Karma: 232
fuck yeah!

Jun 5 2013 9:51AM
11 0
profile picture
snwbrdmilf
Posts: 22441 - Karma: 2,806
If I could get a train to travel directly east of me right now in a straight line I'd be pretty stoked.
Jun 5 2013 9:52AM
4 0
profile picture
alex=
Posts: 1738 - Karma: 2,835
on the train*

but yeah man, China has got us way beat in that. I think Obama gave the DOE budget money for one but it never happened or something, idk
Jun 5 2013 9:53AM
0 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,550
I swear that if american scientists actually focused on making trains we could make one of the fastest trains in the world for a low cost (to ride not to build).
Jun 5 2013 10:10AM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
definitely. It's so much more enjoyable than a car.

I've been taking the high speed trains in France all my life and it's insane that you can start off on a Mediterranean beach, and barely 4 hours later be in the middle of Paris.
Jun 5 2013 10:11AM
0 0
profile picture
alex=
Posts: 1738 - Karma: 2,835
It's takes me 4.5 hours to travel up a state on our interstate system. Going to fredericksburg sucks.
Jun 5 2013 10:17AM
0 0
profile picture
clive_bixby
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 499
It would be really nice if we could have high speed trains. I just don't think out rail infrastructure could handle it. It is pretty damn old thus far. Kind of like everything else.
Jun 5 2013 10:18AM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
plus the way the country is developed prevents it. In france it passes primarily through fields. And if a house was in the way, they simply bought it and bulldozed it. I know the US govt. can technically do that too only you know it would take decades of appeals to knock over 1 house.
Jun 5 2013 10:33AM
0 0
profile picture
clive_bixby
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 499
Well, it's happened on highway expansions, I've known a few people whose houses have been bought by the state. It would be cool to see them try and just put tracks next to major highways. I know that isn't possible in some areas but there is always hope. Fucking murica
Jun 5 2013 10:43AM
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
High speed trains only make sense in places with high population density, such as many parts of Europe or Japan.

But I hear California is building a lovely new high speed rail train that will eventually connect Fresno and Bakersfield, before it runs out of money.
Jun 5 2013 10:57AM
0 0
profile picture
Huck_Norris
Posts: 11487 - Karma: 18,627
People get so amped up about the funniest shit.

The unadulterated, full-strength stoke that guy just let fly was awesome haha
Jun 5 2013 10:57AM
1 0
profile picture
SkierX
Posts: 16253 - Karma: 538
America will get high speed rail travel, but it is coming in a painfully slow rollout. True high speed rail requires dedicated rail lines for the routes and just last year Amtrak announced a proposal to build their first dedicated route in the Northeast Corridor...

...The pathetic part is that they don't plan for completion until 2040. Although the Philly-NYC trip would take something like 40 minutes.

DC -> NYC - Complete by 2030
NYC -> Boston - Complete by 2040
Jun 5 2013 11:02AM
0 0
profile picture
SkierX
Posts: 16253 - Karma: 538
2028 is the scheduled completion schedule, so slim chances at seeing it before you die.
Jun 5 2013 11:05AM
0 0
profile picture
Randy_Quench
Posts: 5447 - Karma: 4,343
I hope it will be inexpensive. I know that railways in europe are mad cheap especially if you are a student or under age.
Jun 5 2013 11:22AM
0 0
profile picture
Randy_Quench
Posts: 5447 - Karma: 4,343
Double post #YOLO: forgot to add, such a rail system will help lessen our dependency on oil and other fossil fuels. Which, in turn, would hopefully lower gas prices.
Jun 5 2013 11:24AM
0 0
profile picture
roddy116
Posts: 10636 - Karma: 7,514
i like trains

Jun 5 2013 11:36AM
1 0
profile picture
HWW
Posts: 3084 - Karma: 3,436
ns isn't a country.
Jun 5 2013 11:45AM
2 2
profile picture
Mr.Sloth
Posts: 5091 - Karma: 13,470
Seconded. Took the train from Va to New York, it was way chiller than driving, and cheaper than flying. Not to mention trains are just badass
Jun 5 2013 12:11PM
0 0
profile picture
HungryHypocrite
Posts: 765 - Karma: 939
i love how americans flip so hard at trains.. no offence, but here its just normal.
switzerland has one of the best rail systems anywhere and trains are way more efficient because there is nearly no rolling resistance metal on metal. trains are the shit.
Jun 5 2013 12:17PM
1 2
profile picture
Joebin
Posts: 1664 - Karma: 867
Arent we already working on this? But yeah America has the most God awful public transit system in the world.
Click for larger image
Jun 5 2013 12:47PM
1 0
profile picture
Peter.
Posts: 23796 - Karma: 13,014
definitely need to get some highspeed lines, and work on reducing the cost


hours longer than driving, and more expensive than the gas usually as well
Jun 5 2013 12:50PM
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
I don't think you kids realize your country is bankrupt.

If high-speed passenger trains were economically viable, they would've been built already.

Take California High Speed Rail, the whole thing is a massive scam,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UnLeNjgni2g
You might learn something.






Jun 5 2013 12:51PM
0 1
profile picture
HungryHypocrite
Posts: 765 - Karma: 939
that strikes me with a lack of logic?
if youre gonna go build a high speed train, youre gonna want it to go a long way (e.g. across the country) so why are 2 of the substantial east-west stretches in yellow only being "foreseen" for 2030?

if they would do those first, bitches would love it, thus making profit, thus having more money to develop more? correct me if I'm wrong..
Jun 5 2013 12:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Joebin
Posts: 1664 - Karma: 867
Because theyre the longest stretches and would take the longest to make? Also theyre gonna have to go through the Rockies so itll take much longer to construct.
Jun 5 2013 12:55PM
0 0
profile picture
jibnut
Posts: 3038 - Karma: 304
this.
Jun 5 2013 12:59PM
0 0
profile picture
clive_bixby
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 499
How in the world is it not "viable"?
Jun 5 2013 1:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
Because if there was actually money to be made in it, there would be private investors.

Unless of course you think it's alright for these trains to operate with massive losses, like Amtrak.
I wonder who picks up that tab?
Jun 5 2013 1:36PM
1 1
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
...which is completely false.

have you ever driven on an interstate? Pay attention next time. It simply isn't true.


The rest is right for the most part, but they were never faced with a direct decision of train vs highway. It was more that they realized having an enormous highway system would be beneficial in pretty much every possible way. It had been planned for decades only with little action taken, and then Eisenhower was pretty impressed by the autobahns in Germany. He realized how practical it was to move a military, and so it was put through. (the military thing came from some expedition in the early 1900s to have a military convoy cross the country, and it took like 2 months or something ridiculous.)
Jun 5 2013 2:15PM
2 0
profile picture
clive_bixby
Posts: 1834 - Karma: 499
Who picked up the losses when the airlines tanked, what about the car industry? Probably the same people who picked up amtraks tab. I don't see your point.
Jun 5 2013 2:43PM
1 0
profile picture
Z-Juice
Posts: 3151 - Karma: 1,504
I started taking the light rail more, cheap and efficient.
Jun 5 2013 3:00PM
0 0
profile picture
KZA
Posts: 3304 - Karma: 301
HSR is most efficicent for mid range trips that are 200-300 miles long. Anything shorter, might as well take a car. Anything longer, might as well just fly. That is the main reason I that the eastern corridor is being built up first. Trips between boston/nyc, nyc/philly, nyc/dc would all be hugely popular.

As far as taking land, because of eminent domain and The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, the US can take property at fair market value. It isn't just hey this is ours now here is a check. The program actually does a lot to help people relocate and even affords them extra money for relocation expense alone.
Jun 5 2013 3:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Backyard.Skier
Posts: 5397 - Karma: 1,497
canadian rail transit at least cross country is pretty good, but really expensive
Jun 5 2013 3:24PM
0 0
profile picture
VT_FLO
Posts: 3806 - Karma: 147
Sprawl would be a problem for many places in the US but I could see more high speed trains across country, ones that touch major cities.

Jun 5 2013 3:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Turkelton
Posts: 2829 - Karma: 8,558
LOL I LIVE IN SWITZERLAND BEST TRAIN SYSTEM APART FROM JAPAN SUCK IT LOLOLOLOLOL
Jun 5 2013 3:39PM
4 1
profile picture
HungryHypocrite
Posts: 765 - Karma: 939
same, its tits
Jun 5 2013 3:45PM
1 0
profile picture
t_rob
Posts: 6433 - Karma: 11,459
North America is way different than Europe when it comes to populations and area. I can really only see trains being successful in the Northeast Megalopolis (Boston to Washington DC) and the Quebec City Windsor Corridor. Everywhere else is too far apart.

The distance between London and the Mediterranean is less than distance between New York and Chicago. What's located between the Mediterranean and London? Paris. 10 million people and one of the most famous cities in the world. What's located between New York and Chicago? Cleveland, Ohio.

Think about it.
If the trains went 1000 mph and could do New York-chicago-LA in an afternoon, I think trains could work. Until then, Nowhere near sold.
Jun 5 2013 4:24PM
3 0
profile picture
Campeador
Posts: 7516 - Karma: -1,227
Struggling airlines almost always go into chapter 11 bankruptcy, to restructure their debt and create new labor contracts. There is also chapter 7 bankruptcy, which deals with liquidation. Airlines do not make up for their losses through taxpayer dollars.

Chrysler and GM were not allowed to go into chapter 11 bankruptcy, which probably would've helped their businesses a great deal. Instead the bondholders got screwed in favor of the unions (this is another discussion entirely). Even so, they were provided a loan by the government, they aren't owned by the government. Although taxpayer money was used for the loan, taxpayers aren't on the line every year to make up for GM and Chrysler's losses (at least not yet).

Amtrak is owned by the government, in the same way as the US Postal Service. Both operate with massive amounts of losses every year. A legitimate business would be forced to declare bankruptcy, but due to government ownership, they use taxpayer money to make up for their losses in order to remain in operation.

High Speed Rail will be another massive government-funded black hole if allowed to go through. Taxpayers will be on the line every year to make up for its losses, not to mention the original building costs. Unless of course you're naive enough to believe that the government can generate a positive return on it.

Furthermore, California High Speed Rail is one of the most corrupt projects I've ever seen. One can only assume other high speed train efforts will mirror it.
Jun 5 2013 6:16PM
0 1
profile picture
Randy_Quench
Posts: 5447 - Karma: 4,343
except those dates in the bottom right are wayyyy off.
Jun 5 2013 7:03PM
0 0
profile picture
SKI.ING
Posts: 2695 - Karma: 2,535
Fuck adding more. Maybe updating, yes. But the new highspeed rail to nowhere in CA is bullshit. Going right through all the key farmland, including my own.
Jun 5 2013 8:12PM
1 1
profile picture
Morty.
Posts: 136 - Karma: 291
My town is trying to get the railroads back up for public transport for the surrounding areas.
Jun 5 2013 8:23PM
0 0
profile picture
gotti
Posts: 4269 - Karma: 4,550
all you europeans in this thread sound like idiots to americans who have a highschool education. A rail system is completely unviable in america. Its literally the dumbest idea our government has come up with. Our population density is many times less than that of europe. Private investors are not dumb shits either, theres obviously no money to be made in this.
Jun 5 2013 8:37PM
0 3
profile picture
~Gotama~
Posts: 821 - Karma: 3,160
main issue with amtrak is the long distance lines. they are super expensive to maintain and receive very little traffic. inner city lines therefore have their budgets stripped down, an we get shitty ass public transit. get rid of the lines over 500 miles and you can afford to make the inner-city lines a lot better.
Jun 6 2013 12:05AM
1 0
profile picture
timmi
Posts: 12874 - Karma: 3,460


Jun 6 2013 12:16AM
3 0
profile picture
Tinga
Posts: 11349 - Karma: 2,333
I don't get motion sickness in a car or plane but I get some nasty headaches on a train. other than that its a pretty decent way to travel.
Jun 6 2013 12:42AM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
I sleep on trains. No idea why.

put me on a plane for 9 hours...20 minutes of sleep.

put me on a Eurostar or TGV for 3 hours, and I'll sleep 2.5 of them.

regardless of how tired or rested I am.
Jun 6 2013 12:49AM
0 0
profile picture
Trace.
Posts: 1460 - Karma: 635
All of this and you want more trains, quality thread
Jun 6 2013 12:50AM
0 0
profile picture
Lucas
Posts: 4881 - Karma: 1,575
it only works in Europe because of the extremely high population concentrations, if you think it would work here your an idiot. Take for example seattle's new light rail system that costs 10's of millions of dollars to build and loses massive amounts of money every year. come at me.
Jun 6 2013 1:09AM
0 2
All times are Eastern (-5)