I wish the U.K had this, we have the worst rail system I've ever fucking seen.
Obviously you have not used the rail system in Canada and the US. The UK's system is a complete joy to use, and on the plus side you can practically get anywhere in the UK by train... not so over here.
When the train turns up that is. Also, you have to realize the slight difference in size between the two, and that along with the fact that they'll stick two carriages on the main line going across the country at peak times on Fridays is just frightening.
The U.K rail system is in no way a joy to use and should be burned in hell. They even closed down most of the express trains taking you across the country (well, from the north to the south and vice-versa), so now it takes 8 hours to get from somewhere like Stoke-on-trent to Edinburgh.
A northern route through South Dakota to the west coast could probably do alright, if for no other reason then the tourist locations along that way. Train travel to the Black Hills? I think it would rake in the money.
I wish the U.K had this, we have the worst rail system I've ever fucking seen.
Obviously you have not used the rail system in Canada and the US. The UK's system is a complete joy to use, and on the plus side you can practically get anywhere in the UK by train... not so over here.
When the train turns up that is. Also, you have to realize the slight difference in size between the two, and that along with the fact that they'll stick two carriages on the main line going across the country at peak times on Fridays is just frightening.
The U.K rail system is in no way a joy to use and should be burned in hell. They even closed down most of the express trains taking you across the country (well, from the north to the south and vice-versa), so now it takes 8 hours to get from somewhere like Stoke-on-trent to Edinburgh.
I wish the U.K had this, we have the worst rail system I've ever fucking seen.
Obviously you have not used the rail system in Canada and the US. The UK's system is a complete joy to use, and on the plus side you can practically get anywhere in the UK by train... not so over here.
When the train turns up that is. Also, you have to realize the slight difference in size between the two, and that along with the fact that they'll stick two carriages on the main line going across the country at peak times on Fridays is just frightening.
The U.K rail system is in no way a joy to use and should be burned in hell. They even closed down most of the express trains taking you across the country (well, from the north to the south and vice-versa), so now it takes 8 hours to get from somewhere like Stoke-on-trent to Edinburgh.
But you have one.
This. That's what I am getting at, and what you have missed. You have the option to take the train, we do not. I've lived in the UK and have traveled quite a bit through Europe, so I know that the train system in the UK is likely the worst in Europe (or pretty close). However, it works far far far far far better than anything we have here.
Were this new bill adopted, and something similar occur in Canada, it would only address half of what we should have in passenger rail infrastructure. When it comes to trains, we're bloody third world countries.
I wish the U.K had this, we have the worst rail system I've ever fucking seen.
Obviously you have not used the rail system in Canada and the US. The UK's system is a complete joy to use, and on the plus side you can practically get anywhere in the UK by train... not so over here.
When the train turns up that is. Also, you have to realize the slight difference in size between the two, and that along with the fact that they'll stick two carriages on the main line going across the country at peak times on Fridays is just frightening.
The U.K rail system is in no way a joy to use and should be burned in hell. They even closed down most of the express trains taking you across the country (well, from the north to the south and vice-versa), so now it takes 8 hours to get from somewhere like Stoke-on-trent to Edinburgh.
But you have one.
This. That's what I am getting at, and what you have missed. You have the option to take the train, we do not. I've lived in the UK and have traveled quite a bit through Europe, so I know that the train system in the UK is likely the worst in Europe (or pretty close). However, it works far far far far far better than anything we have here.
Were this new bill adopted, and something similar occur in Canada, it would only address half of what we should have in passenger rail infrastructure. When it comes to trains, we're bloody third world countries.
My original point was that the U.K needed a speed rail system....
Would you pay $130 to travel basically the distance from New York to Rhode Island on a shitty train?
I've used the train on the busiest travel day in the year (December 27th or thereabouts) to get from Portsmouth to Market Rasen, a journey of seven or eight hours, and I've been stuck on platforms for well over an hour in the rain, so I know the full extent of the UK's antiquated, uneven, uncomfortable and unreliable train system.
I still think it's a great system, and rarely complain, because I've also experienced American travel. Trains are a fucking joke - I had to rule them out completely and spend top dollar on planes because the routes took me thousands of miles out of my way. At least going between major cities in the UK is fairly straightforward, and doesn't involve doubling back on yourself. A few stops? Oh boo hoo - a chance to stretch your legs and buy a paper at WH Smith.
Two carriages, one toilet, at peak times, on peak days, stopping at quite major stops along the way.
I've seen someone go from Portsmouth to Newport (about 3 hours), having had to have paid about £55, standing the entire way. Because if you book in advance for the cheaper ticket you get a seat booked for you.
edit:
and for christ sake it was just a jokey comment, it didn't need a debate!
I would love to be able to travel from state to state on a highspeed rail, as I have a friend who roams from state to state and it's impossibly expensive for me to come out and see him.
Also, speaking strictly as someone who is a rural resident, i would kill for broadband, which is a royal pisser because they have it half a mile up the road.
Joke comment it may be, but I know far too many Brits who will complain about their train system yet have no conception of how lucky they are. Seriously, try having to fly everywhere and all the cost and hassle associated with that.
Joke comment it may be, but I know far too many Brits who will complain about their train system yet have no conception of how lucky they are. Seriously, try having to fly everywhere and all the cost and hassle associated with that.
I have to fly every two weeks to see my girlfriend because the train journey would be twice the price and 8 hours long. You can fly twice the distance for half the cost we can because of the fuel costs you have compared to ours. You really want to debate who whines more about minute things?
Edit: and by fuel costs I mean the fuel tax we have on flights.
I'm all for trains, not just because I like the thought of having a good fast passenger rail system, but also because it would improve the flying and driving experience, by getting people out of the airport and off the damn roads.
I think that we can all agree that we would much rather have Germany's train system (yay ICE!).
This past Summer I took an ICE night train from Germany to the Netherlands. It was nice. Private compartment for me and the Mrs. Private shower/bathroom. Upon boarding the train, complimentary sparkling wine to get our journey started. A god-damned steward that wakes you up at the requested time and brought us delicious breakfast. I'm talking rolls, and meats, and cheeses, and yogurt, and juice, and coffee, and tea. The whole trip lasted 12 hours or so and was the single most relaxing journey I've ever taken.
Then, upon our return, we took the Amtrak from the airport to our town. 2.5 hour trip. The quality difference was considerable.
EDIT: Picture of the compartment. The closet looking thing on the right is the shower/bathroom.
Well, at least if it crashes everyone is instantly turned into fine dust.
Damned straight.
I don't want to be suffering in a train wreck for hours before I fall unconscious from blood loss.
If I'm going to die in a train, I want it to be fast. Preferably with a fireball involved if at all possible.
High-speed rail could cut travel time between Detroit and Washington from nine hours to three — just a smidge longer than the train ride from Washington to New York, from downtown to downtown. And you’d never have to take your shoes off, unless you wanted to. High-speed rail would also cut a five-hour drive from Detroit to Chicago to just over an hour. Detroit to Cleveland? Just under and hour. Detroit to Pittsburgh? About an hour and a half.
That's actually a lot better than I would have imagined. Chicago to NYC in ~4/5 hours is comparable to flying. Taking the convenience factor of being downtown, rather than it's own special parking lot of a highway away, and not having to get a cavity search by the TSA and it's probably quicker. If they make Chicago and Atlanta high speed rail hubs, we may well manage to get some of our crazy map. California's is going to cost around $40bn, a Chicago spoke to Minneapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, and Atlanta would probably be somewhat similiar.
High-speed rail could cut travel time between Detroit and Washington from nine hours to three — just a smidge longer than the train ride from Washington to New York, from downtown to downtown. And you’d never have to take your shoes off, unless you wanted to. High-speed rail would also cut a five-hour drive from Detroit to Chicago to just over an hour. Detroit to Cleveland? Just under and hour. Detroit to Pittsburgh? About an hour and a half.
That's actually a lot better than I would have imagined. Chicago to NYC in ~4/5 hours is comparable to flying. Taking the convenience factor of being downtown, rather than it's own special parking lot of a highway away, and not having to get a cavity search by the TSA and it's probably quicker. If they make Chicago and Atlanta high speed rail hubs, we may well manage to get some of our crazy map. California's is going to cost around $40bn, a Chicago spoke to Minneapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, and Atlanta would probably be somewhat similiar.
While they may be a little easier because it's hard to actually do anything with a plane, I think somebody's going to remember Madrid when the trains start actually having people on them.
High-speed rail could cut travel time between Detroit and Washington from nine hours to three — just a smidge longer than the train ride from Washington to New York, from downtown to downtown. And you’d never have to take your shoes off, unless you wanted to. High-speed rail would also cut a five-hour drive from Detroit to Chicago to just over an hour. Detroit to Cleveland? Just under and hour. Detroit to Pittsburgh? About an hour and a half.
That's actually a lot better than I would have imagined. Chicago to NYC in ~4/5 hours is comparable to flying. Taking the convenience factor of being downtown, rather than it's own special parking lot of a highway away, and not having to get a cavity search by the TSA and it's probably quicker. If they make Chicago and Atlanta high speed rail hubs, we may well manage to get some of our crazy map. California's is going to cost around $40bn, a Chicago spoke to Minneapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, and Atlanta would probably be somewhat similiar.
While they may be a little easier because it's hard to actually do anything with a plane, I think somebody's going to remember Madrid when the trains start actually having people on them.
They bombed a train station because that's where people were, not because it's a particularly easy target. You want to talk about crowded easy targets, plant a bomb in Times Square. Same difference.
Some of those times seem off...as in...pretty much impossible. Unless Amtrak has some special train project I don't know about that can go 300mph without needing to accelerate. It would also need to have no other stops if you want to make it in just over an hour. Coupled with the fact that Chicago's suburbs spread out so far that you'll likely be going far slower for at least 20 miles you're probably going to need at least 2 hours if you manage to get a brunt of the journey at 200mph.
I don't foresee transcontinental high-speed trains either. It would be incredibly expensive to blow a tunnel through enough of the mountains that you could maintain speeds of over 150mph.
I don't care though, I still want it. At the moment it's Greyhound bus or bust if you don't want to or can't drive or fly.
UltimaGecko on
The facehuggers want to play with you in the AvP LP. Facehuggers also want you to check out the TF2 cards here. View the in-progress RE mansion recreation for L4D here.
I love high speed rail, and use it to travel exclusively when possible. South Korea has a High Speed train that goes 300 KPH. It's fucking awesome. You can go from Seoul to Busan, on extremes of the country, in a short afternoon trip. It's sped up travel, business, shipping, and opens up every single city along the way. European High Speed Rail is the WAY to travel in Europe too.
If the USA actually developed this to European standards, I'd vacation in the United States again. Of course, it doesn't change that the cities in the United States aren't set up like European cities with train stations at their cores, so once you got off the train you'd likely be in the middle of no where and would need to rely on public transportation...which is mostly a joke in the States except in extremely high density locations.
Two carriages, one toilet, at peak times, on peak days, stopping at quite major stops along the way.
I've seen someone go from Portsmouth to Newport (about 3 hours), having had to have paid about £55, standing the entire way. Because if you book in advance for the cheaper ticket you get a seat booked for you.
Wait, what?
I make the trip from Newport (on the IoW, not newport,wales) to cardiff fairly frequently and it's never more than 35Quid-ish (including the ferry)
And i buy tickets on the day.
Still i love the UK rail system, it takes an almighty dump on the irish one, where you can only get to about four or five places, but god help you if you 're on the west coast because you'll have to go through dublin, and therefore end up paying twice and trying to cross that hellish city during peak traffic.
Ohh yeah, and a distance of 156Miles (dublin to cork) costs about 70Euro (The guts of 60Stg)
Two carriages, one toilet, at peak times, on peak days, stopping at quite major stops along the way.
I've seen someone go from Portsmouth to Newport (about 3 hours), having had to have paid about £55, standing the entire way. Because if you book in advance for the cheaper ticket you get a seat booked for you.
Wait, what?
I make the trip from Newport (on the IoW, not newport,wales) to cardiff fairly frequently and it's never more than 35Quid-ish (including the ferry)
And i buy tickets on the day.
Still i love the UK rail system, it takes an almighty dump on the irish one, where you can only get to about four or five places, but god help you if you 're on the west coast because you'll have to go through dublin, and therefore end up paying twice and trying to cross that hellish city during peak traffic.
Ohh yeah, and a distance of 156Miles (dublin to cork) costs about 70Euro (The guts of 60Stg)
I used to do Portsmouth to Cardiff and back every three weeks for two years, it was always over £35.
The cross country trains just don't make sense. No one is going to ride them, and you have to build across huge lengths of land where no one lives. While that's also where you'd be able to get truly fast trains going if you really wanted to (there aren't many other nations that have as much flat non-desert as the US does), that's back burner.
The only train route in the US that could currently survive without massive government subsidy is the Acela route. Its not paradise, but its not bad, but its not terrible. I used to go Boston-Philly once a month or so (non-express) and as long as you didn't get someone annoying sitting next to you it was pretty pleasant and affordable.
That's the model that has to be used for now. Regional lines that work open the door for linking them up and adding on to them even if individual new links have to rely on existing links to stay solvent (or at least not completely dependent on the government)
Boston->DC/Newport is already reasonably self-sufficient.
A good LA->LV would make a killing.
SD->LA->San Jose->San Fran seems very doable.
Vancover->Seattle->Portland
Chicagoland it would probably be more of a hub with Madison->Milwaukee-Chi (probably with Minneapolis-St Paul planned), Chi-Indy (maybe Cincy or Louisville on there), Chi - South Bend - Cleveland, St Louis - Chicago
Philly-Pitt
Maybe something in Texas (NO-Houston-SA-Austin-DFW-Houston loop maybe?)
If you put that forth, you've got an sizable chunk of the US population covered and the potential for expansion is there. If you can get places asking for coverage - places like Minn-St Paul, Phoenix,Denver, etc - Congressmen will stop trying to keep other people from getting the trains (because it drains money they want) and start fighting for the train. In the above model, the link up from Pitt to Cleveland is obvious, and then you have a system were you can get from Wisconsin or Missouri to Massachusetts or Virginia by workable train. A 11+ hour train ride from StL to Boston instead of a 2.5 hour plane ride still won't be very popular (using road distances @110mph), but its a start. (It currently takes ~24 hrs for Boston to Chicago)
I think that we can all agree that we would much rather have Germany's train system (yay ICE!).
This past Summer I took an ICE night train from Germany to the Netherlands. It was nice. Private compartment for me and the Mrs. Private shower/bathroom. Upon boarding the train, complimentary sparkling wine to get our journey started. A god-damned steward that wakes you up at the requested time and brought us delicious breakfast. I'm talking rolls, and meats, and cheeses, and yogurt, and juice, and coffee, and tea. The whole trip lasted 12 hours or so and was the single most relaxing journey I've ever taken.
Then, upon our return, we took the Amtrak from the airport to our town. 2.5 hour trip. The quality difference was considerable.
I've never done a sleeper on the ICE. Just the regular train during the day. Clean, fast as fucking hell, on time, and the first time I was on it, guys sitting next to me were drinking out of a mini keg and having a great time on their way to a soccer match - giving high fives to the conductor as he walked by. It was a pretty awesome experience.
except it already takes 3 days via passenger train to go from the middle of the country to the west coast
Surely that cannot be true? It takes 7days to get from Moscow to Beijing!
High speed rail can quite easily replace short-haul flights. It is now quicker to travel from London to Frankfurt by train than it is by plane, due to all the security measures.
Also can I join in the German train loving? I went interrailing this summer (unlimited train travel for a month ftw!) and German trains are fantastic, especially with the privacy and quietness provided by compartments. Even in trains with largely airplane style seating they had compartments at the end of carriages for families-no crying babies!
Posts
When the train turns up that is. Also, you have to realize the slight difference in size between the two, and that along with the fact that they'll stick two carriages on the main line going across the country at peak times on Fridays is just frightening.
The U.K rail system is in no way a joy to use and should be burned in hell. They even closed down most of the express trains taking you across the country (well, from the north to the south and vice-versa), so now it takes 8 hours to get from somewhere like Stoke-on-trent to Edinburgh.
Empire Builder
But you have one.
This. That's what I am getting at, and what you have missed. You have the option to take the train, we do not. I've lived in the UK and have traveled quite a bit through Europe, so I know that the train system in the UK is likely the worst in Europe (or pretty close). However, it works far far far far far better than anything we have here.
Were this new bill adopted, and something similar occur in Canada, it would only address half of what we should have in passenger rail infrastructure. When it comes to trains, we're bloody third world countries.
My original point was that the U.K needed a speed rail system....
Would you pay $130 to travel basically the distance from New York to Rhode Island on a shitty train?
Edit: and for it to take three and a half hours.
(this is a distance of about 220 miles right?)
I still think it's a great system, and rarely complain, because I've also experienced American travel. Trains are a fucking joke - I had to rule them out completely and spend top dollar on planes because the routes took me thousands of miles out of my way. At least going between major cities in the UK is fairly straightforward, and doesn't involve doubling back on yourself. A few stops? Oh boo hoo - a chance to stretch your legs and buy a paper at WH Smith.
Two carriages, one toilet, at peak times, on peak days, stopping at quite major stops along the way.
I've seen someone go from Portsmouth to Newport (about 3 hours), having had to have paid about £55, standing the entire way. Because if you book in advance for the cheaper ticket you get a seat booked for you.
edit:
Also, speaking strictly as someone who is a rural resident, i would kill for broadband, which is a royal pisser because they have it half a mile up the road.
I have to fly every two weeks to see my girlfriend because the train journey would be twice the price and 8 hours long. You can fly twice the distance for half the cost we can because of the fuel costs you have compared to ours. You really want to debate who whines more about minute things?
Edit: and by fuel costs I mean the fuel tax we have on flights.
Well, you can already take Amtrak from Vancouver to Seattle and back.
Does that make it less funny?
This past Summer I took an ICE night train from Germany to the Netherlands. It was nice. Private compartment for me and the Mrs. Private shower/bathroom. Upon boarding the train, complimentary sparkling wine to get our journey started. A god-damned steward that wakes you up at the requested time and brought us delicious breakfast. I'm talking rolls, and meats, and cheeses, and yogurt, and juice, and coffee, and tea. The whole trip lasted 12 hours or so and was the single most relaxing journey I've ever taken.
Then, upon our return, we took the Amtrak from the airport to our town. 2.5 hour trip. The quality difference was considerable.
EDIT: Picture of the compartment. The closet looking thing on the right is the shower/bathroom.
I didn't even crack a smile... it was in poor taste.
I don't want to be suffering in a train wreck for hours before I fall unconscious from blood loss.
If I'm going to die in a train, I want it to be fast. Preferably with a fireball involved if at all possible.
I'm quite happy with the Dutch trains, although there's much to improve... But one time I had the pleasure of traveling by ICE...
Man, that train is comfortable. I didn't mind sitting there for six hours at all.
That's actually a lot better than I would have imagined. Chicago to NYC in ~4/5 hours is comparable to flying. Taking the convenience factor of being downtown, rather than it's own special parking lot of a highway away, and not having to get a cavity search by the TSA and it's probably quicker. If they make Chicago and Atlanta high speed rail hubs, we may well manage to get some of our crazy map. California's is going to cost around $40bn, a Chicago spoke to Minneapolis, St. Louis, Detroit, and Atlanta would probably be somewhat similiar.
While they may be a little easier because it's hard to actually do anything with a plane, I think somebody's going to remember Madrid when the trains start actually having people on them.
They bombed a train station because that's where people were, not because it's a particularly easy target. You want to talk about crowded easy targets, plant a bomb in Times Square. Same difference.
The practical side of me agrees.
The "ooh pretty" side of me wants to be able to see shit whizzing bye.
We can't make them clear?
I don't foresee transcontinental high-speed trains either. It would be incredibly expensive to blow a tunnel through enough of the mountains that you could maintain speeds of over 150mph.
I don't care though, I still want it. At the moment it's Greyhound bus or bust if you don't want to or can't drive or fly.
If the USA actually developed this to European standards, I'd vacation in the United States again. Of course, it doesn't change that the cities in the United States aren't set up like European cities with train stations at their cores, so once you got off the train you'd likely be in the middle of no where and would need to rely on public transportation...which is mostly a joke in the States except in extremely high density locations.
Wait, what?
I make the trip from Newport (on the IoW, not newport,wales) to cardiff fairly frequently and it's never more than 35Quid-ish (including the ferry)
And i buy tickets on the day.
Still i love the UK rail system, it takes an almighty dump on the irish one, where you can only get to about four or five places, but god help you if you 're on the west coast because you'll have to go through dublin, and therefore end up paying twice and trying to cross that hellish city during peak traffic.
Ohh yeah, and a distance of 156Miles (dublin to cork) costs about 70Euro (The guts of 60Stg)
I used to do Portsmouth to Cardiff and back every three weeks for two years, it was always over £35.
The only train route in the US that could currently survive without massive government subsidy is the Acela route. Its not paradise, but its not bad, but its not terrible. I used to go Boston-Philly once a month or so (non-express) and as long as you didn't get someone annoying sitting next to you it was pretty pleasant and affordable.
That's the model that has to be used for now. Regional lines that work open the door for linking them up and adding on to them even if individual new links have to rely on existing links to stay solvent (or at least not completely dependent on the government)
- Boston->DC/Newport is already reasonably self-sufficient.
- A good LA->LV would make a killing.
- SD->LA->San Jose->San Fran seems very doable.
- Vancover->Seattle->Portland
- Chicagoland it would probably be more of a hub with Madison->Milwaukee-Chi (probably with Minneapolis-St Paul planned), Chi-Indy (maybe Cincy or Louisville on there), Chi - South Bend - Cleveland, St Louis - Chicago
- Philly-Pitt
- Maybe something in Texas (NO-Houston-SA-Austin-DFW-Houston loop maybe?)
If you put that forth, you've got an sizable chunk of the US population covered and the potential for expansion is there. If you can get places asking for coverage - places like Minn-St Paul, Phoenix,Denver, etc - Congressmen will stop trying to keep other people from getting the trains (because it drains money they want) and start fighting for the train. In the above model, the link up from Pitt to Cleveland is obvious, and then you have a system were you can get from Wisconsin or Missouri to Massachusetts or Virginia by workable train. A 11+ hour train ride from StL to Boston instead of a 2.5 hour plane ride still won't be very popular (using road distances @110mph), but its a start. (It currently takes ~24 hrs for Boston to Chicago)QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+
Hmm, that's odd. Maybe they just really want me off this damn island.
I've never done a sleeper on the ICE. Just the regular train during the day. Clean, fast as fucking hell, on time, and the first time I was on it, guys sitting next to me were drinking out of a mini keg and having a great time on their way to a soccer match - giving high fives to the conductor as he walked by. It was a pretty awesome experience.
Surely that cannot be true? It takes 7days to get from Moscow to Beijing!
High speed rail can quite easily replace short-haul flights. It is now quicker to travel from London to Frankfurt by train than it is by plane, due to all the security measures.
Also can I join in the German train loving? I went interrailing this summer (unlimited train travel for a month ftw!) and German trains are fantastic, especially with the privacy and quietness provided by compartments. Even in trains with largely airplane style seating they had compartments at the end of carriages for families-no crying babies!