The item to discuss trains, trolley buses, trams, and other forms of rail
transportation

57 responses total.

Actually,I was not specifically talking of connecting the North Maerica to
Siberia but to the whole of Asia and beyond to Africa an Europe.Imagine a long
distance train from the Cape of Good Hope to Cape Horn(the tip of South
America through Asia and North America or London to New York through Russia
.It could provide impressive and interesting possiblities to travellers and
tourists alike.I dont know the staus of the ambitious project to connect west
asia with europe.Even India could be linked to Sri Lanka but politics and
economics(short-term) hyave not helped the region.Bye folks and Good Day.

Just how do you intend to cross the Bering Strait with a train?  An extra-long
chunnel or a ferry?  Do you think there is currently enough train traffic
between Alaska and Siberia to justify the expense?  Isn't West Asia already
connected with Europe via Turkey?  (Murder on the Orient Express...  I made
the mistake of taking the bus from Greece to Turkey, and discovered that part
of the route involved walking across the bridge from the nearest Greek village
to the nearest Turkish border point, where some nice border workers jammed
the two of us, plus suitcases, into the back seat of a VW bug that already
had a passenger or two, then took us to the nearest townn, put us on a private
minivan, got us seats, and made sure we were not overcharged.)
(It may have helped that I had studied a bit of Turkish and was trying hard.)

The problem with a train from Cape Horn to the Cape of Good Hope is that it
would be horrendously expensive and would take a very long time.  That's the
sort of trip that airplanes do very well.  Building the rail line might be
interesting from the standpoint of being able to say you'd done it, but I
doubt you'd have more than a few passengers.

ANyone heard about progress on upgrading the rail line from Detroit to Chicago
to go twice the speed of cars?  That would draw a lot of passenger traffic,
only a 3 hours trip and no need to get to and from an airport.

I feel that the US could do something to better its rail transport.It would
reduce the burden on its highways.I find it strange that more Americans prefer
carsto trains as the mode of transportation.Trains can be faster,cleaner,safer
and most important reduce the pressure of you having to drive and let some
one else drive.The other thing that Steve mentioned about traffic being less
between the two capes,I wasnt expecting more than one or two passengers to
make it through the entire trip but you could still have lots of passengers
from ,say Brazil to ,say Mexico.The train would go all the way though.In fact
in India we have a train from India's southern most tip in the mainland to
the national capital(i.e from Kanniyakumari to New delhi).But kanniyakumari
itself is a very small town.But the train passes through several important
cities and the train is running reasonably well patronized.Guys can ask me
in this forum about anything to do with Indian Railways.Happy railing.

   Come and live in Detroit for a month, you'll change your tune. We are not
the Car capitol of the world for nothing.

   Actually, I am a train buff, I have a mild appreciation for trains, and
I think you can sum up what is wrong with the rails in just one word- Amtrak.
Well, that and trains in this country run through some of the ugliest,
depressed areas that can be found, save for the Cardinal, which is one route
that Amtrak got right, and one that is actually profitable.

   Americans are in love with thier cars. Always have been, always will be.

There is so little left to the American train system that it is hardly usable.
Ann Arbor-Toledo line, 100 km distance, stopped running passenger trains in
1950.  To take the train you now have to take a bus to Detroit (100 km east),
get from the bus to the train station somehow (walk? and hope not to be killed
on th way?), wait a few hours (there are only three buses a day, and one
train, plus the train company has one bus but it is often full), and take a
train to Toledo, which arrives around 1 a. m.  To continue east, you wait
until 4 a. m.  The 800 mile (1300 km?) trip from Ann Arbor to Boston, which
is a 16 hour drive by car, is (or was, probably worse now) 24 by train.
Airplanes finished off what cars started.
        Ann Arbor-Chicago is about 300 miles, 5 hours by car or train.  Car
is much cheeaper if you own one because highways are subsidized by general
taxes and trains are not very full and therefore the tickets are expensive.
A train on an improved track could go up to 150 miles/hour = 2 hours if there
were no stops.  People fly that distance now and take two hours to drive to
the airport, leave their car parked there, buy a ticket, and fly, and then
another hour or so getting into town from the airport.  If the train tracks
were upgraded, there would be lots of passengers switching from plane to
train.

Yeah, a high speed train from Ann Arbor or Detroit to Chicago would be pretty
cool.  That's the sort of trip that trains do really well.  However, a trip
across Siberia really isn't.  That's a situation where airplanes realy are
the ideal.

There are parts of the US that do have excellent public transportation
systems.  South Eastern Michigan isn't one of them, however.

The route between Boston and Washington D. C. is heavily travelled, and
probably helps keep other Amtrak fares subsidized.  You would have to be crazy
to want to drive in New York City.

Actually there are so few trains between India and Pakistahn,Thanks to the
political situation between the two countries that its a thrice a week train
between the two border cities.I think that would have to be strengthened
before even thinking of the somewhat ambitious intercontinental rail
service.India could even have a good rail service to Singapore. and Hong
Kong.I heard there were double decker trains in the Bay Area.Are they
successful?In India,their services are highly restricted and I dont know
why.They are slower but our trains do not go faster than 60-70 kmph..

I've ridden double decker trains in the Chicago area too.  I can think of a
number of reasons why they wouldn't be more widely used.  They require more
clearance above the tracks than most trains.  That probably makes them
impractical in tunnels that weren't designed for them.  They're more top
heavy, meaning they can't go around corners as fast.  They would also be less
aerodynamic, although I don't know how that balances out with creating shorter
trains, which are prosumably somewhat lighter.

I can't think of any advantages to double decker trains unless the tracks are
exceptionally crowded (the reason for London's double decker buses).  The
higher trains also have more wind resistance).  I rode a very slow local
double decker train in Romania.  The view from the top is a bit less
obstructed in some areas, but there was only flat farmland there.  Maybe that
is the cheapest used train they could find?  I rode one narrow-gauge line
through Bosnia once, probably was not worth the cost of upgrading through the
mountains, but we had to get off and transfer to a wide-gauge.

  Amtrak has Superliner cars which are double decked, but they are only used
on certain routes which are highly scenic. I don't know if they use
Superliners on the Cardinal (Chi-NYC via Cincinnati and Charleston) because
of the Big Bend Tunnel. I have stood on top of the tunnel, but I don't know
what the clearances are.

I'd prefer trains for a number of travel situations, but Detroit spent a lot
of money working to kill off the passenger railroads so cars would sell
better.  :(

How is the new People Mover working out, and how does it work?
Does it pay for itself?

  What? The one in Detroit?  I can tell you how it works, but not if it is
profitable.

  1. Go to Ren Center. Proceed to the People Mover station. Wait.

  2. Train arrives going from west to east. There is one train every 4.5
minutes.
  3. Pay fare as you enter the station. Note gaudy artwork and transit cop.
Also please note emptyness of station.
  4. When train arrives, board and get a seat. Pick any one, because mostly
they are all empty.
  5. In 30 seconds, chimes sound and doors close. Train begins to move.

  6. Entire circuit of People Mover takes 14 minutes.

  7. Please note that train passes through Cobo Hall.

  8. Please note that you may ride as long as you want to, or until you puke,
whichever comes first.

  Please ignore all the cynicism in the above. I was living in Detroit when
they built that monster, and for my money it could go a hell of a lot farther
than it does. It is a good idea, but isn't more than a plaything.

The main advantage I see in a double decker train is its ability to carry more
passengers.I also second the view that the sight is better from the upper
deck.In India,unfortunately we had double deck trains which had the height
of ordinary single deck trains.The resuilt was the ceiling was much lower.We
also had a lot of narrow gauge rail here(0.77mts).But under the ambitious
uni-gauge system all the tracks are being made broad gauge.Hail the iron
horse.I feel it will one day outdo the road and air as the prime means of
transportation.Its pretty eco-friendly(running on electricity).

The iron horse used to be the primary form of motorized transportation on land
until the car and plane started being used.  I look forward to the day when
trains are again the normal form of transport here, along with electric
trolleys, all of which do not pollute where people are living (and the sourc
eof pollution is stationery and can have scrubbers attached, and the
cogenerated waste heat can be used to heat buildings).

Actually,Keesan ,you know the rail has the capability to match the plane in
its speed and taking into account the time required to check-into a plane and
driving to the airport(in most cities the airport is atleast 20kms from the
main town),I feel that the power of the rail is yet to be exploited to its
fullest.Besides enough research has not gone into making trains go faster
although only Japan and France seem to be doing a lot in this field.I hear
that trams are staging a comeback in many European cities.Thats good news.

I think that depends on the distance you're talking about.  Going from Ann
Arbor to Chicago may be faster by train, all things considered.  It is
probably also faster by car, all things considered.  Ann Arbor to California
would be much faster by plane.

But Ann Arbor to Boston, 800 miles at 150 mph by train, would be about 6 hours
with a few short stops.  If I try to go by plane, I have to walk to the
Michigan Union (no longer stops at the Embassy Hotel), ride 1 1/2 hours to
all the other hotels, spend an hour at the airport, two in the plane, and then
at least one at the other end, or more than 6 hours.  the train station is
much closer for me than the Union, and is connected directly with the subway
at the other ened, no need to take a bus first.  To California I agree, but
you get to see a lot more from the train.

The other aproach to that would be, half hour by car to the airport, hour at
the airport, two on the plane, and then maybe another half hour at the airport
and maybe half an hour by car into Boston, or 4.5 hours.

Is there an Ann Arbor to Boston train?  Are there US trains that go 150 mph?

I am speaking public transportation.  Taxis are expensive and a waste of
resources.  Ann Arbor to Boston you have to take a train to Detroit (or a
bus), then wait for a bus to Toledo, then a 4 am train to Boston, it used to
be 24 hours, have not checked recently.  There was no way fo a visitor coming
by train via Toledo to get here between the time the train arrived about 5
am (from the east), and the bus at 9 a. m. to Detroit, arriving at 10, and
I forget how long he had to wait for the bus or train from Detroit, but it
would have been only three hours by slow bike.  I tried to connect with the
van pool but their computer was down and then they never called.  This country
has atrocious public transportation.
        There was talk a while back about upgrading the train tracks DT-CHI
so that rains could go that fast.
        Would you rather spend 6 hours on a train or 1 in a car, 1 at an
airport, and 2 on a plane?  I would choose the train any day, you can read
a book, look out the side window, or talk to people, or walk around.

All this is moot since the 150 mph trains in the US are hypothetical.  That
said, I'd choose the plane.  It's two hours faster, even assuming the stuff
in the airport takes a full hour..

More realistically, I tend to drive even in situations where planes would make
more sense, since it requires less advance planning.

Tranis offer a lot of interesting possibilities.You could look out and get
a real visual delight if you are travelling in tropical sectors.You get to
meet more people.You could get down at stations.Plus,planning need not be that
intensive.You could carry more and if you have good inter-city connectivity,no
need to bother much about the timings.Its been a case of negative feedback
in the US,I think.Some where down the line less people started travelling by
rail,Amtrak found that sector/s un-economical and withdrew services which led
to even lesser people people travelling by rail.I think UK has better rail
services.

I think almost any developed country and most developing ones have better
trains than here.  Train travel does not require any planning, there is
generally a seat left or you can stand for a while.  I think part of the
problem here is that the public transportation at both ends is so bad that
people will drive since they would have to rent a car otherwise to get from
the station to where they are going.  
        That sounds really nice looking out at palm trees, here it is mostly
just fields of corn and soybeans, but I have met interesting people on the
train, even here.  The seats all face the same way on the newer trains, so
that limits who you can talk to.  What seating arrangement do trains have in
India?

The source of the difficulty for getting to the train station is that public
transit isn't that good, plus cars made it convenient to live well away from
public transit stations.

In the future, I could imagine a system of mini-vans, heavily optimised by
people entering their route via computer network.  There would be no fixed
routes, just routes calculated on the fly to get people where they want to
go.  With enough people using it, the mini-vans could end up following
random-looking routes, picking up and dropping off passengers as needed.

WOuld cell phones or beepers be part of this system or do you have to call
in advance from indoors to order the van to stop by?

We had a deliberate decision to (insanely) expand our highway system, for the
announced purpose of providing enough capacity to permanently end problems
of highway congestion.  This stimulated use of highways, shipping by trucks,
car ownership, urban sprawl, & more highway construction.  It also killed off
the rail system.  How can it compete with massive subsidies for highways? 

Massive subsidies for rail, until it reaches the point where it gets enough
riders to support itself because the service has grown so good.  In theory,
you can get where you are going a lot faster by subway, train, or even bus
in a special lane, than by car, esp. in Chicago, where the highway speed
without any particular problems was 12 mph.  And this does not count the
amount of time people have to work to pay for their cars, which are far more
consuming of resources.  One lecture I attended a few years ago said that the
average car owner spent $6000/year on it.  Just imagine what sort of public
transport that could help construct and operate.

It's a vicious circle, allright.

My optimized mini-van idea would require ubiquitous networking.  I would most
likely pull out my little computer (right now it is a PalmPilot, and the
capabilities *are* available...), and put in a destination.  This would be
submitted to the route authority, which would most likely send back an
electronic acknowledgement, perhaps some timing data as well.  Of course this
raises the specter of "the government" knowing where I am, and what travelling
I've done...

   actually, the decision to build the interstate highway system was
inspired in part by hitler's construction and use of the autobahns in
the thirties and during world war two.  since germany had a good
highway system when the war started, it was relatively easy for the
germans to move troops and equipment and supplies.  eisenhower liked
the idea, and implemented it not only as a method of faster
transportation for civilians, but also as a defense initiative.  in
fact, a certain portion of the interstate system has to be straight
and level (i forget the percentage, but it's something like one-tenth)
so that it can be used as impromptu airstrips.  when the interstate
system was first being built, part of its cost was taken from the
defense budget, and it was at least partly under the administration
of the department of defense, but i don't think that's the case
anymore.

Wasn't the Interstate system supposed to "keep the troops off America's Main
Streets?"

Keesan,the trains in India have seats facing each other.

The trains in India also have vestibule system(interconnected coaches).AC
coaches do not have seats facing each other.First class coaches have four
seats per coupe(is that how we spell it?).Second class trains have 64 seats
in all with 8 seats per open cope.(oops coupe).We also have full Ac trains
which are superfast(which actually means 70kmph).Ordinary trains do not go
over 50kmph.Passenger trains go at 25-30kmpk.We do have some trains which go
at 120kmph.Inter-city connections are not bad but vary widely.Signalling
systems could do with a lot of improvement.But all in all its a massive
system.

Does AC mean alternating current, or air conditioned?

Well AC means Air Conditioned.Are there Magnetic Levitated trains in the
US?How about trams?

Last I knew Boston still had trolleys (trams) on rails, and some without
rails, also the subway system operated abov ground for part of the route, on
the same type tracks.  How does the Detroit People Mover operate?  I think
it has rails.  Where does it get its power?

From the famous electrified 3rd rail, of course.  Because the tracks are not
accesible to pedestrians, it is safe to do that (same as a subway).  Street
cars would require a power source safely away from where people might walk.

In San Fransisco, they have many city bus lines run from overhead cables like
trolley cars.  Aside from that, the busses have normal tires and no tracks.
Eerily quiet!

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss