Why doesn't the military use Amtrak for non-emergency troop transport? Amtrak offers pretty good discounts for active duty soldiers. Not even trying to troll/shitpost here, it is a cheaper alternative then flying everyone around but isn't the hell that Greyhound is.
I mean, it's not like anyone normal takes Amtrak because it's so slow, and so all the extra seats ought to be used by someone.
More likely they're already using the C130s and strapping sone guys in the back doesn't require much effort.
OP, AmTrak is bayond garbage. If America had an effective high-speed transit system things would be different.
Intercity? Yep. Amtrak is a huge government handout to places like my hometown (Elko), it's not meant to be used by people in Chicago or LA.
Amtrak is, first and foremost, subsidized transport for rural areas. It's also free money for the freight railroads since Amtrak has to lease space from them (though, at the market price).
t. train autist
Because Chicago didn't use a different rail gauge like most of the South did. Chicago also didn't spend a decade getting itself blown up.
It makes more sense when you realize that until 1930 Dixie was africa-tier underdeveloped.
Take a look at the geography of the USA. And then compare that to the major population centers of each state.
Air travel is considerably cheaper at this point than to expand our rail system.
Because a lot of railroads were built to deliver cattle to slaughter houses in Chicago.
Atlanta is also a big railroad hub, there was a saying "If you're going to Hell you'll go through Atlanta first." Because of the big railroad hub there
>Air travel is considerably cheaper at this point than to expand our rail system.
tell that to the airlines, they are gutting all the sub 500 mile routes because they don't make money as reliably as longer distance ones. Even fucking army bus drivers are making more money than me right now since they actually have work
>tfw I fell for the "alrline pilot is a stable job" meme
This is the Netherlands rail.. US rail still doesn't make sense
it's about 300 miles from Amsterdam to Paris
Sacramento to Chicago is 2,100 miles, 800 miles of which is mountains
I was looking at it from a cost standpoint.
It would cost billions in labor and materials alone to expand our rail system. Not counting the AU of red tape one would have to go through to expand the rail state by state.
I know the airline industry is shitty. It's easy to see. They're constantly having price wars and competitions. On top of trying to cram more and more creature comforts into each flight. I really blame Western society as a whole for that. We're so dependent on having the right foods, our WiFi, the right type of bottled water and liquor.
And now with the whole being able to bring your "comfort" animal on the plane thing? Jesus, the terrorists did win. It's just not how we expected them to win.
Amtrak is 100% legacy routes. The railroads were allowed to drop passenger service in exchange for the government picking up the tab. Rural people demand subsidized rail.
There's no reason to have rail in the West because there is not a large enough population center outside of Denver to justify it. Plus we have one of the most extensive highway systems in the world with a huge amount of cars per capita. Also planes are a thing, and Netherlands is tiny in comparison.
Hey I got my orders for Amtrac technition, I'll be heading to pendelton for my job soon.. any advice for this boot?
I'm nearly positive there is no Amtrak route from New Orleans to Houston. I've extensively checked. This map might include bus routes or just the rails themselves but definitely not only passenger routes. I go to school in Texas and driving 7 hours to visit home sucks. I'd love to be able to take a train for once.
Costwise highways cost 10x what railways do, on the basis that the Insterstate system isn't tolled and thus does not extract a user fee.
For as shit as Amtrak is, they can reliably obtain 20-30% of their operating costs via fares. The Metroliner breaks even to the point where Amtrak can obtain private loans for expansion there. Most commuter rail agencies obtain 50-60% of their operating costs, thought they could probably break even too if they replaced unionized conductors with electronic fare gating.
As it applies to Amtrak, making it not shit costs half as much as making a comparable Interstate route, and that there's a use fee and thus over time the costs are much lower.
Airlines don't care period since they will always be able to charge a premium for faster service. Amtrak competes with Greyhound like the railroads compete with interstate haulers. The only reason the latter exist is because Interstates are not tolled and are hugely taxpayer subsidized.
train autists and gun autists map almost 1:1
I'd just like to point out for all the shocked eurobros here. That is passenger rail. Freight rail is much more extensive in the US.
greyhound is shit and highways are expensive, airlines only care about hub to hub lines that make the most money, commuter flights take up valuable gate space that can be used for flights that make more money
But without conductors, who would we talk to if there was a problem?
Srsly though. I see what you're saying.
It's cheaper over time than regular commuter travel. But that's not what people will see. They'll just see that massive initial cost and have a heart attack. I can't imagine blasting more track through the Appalachians and the Rockies will be cheap compared to existing roadways or building new roads.
This is Britain for comparison
>They'll just see that massive initial cost and have a heart attack.
Wasn't the case in Utah, Denver, Florida, Michigan, Florida and California over the past 20 years. The development is slower but it happens. First local commuter rail is built (like Sunrail and Trirail), then intra-state routes are built (All Aboard Florida), then inter-state routes (Silver Meteor, Sunset Limited) are modernized. Out in California it started with Caltrain and Metrolink, then Amtrak California, now CAHSR. Same is starting in Texas with TRE.
It builds on itself as freeways get more congested (and more expensive to maintain) and as urban areas gentrify and densify.
America is a pretty big country. My state is larger than most european countries.
It's not that much larger overall.
Plus Europe has 700 million people and the US only has 320 million yet Europe is covered in dense rail networks.
CAHSR is happening because all of California's freeways were built by the feds in the 1950s, and they are now hitting the end of their 50-year lifespans and require massive (and costly) refurbishing. Given the state's continual budget issues, HSR has a large upfront cost but can at least pay for itself in some form. At the very least, CAHSR can be sold to federal Amtrak.
As for Michigan, Detroit going belly up changed minds so now thy have pretty good service, about 80-100 mph on average. AAFL will be 125 mph and is completely privately funded too. Again, it's all cost. Freeways are expensive. Even when the feds allow tolling, demand for rail will keep increasing.
This is one of the reasons why I really hope Trump picks Webb has his VP since Webb proposed a bill that would allow CCWing on Amtrak.
Amtrak realized long ago that Congress will never give them what they want so giving grants to states has worked out better. Then all they have to do is focus on connecting the states that work with them.
Because Europe has more than twice the population in a smaller area that developed in a geography that is largely more conductive to rail building to its population centers that are spread more uniformly than across the north american continent.
Detriot has better Amtrak service than San Francisco. This makes my dick hard, great lakes stornk.
Delivery for /k/
Once upon a time, I remember there being a passenger train that ran from Victoria to Houston here, about 120 miles. Problem was, you'd take the train, arrive an hour slower to your destination, and then be stuck without a vehicle in a city where nothing's within walking distance, meaning you'd either need to take a cab, wait for the metro, or know someone there already.
Also, I still remember the Trans Texas Corridor plan they had going on, where the proposed plan would greatly expand the highways, railways, and subject 95% of my land to imminent domain again. Fuck trains if it means losing land my family has owned since 1850.
leave is what happens in between that transition.
they dont pay for your ticket unless youre going right from 1 duty station to the next. they give you leave, and if you dont take the immediate flight to next duty station, it's out of your pocket.
is your butthole ready?
>buy land near RR for cheaper access to distribution network
>get butthurt when RR expands their operations
this is like people who buy land near freeways and then get butthurt when freeways inevitably expand
>getting paid an insane amount of money for maybe 32 feet worth of a corridor through your property is something that people should be sad about
>then potentially having access to local-stop trains, and making loads of money off development leasing
>There was no railroad there when the land was purchased
If your family has actually owned land since before the civil war, you're Bush tier rich and I got no sympathy for you
When something similar happened last time (State decided to dam up some rivers, flooded a bunch of farmland), we got paid nothing even close to the value that land was worth, much less the value it was to our family. And now the state rakes in money hand over fist selling water from it to Corpus, and none of us see a dime from it. Lot of family who farmed for years suddenly found themselves out of work and without skills to do anything else.
Owning land in Texas does not make you wealthy at all, just means you're probably ranching cattle or farming.
State takes the land and sells it to the railroad. The state pays us, railroad pays the state. That said, the state pays what the land is valued at by the tax assessor, which is always very low (IE, if my land was worth $5000 total by the tax assessor, I'd probably be able to sell it to another private party for 5-10x that depending on other factors at the time. It's intentionally valued lower than what it's worth, which would mean good things for tax time, except that as eminent domain approached years ago, the tax assessor would continually drop the value of the land to lower the amount the state would have to pay for a "fair deal".)
Now don't get me wrong, providing fast and cheap transport routes for goods and passengers is a great and noble goal. The problem is that someone's going to get bent over when it happens and lose something that's basically sentimentally irreplaceable and will have no chance to gain a reciprocated amount of land anywhere nearby. It's like someone in England being told they'd have to give up some WW2 war relic their grandfather brought back, and that the government will pay them a "fair" price for it -- there's no such thing as a fair price for something that can't be replaced.
Because you have to waste as much $$$ as you can so that you can justify next year's budget increase.
Can any trainboos inform me how important America's train system would become in a total war situation?
I would think in this day and age that the military could meet all its transportation needs via air, but images like
give me pause
Here is a more complete map that includes freight lines.
>basically sentimentally irreplaceable and will have no chance to gain a reciprocated amount of land anywhere nearby
there's always land not near train tracks
land value only increases around stations
given that railroads are the backbone of industry, they're pretty important
there is no war effort without railroads
One one hand yes, on the other hand if you buy land in the vicinity of RR tracks or freeways, EDing is something you'd know when you'd first purchase it. The amount of people who own land before RRs were built are ridiculously small in number, to the point where I think it's only Texas and the deepest parts of the South.
The issue of American Passenger rail isn't that America has shitty rail infrastructure. It's that Passenger rail has no dedicated infrastructure and must share/lease rail from freight. The issues are obvious becuase csx and other firms obviously will get right of way for freight rail which equals shitty service becuase Amtrak is basiclly at their mercy.
This is also the reason why we don't have super high speed rail mainly becuase you can't have bullet trains sharing the same track. Thr only rail amtrak owns is the northeast coridor.
Anyway I took the auto train from Orlando to wood bridge VA. I wish there was more of that becuase it's so fun and easy and you bring your car.
It is, it seeks to benefit a larger population by taking from few. And sure, the hundreds of thousands of people who might directly benefit over the years by taking Jim Bob's shack along with a couple hundred other luddites just like him. That said, Jim Bob's had his shack there for his entire life, and his dad Jim Bob Sr. has as well, as has his dad, etc. You're uprooting his entire life and family history, removing him from the only job he's known or possibly qualified for, and ultimately doing it to increase the small margins of profit for a larger entity. At what point do you draw the line in the sand and say the government has no right to take for the greater good?
[spoiler]And yeah, in effect you are a dirty commie, but even commies have their positives.[/spoiler]
No lump sum is really worth the land. In the case of the lake that went up in my back yard, we should've continued to receive a cut of profits from it (Water sales from the lake generate multiple millions of dollars every year. The land we lost to make that lake was roughly equivilent to .3% of it. Therefore, I'd feel justified in asking for 70-80% of that .3%, equivalent to about $2500 per $1,000,000 dollars made by the lake per year.).
It's land, something you use to make a living with and live on for decades or centuries. A one time payment doesn't equate to anything, instead of outright taking the land, a forced lease would probably be a better, more fair alternative. You still in effect lose the land, but you're compensated yearly for it.
From a legal standpoint, the FRA allows trains up to 125 mph to share tracks with regular trains. This is what All Aboard Florida is doing, and what Amtrak Cascades is trying to do.
Because trains suck serious ass and no one in their right mind would ever use one if s flight is an option. You are stuck in the train for days were the only food that is available is at gouged prices and your arrival time of 5 days is more like 6-9 days depending on how late you are, and you will be late because these trains are rarely on time. In addition to this your destination maybe a city that is farther away from your destination than any airport would ever be. And then you get to try to figure out the car situation. There is a reason trains aren't more popular.
It took me 28 hours, one way, to get from New York to Indianapolis. I thought "oh, there were some delays, it will be better on the way back."
24 hours. Fuck Amtrack. You might as well fucking bike.
See what I mean?, this it the use case for Amtrak, for people who can't afford plane tickets. Amtrak is head and shoulders above Greyhound especially if there's shit weather. No stopping to put on chains, no niggers pissing into trashcans, no sitting in traffic. Also 24" seats.
>Because trains suck serious ass and no one in their right mind would ever use one if s flight is an option.
flying is really expensive if you don't live near a hub
For example, try flying from SLC to anywhere in the US. Nine times out of ten the cheapest flights require a transfer at Denver. At that point, you might as well just take Amtrak to Denver.
I still find the time/money saved driving 150 miles to the nearest airport and flying out from there to be superior to taking a bus or train 600+ miles to my destination. Only other way I'd prefer is driving myself, but then you've got to think about the cost of fuel and also have to actively pay attention the whole way, while on the other methods of travel you pretty much have a seat and nap until your destination. On the other hand, you don't get to visit anywhere along the way, so that's kind of sad when you'd be passing through interesting places.
Freight trains have priority on amtrack lines. On longer routes you're basically guaranteed some delay. I usually travel the northeast corridor, their most popular and profitable route, and you arrive right in the city centers of DC, NYC, Philly, etc. You don't need to deal with getting from an airport into the city and security run by a bunch of nignogs.
enjoy the india tier smell of the undumped toilets.
DO NOT SIT ANYWHERE NEAR THE RESTROOM IF AT ALL POSSIBLE, AND BRING PLENTY OF SNACKS AND WATER. the toilets stink like designated shitting streets.
that's the standard operating procedure given that it would take the insane amount of feces to fill up a toilet tank
I've taken the Empire Builder, Vermonter, Wolverine, Lakeshore Limited and the California Zephyr without any toilet issues.
the average American has more things than the average European, namely:
Cars (and the space to use them)
Money (to spend on airfare)
lots of Europeans live in clustered cities without a lot of room, and just use public transportation, while America has tons of wilderness and open space- it lends itself to a more self-operating form of transport, instead of walking to the corner and waiting for a bus or railcar
europe has a much healthier airline market as they only recently got around to deregulating it, hence why things like ryanair and germanwings exist
here in the US the opposite is happening as airlines keep consolidating into 5-6 national carriers that don't give any shits about short/medium haul flights since the margins are too low
I really hope that this happens, but I foresee landowners being buttnuts about having to sell or lease land to build the track on. Granted, that's their right, but I bet if it was for another oil pipeline they'd be falling all over themselves to have it go across their land.
>select all images with trains
This map shows US fright rail, but doesn't cover light passenger rail.
Amtrak runs on fright rail.
China has fucking maglev. Just saying.
I'm no expert so I might be about to write a load of bullshit, but this is what I think of the rail situation in 'murica:
It's a shame, because most of the American landscape is well suited to tracks, but not only that, it'd be a huge economy boost to employ tons of people into building, researching, improving the rail system.
You're a poor fuck with only basic education? There's work for you.
You're a highly educated super engineer? There's work for you.
You're already working in an area that will be connected by better rail transport? There will probably be more work for you.
The starting expense would be high, but it'd pay out.
So I wonder why the US gov isn't planning on undertaking a long term rail expansion and renovation system? Dunno. Maybe too much political meddling in air lines, car companies and truck transport. All these three would suffer a lot from an advanced rail system.
There's a lot of factors, but among them is a general lack of faith in passenger rail service and a notion that the rapidly degrading shitheap that is our interstate system is the only way to do ground travel.
I'm of the belief that the neglect America showed towards her railroads after WWII is one of the great tragedies in this nation's history.
Living in Central California, the whole High Speed Rail thing is a huge issue. It's essentially down to this:
1) California publicly votes on and passes a measure bond to pay for HSR and the state is bound by law to use these bonds and construct it.
2) HSR comes under fire from people on the Republican side of things (though Schwarzenegger was a Republican and sponsored the measure), mostly because it's a big Dem talking point for success. Their reasoning comes down to a couple things:
-Imminent Domain is ebul! The gubmint can't take mah land! (Note that this is a primarily large scale Ag farmland complaint, and while valid since it sucks, you get paid and the state voted on this)
-Why we use HSR when we could use money for DAMS!? (This is a seriously common argument, which totally ignores that water bonds are wholly separate from HSR bonds and legally can't be mixed, and fails to account for the fact that more dams/more water storage does not actually produce more irrigation water in our current conditions or those of the last ten years, since that storage won't benefit from increased rainfall. We don't have to emergency spill release dams in CA these days, let's put it that way)
3) Lots and lots of money from oil producers and auto manufacturers is going toward the opposition to HSR, which is kind of funny, because it passed already and we're not gonna revote on it. Essentially, right now, you can't take a train from Sacramento to LA. Or Bakersfield to LA. Or say, LA to San Francisco. Or Sacramento to San Francisco, amazingly. Its all bus connections that last over an hour.
Since this is /k/ and we're talking about Amtrak, does anybody know their policy about concealed-carry and what the security procedures are like at Amtrak stations these days? When I was growing up, we had an Amtrak station in our town and the building had been unchanged since the 1890s (meaning no TSA checkpoint), but I'm not sure what it's like today. I've only ridden Amtrak once in my life, and that was long before the TSA had even been created.
>does anybody know their policy about concealed-carry
Pretty sure you have to check all weapons.
>and what the security procedures are like at Amtrak stations these days?
Scarily nonexistent, you could shove an AKMS into a duffel bag with 10 mags, stow it in the rack over you, and no one would ever know.
Just another reason to always travel by car, I guess. I tried searching their website and I didn't see anything specifically prohibiting concealed-carry. It just said guns can't be in carry-on baggage.
China's a fuck populated country that makes it economical and practical, and they've been a civilization for like 5000 years.
We didn't even have roads that went to the west coast until like the early to mid 19th century durin gthe colonization.
>He likes having to shank a motherfucker for decent seats.
>people reiterating "America is huge" as an argument against improved rail infrastructure
Nobody reasonable is saying that rail should be designed to supplant air travel--or the highways, for that matter. European airports and roads service millions of regional passengers per year, too. But European railways provide an incredibly efficient (and from my experience on the TGV and German ICE, comfy) and economical option for intercity and interstate travel.
It kind of is an argument, though. Have you ever actually looked at the prices for Amtrak train travel or Greyhound bus travel? You generally don't save money over air travel and you have to deal with increased travel time as an added cost. With trains, sometimes you are looking at traveling for multiple days when an airplane could get you across the country in a few hours.
The argument you are putting forth is that increased rail infrastructure across the continent would somehow be viable. Unfortunately, you'd need a massive increase in the volume of people wanting to travel by train in order to make it economically viable and then you'd still have to do something about the increased travel time. It used to be that train travel was less stressful, since you didn't have to deal with the TSA security theater. Even that is going by the wayside.
There are limited areas where a network of high speed rails might be interesting, for instance from Boston or NYC to DC, from Chicago to St. Louis, and from LA to San Fransisco - namely, areas where there is a high number of people traveling for short amounts of time and frequently for business, 1-2 days or even less than a day, and if said travelers have no problem with the added expense of renting a car.
The logistics of vacation travel would rule out the viability of these trains for ordinary people, since it's really a lot more economical to travel <400 mile distances by car (the range of a tank of gas), so then you can have your own car to drive at the destination. Even if you drive a Suburban, filling up a tank of gas now is only like $70. If you're traveling with a family, then you can get everyone from St. Louis to Chicago and have a car while you're there for $140 base travel cost. Air travel can't compete with that, and I doubt that a high speed rail plus car rental could come close either, even for one passenger.
> ctrl-F Hyperloop
> zero results
> get with the times
Naturally, anybody who will want a car to travel around with at their destination will drive a car TO their destination. But millions of effectively permanent city-dwellers (a growing demographic, I might add) have little or no need or desire for a personal vehicle at this point due to their reliance on existing public transport, and, increasingly on-demand vehicle services. It is this group that high-speed intercity/interstate rail is suited for. Although admittedly this scheme would require major investments in urban rail to reach its full potential.
But high-speed rail would be much more appealing to traditional air travelers, too. The costliness of Amtrak travel and anemic passenger volume handled by existing infrastructure that you mentioned are both a function of the fact that Amtrak is poorly managed and underfunded. Thus so is the case for economic viability. Of course here I'm compelled to make another major concession that resolving this issue would require the federal government to take decisive action on a major infrastructure upgrade, which is easier said than done.
Functionally speaking, train 2.0 m8.
This. All of China's infrastructure is concentrated on the east cost, because that is the part of the country that isn't a unlivable wasteland.
last time i tried to take an amtrak the security was airport-tier. except they took them selves WAY too seriously. tried to check a pair of guns and the service personnel running the checkpoint freaked the fuck out and called the police. all together it was a miserable experience, i missed my train because FUCK AMTRAK. ended up taking a flight and getting to my destination 8 hours earlier than i would have anyway.
The issue with aviation is that it's a skin of the teeth industry ie it barely turns a profit and everything is calculated to try and ensure it does, but that can't account for things outside the industry's control (eg oil prices, terrorism). I'd argue a lot of the issues that are present and which people complain about today are because of deregulation and the demand of passengers to pay nearly nothing while not realising how expensive an operation it is.
>I fell for the "alrline pilot is a stable job" meme too
I keep hearing though that some of the regional route cutbacks are due to a lack of pilots, but that's probably because of shit pay and the US's retarded law change for RPT hour requirements.
>Train from SLC to Denver
$81 for a 15 hour trip
>Plane from SLC to Denver
$150 for a 90min trip
>security procedures are like at Amtrak stations
The majority of these Amtrack lines only run once a day or maybe every 2 days. The stations are basically abandoned outside a hour before and after departure. Harrisburg is literally falling apart. You could hop a train with a duffel bag of guns and ride it right into Penn Station in NYC and 0 people would have checked you bags
Some people prefer trains. If you want to sleep during your trip, and feel like spending the extra cash, a private sleeper car beats the fuck out of anything a plane has to offer.
Amtrak is great if you're a drug mule who needs to smuggle a large amount of drugs between cities, are on the no-fly list, or your time is truly worthless.
t. Someone who's ridden the Empire Builder
Biggest public transit company coming through!
>At least Nj has a decent passenger rail
Yeah, if there's one thing trains have planes beat on, it's comfort. Another example here, again, for long trips, the dining car. Instead of eating in your seat(though you can do that if you prefer), you go to the dining car, which is like a mini restaurant. Think of it this way, would you rather have a trip that is shitty but short, or a longer one that you enjoy?
Pretty much. Without a homogeneous and civilized population public transport is both A. insanely dangerous and B. unlikely to be funded by jews and jew-lovers who would much rather use your tax money to pay for millions of non-working shitskin's drug habits.
Where would you even go that a trip would take so long that you'd need a hotel room on wheels for it? I thought trains in Europe and Japan were fast enough to have you where you want to go in a very short timeframe?
Or is this sort of a tourism thing, like you essentially are visiting locations and basing out of a train instead of a structure?
China has other Chinamen as their equivalent of ruffians. It's even more dangerous since you don't know if your fellow countrymen are going to be a problem, compared to America where you sort of know who to avoid by looking at them.
Like is says in the file name, it's clearly envisioned as a terrestrial counterpart to a cruise ship. So it would be slower.
A similar service would certainly be workable for a coast-to-coast journey in the US, I think. Maybe even FL-AK.
>mfw buying a ticket for the flak train, traveling in luxury and style from one top-tier 2A state to another
>none for me to get to NYC from ocean county without shit bus or car afaik
Fucking shit north east, that passenger rail shit shoudl be fucking all over then place down hear. Maybe its due to other things though whatever.