Sheldon Cooper's Lament

In the 1930s it took 3 days to go from NYC to LA by train.

In 2013 it takes about three days to go from NYC to LA by train.

Question: did lack of progress kill off trains, or did the death of rail kill progress?

Either way, trains cannot compete with aircraft for such long-range travel. Sometimes you hear that between the time needed for passing through security, and delays of various kinds, it can take as long to drive than to fly somewhere. I don't think that will ever be the case for crossing the width of North America.

But it brings up other questions:

How long does it take to drive from NYC to LA?

How fast could a train make it from NYC to LA using existing or near-term designs (ie, TGV, Bullet Train, etc)?

How unhappy does the current state of affairs amke Sheldon Cooper?

2800 miles by car.

100mph trains exist happily. It could be less than a day if you could build 125mph link across the US, and not have to stop too often.

For example London to Edinburgh is about 400 miles and the Intercity takes 4h 21m, with 4-5 stops along the way.

36 hours NYC to LA with a similar number of stops and train line. And the East Coast mainline in the UK is not -that- modern, and the US would probably have less stops.

Quote: TheCesspit

2800 miles by car.

I make that at least three days, more likely four.

Quote:

100mph trains exist happily. It could be less than a day if you could build 125mph link across the US, and not have to stop too often.

I still make that out to be too much time compared to flying. And likely the cost would be higher, considering lower demand, meals, etc. But it's very good, better than good even, for moving cargo. A bit like transatlantic ships these days. It's much cheaper to fly first class across the pond.

I guess I see the demise of trains much as the demise of horses and mules. They still amke sense in some contexts, like densely pakced Europe, or under the streets of big cities, but that's it.

Quote: Nareed

I make that at least three days, more likely four.

I still make that out to be too much time compared to flying. And likely the cost would be higher, considering lower demand, meals, etc. But it's very good, better than good even, for moving cargo. A bit like transatlantic ships these days. It's much cheaper to fly first class across the pond.

I guess I see the demise of trains much as the demise of horses and mules. They still amke sense in some contexts, like densely pakced Europe, or under the streets of big cities, but that's it.

I don't think the domestic routes in China will go over 1200 miles, but it doesn't stop them from envisioning a 8000 mile train to Europe.
Beijing to London in less than 48 hours by train

Even the most arden proponents of high speed rail in the USA don't normally talk about transcontinental trips. They envision trips of 400-500 miles at most. Even though there is a continuous theoretical route from New England to Texas, it is assumed that only enthusiasts will do the entire trip. Most people will fly that distance.


I would think Mexico's economy would benefit hugely by a Manzanillo to Veracruz rail link that could make the trip in 4.5 hours (and ship cargo at night).

Depends how many driver changes you'd like to do. I know people have done Toronto-Vancouver in under 48 hours. I think they are certifiable.

Quote: TheCesspit

Depends how many driver changes you'd like to do. I know people have done Toronto-Vancouver in under 48 hours. I think they are certifiable.

My parents once tried to do San Antonio, TX to Mexico City in one day. They collapsed at San Luis Potosi whenever they made it there and paid for one night at a hotel.

My personal limit is ten hours. I did it once and I swore I'd never do it again.

Quote: TheCesspit

2800 miles by car.

100mph trains exist happily. It could be less than a day if you could build 125mph link across the US, and not have to stop too often.

Just don't stop.

Add a short parallel second track between two elevated stops (like roller coaster incline/declines) with a transfer car timed to accelerate (with downhill help and small engine). It matches the 125mph train speed for about 1 minute, and passengers transfer onto or off the main train. Of course you'd have to have a period of grace and and emergency slowing just in case.

After the transfer, the car momentum helps carry it up the opposing elevation (all to conserve some energy). Deboarded passenger get off and the car is sent with just enough assist from the engine to the other side now ready for the next train.

The main train may be able to not even slow down. Ideally. Either that, or there will eventually be horrible catastophes.

Actually same idea as relay racing,, only the runner starts from an elevated slope, and the baton would be representative of passengers transfering. If relay racers had to stop to pass the baton the time would be significantly slower.

I once took the train from Northern Ontario to Vancouver. 3 day journey (the full trip is 4.5 days), and boarded in a small village. Amused to see a 30 car train and two engines stop for one guy and small holdall. The Via rail train isn't that fast, and ponders it's way along, but does just keep going, which you can't do in a car, without a driver change.

Given the time, I'd do the trip again.

Is speed the measure of efficiency?

Someone once raced a first class letter: Post Office versus Ox. The Ox won ofcourse. Doesn't mean the post office was all that bad.

Trains go from city center to city center. Airplanes go from where no one wants to be to where no one wants to be, thus giving rise to a phenomenon of airporter hotels and convention centers.

The Salad Bowl Express crosses the nation faster than many passenger trains.

Trains used to have great food, now if they have drinking water its been in there for sixty days. Trains used to be in relatively good neighborhoods, now its usually skid row.

Speed was never the main factor.

The city centre-city centre nature of trains in the UK is why I much prefer taking the train from London to Edinburgh rather than flying. It's almost as fast given that I don't have to check in or wait at either end for baggage, it's a fair bit cheaper, and just much more pleasant in terms of seating, wireless and view.