Hacker News Reader

Comment by chadmalik | Hacker News Reader

Doesn't it seem like having a high speed train network that connects the major metro areas is at least somewhat of a good idea? This is a good hedge against peak oil since trains can be powered by electricity.

Also, arguably if the trains are used to move goods they can get trucks off the road and really decrease road maintenance costs. If you look into the wear and tear vehicles make on pavement, each extra pound is exponentially more damage. Trucking companies actually are heavily subsidized by the road infrastructure but nobody notices it ;)

I do wonder if we need high speed trains. Regular trains might be a better long term bet.

View on HN

Actually, railways in USA already has much higher portion in freight transport than in EU (40% to 10%). It is not that big surprise, as big parts of the rail system are almost freight-only.

High speed rail might work to connect nearby metro areas, but almost certainly, trains across half or whole US will not work. It's simply too far away, and it wouldn't be any competition to airplanes. Even EU high speed rail are mostly, in their current state, few scattered islands connecting large cities within a single country.

  > ... big parts of the rail system are almost freight-only.

Rail can be a very cheap way to move freight. Slower than truck, sure. But quite inexpensive. I'd love to see more rail freight.

The problem however is that in many parts of the country the same lines are shared by both passengers and freight. This means that for starters those lines are not going to be suitable for high speed passenger rail anyway. But beyond that, Amtrak gets second priority on those lines. This is one of the reasons for the frustrating delays that rail travel in the US always seems to have.

German high speed rail lines are also shared by passengers and freight, it is not problem. Old rail lines can almost never be used for high speeds, all high speed rail lines are built completely new. Original constructors never thought about speeds around 300 km/h. For example, HS line can afford slopes with steeper grades, because high speed train units have more powered axles and have less problems with them than one or two engines with 20 cars. On the other hand, you need curves with much higher diameters. So HS lines are different from the ordinary ones.

Well, if we base a decision on historical performance of Amtrak, then it's not a good idea. Amtrak is a huge loser.

If we're really worried about "green" efforts these days, we should consider strongly what modes will move people most efficiently. This is one of the areas where common knowledge differs badly from reality. See, e.g., http://eapblog.worldbank.org/content/comparing-the-fuel-effi...

Trains are much less efficient than, say, buses, due largely to problems in filling the trains fully. And since this is all so political, you can expect this train to be worse thanks to the political wrangling that will force the decisions about stations and schedules to overwhelm efficient routing plans.

Amtrak's Acela is sometimes (regularly?) profitable. It is all the low-speed routes where it loses money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com