I forgotten if this has been brought up but for anyone who has travelled in Europe or Asia by rail as opposed to Canada or the USA, how would you compare them?
Some quick thoughts.
-
Europe: High Speed Trains (125mph plus) on newly built tracks - France, Belgium, UK, Germany, Italy. North America: No new passenger tracks.
-
Europe: A network of services; generally Inter-City, Regional and then local, with a significant presence in most large cities, especially in Western Europe. North America - generally one type of service - either city based communiting on long distance Amtrack
-
Europe: Increasing numbers of multiple unit (ie engine/motors under body of passenger vehicle). It’s increasingly rare now to see a loco and a few coaches. This trend has been a long time coming, for example where I live in South London the multiple-unit has been a fact of life on the vast majority of trains for over 70 years. North America. Engines and coaches, with the North East being the one key exception.
-
Europe: Trains are electric. North America: trains are diesel
-
Europe, especially the further west you go. A passenger based service with freight on the margins (eg outside my appartment c6 freight trains a day all of crushed rock - but 50 plus an hour on the passenger front from 07:00 to 23:00.) North America. A freight based service with passengers on the margins.
Of course there are going to be exceptions to these generalisations - the intercity diesel services of the UK, the freight only lines of the Ruhr valley in Germany and the density of service in the North East corridor. But I think the principles hold fast. Maybey Natraj, recently back from Paris, Brussels and London can give you a feel from a North American viewpoint.
It’s really a night-and-day comparison from my experience. I’ve traveled extensively in Europe by train (also Japan) and found the trains to be almost invariably on-time, and (more impressively) with the ability to go just about anywhere with a couple simple connections. Even cross-border trains are seamless - for example, a typical journey has me fly into Copenhagen, walk through the airport to the train station, take a train across the bridge to Malmö and from there I can go pretty much anywhere in Sweden. That kind of travel just does not exist in the USA anymore, though by my European travels I can go back in time a bit & understand / imagine it used to work here the same way. I find even the small towns have businesses centered on the railroad - hotels within walking distance of the train station, ditto restaurants and clothiers… I just indicates that the railroads continue to play a vital role in every-day transportation of people. The high-speed trains overseas are truly impressive, too. I get a taste of it in the US thanks to the Harrisburg - Philly Keystone Corridor and the NE Corridor, but they still fall short of the X2000 in Finland, TGV in France, Eurostar from London to Brussels, ICE in Germany and the Shinkansen in Japan, all of which I’ve had the privilege of utilizing to my great satisfaction
Europe: 1965-66 trains fast, clean, efficient, cheap, on time, many trains, easy to travel, absolutely the only way to travel. Canada: In reality train travel does not exist here and hasn’t for years, several attempts have been made but to no avail, there are some bits of train travel if you happen to be a millionaire, otherwise stay in your car or jam yourself in sardine can called airline travel. We will never see rail travel as it used to be, remember, most of the track off the main line is made into Japanese cars by now. To sort of justify the above, it’s a long way from Halifax to Calgary, in Europe you could go through 3 countries in 2 hours, so size can be a factor. Passenger service will never reach previous amounts and you will see it decrease even more in the future as it is not a priority and Governments are not really interested(as are most Canadians)
America has no rail service for people outside of a heavily subsidary Amtrack and a few subway/light rail systems.
I was in the UK and recall daily easy runs into london from outlying villages around Anglica in the North and East for a few dollars per day with good speeds, beverage/snack car and decent seating. Into london in the morning and out of there by sundown. We actually had a rental car for the week and we barely touched it.
In the USA if you want to go from A to B you finance it yourself; or get the taxpayer to do it for you contracting the construction to third parties… just stay out of the way of the freight trains. They rather route freight over the track than to run people. Yes. I say freight boxes are more important than people… 1 or 1000 on a train. That is the prevailing attitude today in the USA.
Eventually I think that railroads will forget how to haul people in the USA and stop all together in 20 years because those containers from overseas are just too hot and needs to be rushed to “Big Widgets Lot” ASAP full of toilet paper.
Such boxes dont complain if the freight car is a little dirty or is held up on a broiling railroad track for a few days or perhaps not requiring money consuming staff 24/7 to cater to thier needs. Nope… it’s all about profits, wall street and ton-miles… none of that pax crap.
Cricketer captures the difference rather well. I’ve been privileged to ride the ICE, TGV, and Eurostar, along with the UK’s IC125 service. I use Metroliner several times a year and occasionally Amtrak Midwestern and California trains, not to mention Metra commuter service here in Chicagoland.
What’s most different is public perception. Europeans see trains as a mainstream means of travel, locally, regionally, and nationally. We don’t here in the USA, where the car is king.
A very important difference, that many proponents of passenger rail in the US ignore or gloss over, is the location density of cities of substantial size is so much higher in Europe, making rail travel times competitive, if not superior, to those of other modes. I’ve seldom seen through passengers on the ICEs between Hamburg and Munich, with most seats reserved for shorter segments, like Munich-Stuttgart, Stuttgart-Frankfurt, etc. The NE Corridor here has similar densities and, no surprise, is popular for both biz and personal travel. Similar service might eventually become feasible elsewhere, if the issue of how to connect efficiently with offices and job sites at either end is solved.
I have traveled by rail in Europe using many kinds of trains ranging from local trains to the high-speed trains such as the TGV the ICE, and the X-2000’s. In general the trains were clean, comfortable, convenient, and for the most part on-time.
However, the US is NOT Europe. With the exception of the Northeast Corridor distances between the major population centers are farther and the population densities are lower so it is difficult if not impossible to validly compare the passenger services between the US and Europe. I might also add that you are also starting to see privately held airlines in Europe copy the business practices of discount airlines hee in the US such as Southwest and Jet Blue.
All we need to do is create a series of corridors. Say… Pittsburgh, Harrisburg - Allentown. Or… Memphis -Little Rock - Dallas…
If you make em fast as the TGV, just might put the discount airlines out of work.
A few comments:
-
In Europe, inter-line ticketing can be done at the originating station, even if the route involves more than one carrier. (In the US, it is generally difficult to get interline ticketing between Amtrak and adjacent commuter lines. Railfans understand that but folks who rarely use the train or are new to the train may not understand it)
-
In Europe, in many places the city center is still “ok” and has not decayed into a dangerous or smelly area. Sure there are slum-like areas in European cities, they just don’t seem nearly as prevalent.
-
The train is still a viable, if not ideal, travel option for the middle class and business class. Ridership is not skewed so much towards seniors and students.
-
The UK has implemented “advance planning” discounts. If you buy a ticket a day or two in advance, you save a substantial amount (~40%) over the ‘walk-up fare’ on some routes (such as Edinburgh-York).
-
The UK also has competing long distance carriers on certain lines…on the above-mentioned Edinburgh-York trip we rode Virgin southbound and GNER northbound
-
Passenger trains and rail lines are viewed as worthy infrastructure investments even by political conservatives. Service to remote outposts and lightly-trafficked lines has declined there also, but not to thw wholesale degree that it occurred in the US
-
However…as roads improve and highway travel becomes more ‘Americanized’, people travel more and more by cars over there too. Even in Switzerland, which invests a lot in its trains, some people have switched to cars as suburbia expands away from rail lines and driving becomes more convenient.
Just where is the population density to support these corridors?
Build the things near the major airfields. That is where the people will be. Peak times will be storms where thousands might get stranded and they can get out by train instead.
If you build the network dense enough people might realize that they can get everywhere and not need a car. We did that in the UK on foot/train/taxi/bus and left our rental at the place where we were staying and only used it for brief trips where there was no alternative service.
Here in the USA we use the auto for EVERYTHING.
Interstate, by law Amtrak. Commuter is up to the State or City. Two or more companies with different ticket systems, good or bad?
Share tracks, one or the other will do the dispatching. Which railroad gets preference? Boston’s MBTA owns the tracks to the Rhode Island line but Amtrak dispatches it. Commuter at 80 mph, Amtrak at 140 mph. MetroNorth owns the New Haven to New Rochelle line and control Amtrak trains, max speed 90 mph. Good or Bad?
BOSTON, a good example of America train Service.
Commuter service, Boston! Four subway lines run out 10 miles. Comming out of the Subway when outside the city, running on the surface, much on old railroad right of ways. Commuter Rail, 80 mph service running out in all directions 50 miles. Interstate, Hourly Amtrak Acela Bullet Train service to New York and Washington (First Class and Business Class) plus Amtrak Regionals Service making most stops to New York and Washington (Business Class and Reserved Coach). But, only one train westbound to Chicago, Amtrak’s Lake Shore Limited running on CSX tracks.
The 400 mile Northeast Corridor is short enough and has the population density for good rail service. Distances are similar to Europe. Land values in the Northeast dictate improving rail lines being cheaper than building and expanding highways.
Find another section of this contry that qualifies, then go to Washington. It can’t be done on a State level.
Northeast Corridor
I have only ever traveled between two centres in Europe: between Zagreb, Croatia, and Bled in Slovenia. Marvelous, smooth, and efficient…fast and quiet.
I traveled between Ottawa and Toronto three years ago first class on VIA. Same.
When I went to enroll in the Canadian military at the recruiting centre in Vancouver in 1975, the only previous trip on train in the interim for me, it took nearly 7 hours for a trip through the stunning Fraser Canyon that would have taken 4 had I driven. Scenery was spectacular, but…the 45km/hr average was not inspiring, and made for a long day. Admittedly, a poor sample of only one day’s ride, but impressions are lasting, even if single.
Our centres, between which the economics would make sense, are too spread out. Accordingly, for us in Canada, the passenger rail services are mostly for the well-heeled, the fan, the resolute, or the acrophobic.
I enjoyed my trip on PKP between Warshava and Katowice… made all the more enjoyable with the presence of Izabel… ah yes … dear sweet Izabel …
The one thing that hasn’t been mentioned here is the true cost of passenger service in Europe. Unless something has changed in very recent years, it is generally heavily subsidized by the taxpayers. (However, last I heard Amtrack’s long-distance passenger service, outside of the NE Corridor, is the most heavily subsidized form of long-distance public travel in the USA per passenger mile.)
Willard Airport near Champaign-Urbana has at least 55 departures per week with a range of up to 700 miles. American alone has 7 flights to Chicago daily at only 150 miles and takes 1 hour. Cheapest price is about $350. I can imagine that if the train ride only took an hour (doable), then you would see alot of those 300+ people heading to the much more convenient train station instead. I can see this for a whole host of cities around Chicago: Milwaukee, Madison, Rockford, Bloomington, St. Louis, Springfield, Decatur, Indianapolis, Detroit, Toledo, etc. The people are there. They just don’t see rail as a viable mode of transportation, because it currently isn’t for the fast pace of life we’ve created.
It really is apples and oranges, seems to me. One can’t make true comparisons. In areas in Europe where there are high-density cities, and they aren’t all that far apart, one can make a valid comparison with areas in the US or Canada which are similar: the Northeast Corridor and possibly parts of California; just possibly the Milwaukee-Chicago corridor. No particular surprise; service isn’t all that different. Outside of those areas, and rail service is somewhat better in Europe than in North America – although even there it tends to be somewhat limited (there is only one train a day, for instance, from Inverness to Thurso in Scotland – I run I take from time to time – but several busses, which are just as fast as the train).
In my view, probably the biggest difference is much better integration of modes in Europe as contrasted to North America. This allows the traveler to easily select the best mode – or combination of modes – for his or her trip. In North America, it is rare (Newark, NJ comes to mind as an exception) for there to be rail service or long distance bus service anywhere near an airport, and also rare for there to be even a decent public tranport service connecting the airport to anything useful. This is not the case in most areas in Europe.
That depends on how the subsidy is calculated. There have been studies by the United Rail Passenger Alliance that state the opposite - that the NEC and the short distance runs are the Most expensive lines to run, and that the long distance trains support the NEC. Remember that when all costs are considered, no passenger rail system anywhere is profitable, and even when you consider the construction costs of the highway system, they aren’t profitable either.
This is where the TGV comes into play… maybe we can build these corridors and create trains that are more of a “Social area” where people can safely socialize and ride from A to B at high speeds with fare costs cheaper than flying, about the same as 3.00 gallon gas and faster than the awful bloated airport security and the outdated airline “Overbooking” system.
It’s going to take a effort to get people to participate and I say we need to build near airports so that when people understand all they have to do is walk to the train and be somewhere 400 miles away by the time the airlines unload the plane at the same place.
Equip the trains with wifi networks and other facilities so that people can stay connected to thier lives and work during the train ride will be a HUGE draw… currently they are made t
Taking on board alphas’ point about subsidy the inter-city subsidy is generally rather low, maybe even non-existent. The subsidy is for commuter services (having to service infrastructure and trainsets that get used for about 4 hours in every 24 is not an efficient use of resources - though socially necessary) and even more so for regional passenger trains. Politically regional trains, and even more so rural trains are seen as a “good thing” , though even in Switzerland (each citizen takes on average over 500 rail trips a day) regional trains can be rather empty unless the school kids are around.