Talk:Rail transport

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Trains Portal

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Trains, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to rail transport on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

[edit] Rail capacity/ land use

Rail transport is also one of the safest modes of transport, and also makes highly efficient use of space: a double-tracked rail line can carry more passengers or freight in a given amount of time than a four-laned road.

This figure seem a bit low. Does anyone know a better source?

A few back-of-the-envelope calculations:

Minimun distance between cars in heavy traffic: 2 sec. (That's what they recommend in driving lessons anyway)

Average occupancy: 1.3

=> Maximum capacity = 2300 passengers per hour per lane

Seats on a eurostar train: 750

Minimum interval between trains on a high speed rail line: 5 min

=> Maximum capacity = 9000 passergers per hour per track

9000/2300 = 3.9 road lanes for each rail track

Passengers on a packed London Underground train: 120 x 6 carriages = 720

Maximum interval between underground trains: 1 min 30 sec

=> Maximum capacity = 28,800

... which would suggest a double-tracked rail line is (at least) equivalent to an 8-lane road used by cars.

Seats on a double-decker bus: 50

Interval between buses: 4 sec

=> Maximum capacity = 45,000 passengers per hour per lane

... so we should also mention that a single bus-only road lane has a higher capacity than trains.

Klafubra 10:52, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Railway Wagons

Friends, I require some information on the subject, "The various processes involved in making railway-wagons". Could somebody please add a few pages on this matter in wikipedia or direct me to a webpage which provides some information on the same? I shall be really thankful to you. Please reply on this webpage or at raj_softnet@sify.com or rushtomeaakash@yahoo.co.in

[edit] Reverted linkspam

The link added by an anon editor doesn't appear to have any information of its own, just links to passenger services worldwide. slambo 20:38, July 19, 2005 (UTC)

Someone needs to do a lot more work on this. There are way too many external links for this topic. Most pages don't exceed a dozen such links.--Daveswagon 00:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Profitability

I don't understand if rail is so efficent why it can't even come close to making a profit. It's not the cost of maintaing the rails because not only are rails fairly cheap compared to pavement but semi's pay a LOT in taxes. One figure I saw is that semi's pay about $40,000 (US) a year in taxes just to use the road. Besides, even if it were the cost of rail, when you read the amtrak article they mention they're not even covering their above rail expenses. Although the passenger trains might simply not be full the cargo trains certainly are and they don't make money either. What is it about trains that they can't make money? Vicarious 17:51, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't know where you got the idea that freight rail is unprofitable. Union Pacific made a profit of $1 billion in 2005 on revenues of $13.6 billion, BNSF made $1.5 billion and CSX made $1.1 billion. Those look like decent numbers to me. The big problem is lack of capacity. Passenger rail is something very different. Toiyabe 16:54, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Trains can make money. The reason they don't in most places is because train tickets are a crappy way of making money from trains. free rider problem. Trains make money in Japan. How? 1) Buy cheap land 2) Build a new commuter rail line on it 3) Develop land near new station 4) Sell land at a premium price. Klafubra 22:05, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

I have a big problem with everything you just said. I think we're working off different premises. Train is supposed to be a cheap form of travel, therefore it should be cheaper for a commuter to ride the train then drive to work, or for a company to ship supplies via train rather then semi truck. This almost never seems to be the case. The free rider problem seems entirely unapplicable becaue the problem applies when you can't discriminate who gets on the train and who doesn't. We easily have that ability, it's called train tickets. As for a train being profitable by developing land that seems like a bizarre extention. I'm not saying it can't be done I'm saying it's a superflous extrapolation. If trains are such a cheap method of travel it should be less expensive to transport goods via train then semi, yet semitrucks are far more prevalent and even when trains are used they're usually not making money.Vicarious 00:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Train is supposed to be a cheap form of travel Cheap? Who gave you that idea? A cheap form of travel is bus. Train is supposed to be a high capacity and low land use form of travel. In other words, trains only make economic sense where the population density is high, or where airports are working at overcapacity. So yes, if a train runs alongside an uncongested motorway between two small towns, of course it will make a loss.

therefore it should be cheaper for a commuter to ride the train then drive to work No, people generally take commuter trains because they're faster, not cheaper.

The free rider problem seems entirely unapplicable becaue the problem applies when you can't discriminate who gets on the train and who doesn't. The free riders are the shops and businesses near train stations, who benefit indirectly from the passengers. When a new train station opens (eg. Thames Gateway in London) property prices often double or triple in the area (not to mention the new jobs created), so loads of extra money is made overall, it's just not made by the train company.

As for a train being profitable by developing land that seems like a bizarre extention So bizzare in fact, that the the business community in central London has offered to pay for part of the construction cost of Crossrail upfront, for free, out of their own pocket! It's not as unusual as you think. That's the way many commuter lines were built around 100 years ago. It's just a simple way of internalizing the benefit...nothing bizzare about it. Stricter planning regulations have prevented this in recent times, so rail lines were normally built from public money, under the premise that the macroeconomic gains (through reduced congestion, settling of new businesses, etc.) would outweigh the investment losses (not that I'm saying this is always the case).

Don't see where the big problem lies... Klafubra 01:12, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

I'm evidently not being clear so allow me to try and clarify our issue here. There are two main ways in which trains are used and they can be oversimplified as downtown and rural. Mind you, when I say rural I'm not refering to an area slightly outside a densely populated area which could be developed, I'm talking about train tracks that run through areas that no one but train operators ever see. You are informing me that the downtown type is lucrative and how it is, that's fine. My question is about the second kind. Let me clarify the whole issue with an example:

A company in California wishes to transfer 1,000,000 bowling balls to new york for a large promotional event. They're 8lb balls and the maximum load for a semi-truck is 80,000 lbs, so it's going to take 100 trucks to transport them all. Of course a train can carry it all in one trip. Trains use 50-70% less energy which means they SHOULD be able to transport all the balls for 1/2 to 1/4 the price. Yet this never seems to be true. My question is why not? Vicarious 03:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

There is also a third type of passenger rail: Intercity transport between densely populated cities no more than ca. 300 miles apart. This is normally provided by high speed rail and has proven to be profitable in some places. But yes, I can't see how "rural" rail transport can ever make much of a profit. Rural freight lines tend to be underutilised and rural passenger lines normally don't take people anywhere near their house, unless you connect every village to the rail network.

Back to your example: In my opinion, there are several reasons why trucks are cheaper: A) Energy is cheap. So higher energy efficiency does not necessarily mean lower cost. Rail track maintainance is more expensive than road maintainace, and under-utilised rail lines are especially unprofitable compared to under-utilised roads. B) Trucks allow just-on-time delivery, saving on storage cost. C) Trucks allow door-to-door delivery, saving on loading/unloading costs. Klafubra 21:11, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, that was what I was looking for. We're getting a little deep in indentation here so I'm gonna start a new section and brake down the costs. I'd appriciate your input on my numbers. Vicarious 02:31, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

The biggest reason railways "appear" to run at a loss and require subsidys is that they have to maintain the tracks and right of way etc. This is not the case for trucks. If trucking companys had to build and maintain their own highways they would go broke in no time. Railroads are very effiecient and only need relatively minor subisdies compared to the amounts spent maintaining roads. Dellarb 2125, 19 Oct 2006 (UTC+8)

[edit] Cost Analysis

The example A company in California wishes to transfer 1,000,000 bowling balls to new york for a large promotional event. They're 8lb balls and the maximum load for a semi-truck is 80,000 lbs, so it's going to take 100 trucks to transport them all. Of course a train can carry it all in one trip.

Assumptions:

gasoline is $3.00/gallon
semi-truck gets 15 miles/gallon
train uses 66% less fuel, resulting in 45 miles/gallon
cost to use highway $40,000/year (amount paid in highway taxes)
cost of a train is $1,000,000 and it lasts 20 years
cost of a semi-truck is $200,000 and it lasts 10 years.
it takes 6 days to travel the 3,000 miles from california to new york

semi-truck:

cost of truck = $200,000/(10 years * 365 days) is cost per day * 6 days = $328
cost of fuel = 3000 miles * 1/15 gallons/mile * 3.00 dollars/gallon = $600
cost of road = 40,000 $/year * 1/365 year/day * 6 days = $657
cost of driver = 10 $/hour * 8 hours * 6 days = $480

total = $2065 * 100 trucks = $206,500

train:

cost of train = $1,000,000/(20 years * 365 days) is cost per day * 6 days = $822
cost of fuel = 3000 miles * 1/45 gallons/mile * 3.00 dollars/gallon = $200 * 100(to equal semi load) = $20,000
cost of track = ???
cost of conducter = 20 $/hour * 8 hours * 6 days = $960 * 5(to reflect brake men and such) = $4,800

total = $25,622 + cost of track = ???

results:

for the truck the cost of the fuel is 29%. the cost of the road is 32%. for the two methods to be equal track would have to cost $180,878, comprising 87% of the total cost, making tracks cost nearly three time as much as road.

questions: I don't see what inherently makes tracks so expensive. Saying tracks are expensive because they aren't used often is a tautology because at some point trains were common. This is like saying tracks fell into disuse because they weren't used. Perhaps steel is dramatically more expensive then asphault, but I never thought so. The other concern I did not address is train to building costs, but if tracks cost the same as road they'd simply make tracks up to every buisinesses' doorstep.

Vicarious 03:17, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Vicarious,

You chose an example that's extremely in favour of rail transport: 100 Trucks vs. one train from one exact point to another. Whenever in reality you have a situation similar to this, the train is in fact in terms of cost the more efficient alternative. And this situation does arise in reality, for example transporting thousands of tons of ore from a mine to a steel company, or transporting thousends of cars from the factory to a sea port for shipment overseas. But the majority of transport situations in reality are not like this: You have a much smaller volume of goods, and you want to distribute them to various destinations or collect them from various origins. Then, more types of expenses come into account. Shunting, maintainance of switches, just to mention two. Dealerofsalvation 19:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I think that the issue of taxes is also very important. You said above that since semis pay high taxes, that can't be the problem. However, [this page] says that 15% of highway funding comes from general fund appropriations. I'm pretty sure very little government money is spent on the upkeep of railroads, so highways are significantly subsidized right there. And railroads even pay taxes on top of all their own upkeep. Actually, it's probably a testament to the efficiency of railroads that freight is still profitable in some cases. Also, I think there is something to the "because they aren't used" too. They were harshly regulated in the era before cars and planes, and I gather much of that was repealed in 1980, when train usage had already dropped drastically. 71.211.130.179 04:49, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Although your analysis doesn't consider the time-value of money, the result is reasonable. It is much cheaper to haul goods over long distances via rails then roads. And your analysis is borne out by reality - in the US today, for trips over 1000 miles about three times more freight goes by rail than by road. What goes by road at those distances is primarily time-sensitive loads or small loads. On a ton-mile basis, about 38% of US freight goes on rails, about 27% on roads (the remainder is mostly barge and pipeline). The problems in the US rail industry from the 60's to the 90's were primarily regulatory - railroads were forced to serve unprofitable customers, and to make up for it they had to jack up the rates on their profitable customers.

The situation is Europe is pretty different - about 8% of freight goes by rail and 44% by road. There's a host of problems with the European freight rail industry - prioritization of passenger traffic, inconsistency of signals and saftey regulations, and a network design that is nation-centric not europe-centric. The portion of rail traffic vs road traffic actually decreases for trips over 1000 km in Europe.Toiyabe 18:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Vicarious, do you have any hard data showing that it is, overall, cheaper to ship via truck than rail? Have you compared the shipping rate cards for the Union Pacific versus Atlas Van Lines? Your original contention was that, while it should be cheaper to ship via rail, it usually isn't. I don't have any data off the top of my head, but I would argue that your contention is incorrect: it is, in general, cheaper to ship via rail, for the reasons that have already been outlined both in your cost analysis and by Toiyabe and Dealerofsalvation. Otherwise, no one would ship via rail, because it would be too expensive. So, unless you have data showing otherwise, I think your whole question is moot...but correct me if I'm wrong, please.

I think you might have originally been getting confused with the constant news reports of Amtrak being unprofitable with the whole railroad industry being unprofitable, too. As someone already pointed out, the big three railroad corporations all posted more than $1 billion in profit (not just revenue--profit) last year. Amtrak, and most other passenger services (for various reasons) have always been and probably always will be unprofitable. But freight is a different story: it is profitable, and very much so.

Toiyabe, do you have any sources to back up your numbers? I'm curious--offhand, I've heard that up to 90% of freight in the U.S. travels via railroad. I have been suspicious of that number, and so if your numbers are accurate, my mind can rest at ease. cluth 10:15, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

For the US, the Bureau of Transportation Statistics - www.bts.gov is a good source. You can look at their table of freight ton-miles - [1] - which is only complete up to 2003. The EU has a similar agency, but I haven't found much good info there. You could look at the following paper - "Nature or Nurture: Why do Railroads Carry Greater Freight Share In the United States Than In Europe from the Harvard Kennedy School of Government. It has some good comparative statistics, and analysis.

US railroads may have 90% of some form of freight hauling (coal? exports?), but not on any general basis. Toiyabe 15:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] „Most rail systems … have never or rarely been profitable“

I see that this statement applies most present-day rail systems. But as far as I know, in the early decades of railroading most train systems have been highly profitable. This is also reflected in PC games like Railroad Tycoon. And in most countries they continued to be profitable until maybe the 1930s, 1940s or 1950s. Isn't it? So it's wrong to use „never or rarely“ in this statement. Dealerofsalvation 19:07, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

For what i read of U.S. railroad books some on the bizz side, many were profitable and still are. Ya some were not due to lines that should not been built or over built. But mostly it was due to gov over regs and people that ran them thinking then were banks. They were the Enron of there times! Lazarus-long 04:55, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Safest", "most efficient", "most comfort"

I've removed the claims that rail travel is the safest way to travel, that it offers the most comfort, or that is the most energy efficient method of transporting passengers and cargo. It's too NPOV without better references. I'd welcome good sources to demonstrate it's the most energy efficient way to haul heavy loads.

The claim about comfort is difficult. Personal comfort is rather subjective. Some passengers might be most comfortable walking, etc.

I'm fairly certain air travel is safer for a passenger than rail travel (at least in the U.S.)

Thanks,

Joshua Rodd

[edit] Energy efficiency

Our article states "In all, under the right circumstances, a train needs 50-70% less energy to transport a given tonnage of freight (or given number of passengers), than does road transport." What is the source for this claim?

I advised a person of this statistic on the help desk and I wanted to find a source for it. Capitalistroadster 05:08, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

the percentage advantage varies--is the road transport a wagon going through mud, or a truck on a concrete highway. And the energy is calories used or what? I think the original point actually had to do with the coefficient of friction metal on metal versus wood on dirt. Rjensen 05:33, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] US Railroad Speed Limits? and Typical Train Speeds?

I've done some searching on Wikipedia and have not been able to find any info on railroad speeds, whether of the "speed limit on this particular section of Acme Railroad track" or "typical speeds on this particular section of XYZ railroad track." This has surprised me. Am I searching in the wrong places? Or has noone just created the articles/sections to begin to deal with it?

By the way, I make the distinction between speed limits (max. legal, or max. set by the RR company) and typical speeds (where I would imagine train operators might typically choose to go slower on various lengths of track for a wide variety of reasons that are not one of the prior two reasons; e.g., seasonal highway crossing traffic, children playing near tracks, etc.) because I think there is likely a difference, at least in my area of the country. Thanks. N2e 23:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

The maximum allowable train speed along a given stretch of track is determined by the "class" of the track, ranging from class 1 to class 5. This is not to be confused with the class of the rail company, which is determined by revenue. The track class is dependent on a number of metrics relating to the overall condition of the track: track gauge deviation, signalling apparatus, maintenance schedule, etc. The class of a track can vary from one year to the next depending on how carefully it is maintained (particularly if it is owned by a short line) and there doesn't seem to be a readily accessible document listing all track classes for all rail companies. I believe it is a document kept only by the companies themselves. Does anyone know otherwise? Geoff NoNick 04:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm not certain as to how track class is determined (I've actually not heard of that measurement), but the maximum authorized speeds (somewhat interchangeable with the term "track speed,") for a given stretch of track are typically listed in a document called a timetable (not to be confused with a train schedule--it's kind of a misnomer). Timetables list all kinds of information, from the location and length of siding tracks and special notes at certain mileposts to rewrites and replacements of sections of the General Code of Operating Rules (if they apply to that railroad...ugh...I should start thinking about writing some articles on all of that terminology). As maximum authorized for a given piece of track can change every few miles, it's probably not practical to compose a list of all of them here at WP (especially with the dozens of thousands of miles of main track on railroads like the UP and the BNSF), and I'm sure that each railroad probably considers its timetable more or less proprietary information. If you're on a railroad, though, you can tell what the maximum speed is by looking for a rectangular or six-sided sign to the side of the track. The sign will have yellow numbers on a green background to indicate that the speed limit is higher than it was on the previous stretch of track, and it will have black numbers on a yellow background to indicate that the speed limit is lower. Higher speed limits take effect after the end of the train has passed the sign; lower speed limits take effect when the head end passes the sign. A diagonal sign with the black-on-yellow scheme indicates an upcoming lower speed limit (so the engineer has time to slow down). These signs are generally posted 1/2 mile before the lower speed limit takes effect.

As far as variances from the maximum authorized speed--yes, engineers can choose to go slower than the maximum authorized speed--of course, if an engineer feels that a certain authorized speed is too great for the conditions, he will go at a speed that he deems safe. (However, for reasons of efficiency, timely delivery, congestion reduction, and a myriad of other things, I'm sure that engineers are encouraged to move as rapidly as possible--and most of the time, engineers do operate their trains at track speed.) Most speed reductions really aren't the decision of the engineer: signal indications will overrule posted speed limits. For example, a solid yellow signal ("Approach") requires the train to immediately slow to 40 mph and prepare to stop short of the next signal (usually a couple miles ahead). A flashing red signal ("Restricting") requires the engineer to slow the train to a speed which allows it to stop within half the range of vision--which can be pretty darn slow on a 120-car loaded tanker train coming up on a curve. Signals help separate trains: if a train is between two signals, the signal behind that train automatically changes to a red ("Stop") signal, and the one behind that becomes a yellow ("Approach"--slow down to 40 and prepare to stop at the next signal). So if one train is following another one closely, it will consistently run into yellow signals and will not be able to exceed 40 until the distance between the trains increases.

The other type of speed restriction comes when the railroad will often create track bulletins that supersede standard authorized speeds. Track bulletins come in many flavors, but the most common are Form A restrictions, which are temporary speed restrictions due to track conditions (say, if a maintenance of way worker notices that the rail is getting warped or thin or the ballast (track bed) is unstable, and Form B restrictions, which are notifications of men and equipment working on the tracks. If a Form A restriction is in effect, the train will have to move through the restriction slower than the published and posted speed limit. (Form A restrictions are usually marked with a yellow flag next to the track two miles before the restriction and a green flag at the end of the restriction.) Form B restrictions generally require the conductor to contact the foreman ("employee in charge") of the maintenance gang for permission to enter the restriction's limits, after which the foreman will clear his men and verbally authorize the train through at a specified speed (or sometimes "at maximum authorized speed," which would be whatever the posted speed limit is).

More than likely, these may be the cause of the variances you're seeing in speeds. It's typically not just a "whatever-the-engineer-feels-like" deal (although there are some engineers who just like to go slow and others who push the envelope by one or two miles per hour). Hope this helps! At some point, maybe I'll try to fold some of this information into one of these articles. Feel free to try, too--if you want, leave me a message on my talk page and I'll make sure it's accurate. Cheers! cluth 08:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Forgot to add: "typical" train speed limits are going to depend heavily on the geography. For example, up here in Alaska, we have a lot of track and roadbed that was laid in the early 1900s, so it's really curvy. As such, the speed limits on most of our track range from 35 mph all the way down to 10 mph. Speeds on UP/BNSF throughout the Rockies will probably be similar. New, heavy, and relatively straight track that's laid with continuous welded rail (the lack of "joints" helps with rocking and keeps the wear down) is safe up to very high speeds (see Acela). On non-high-speed corridor, however, I believe the FRA limits track speed to 79 mph. (I don't have a specific reference to back that up, but I seem to have heard that a lot.) I believe, too, that the FRA limits speed in non-signalled territory to 49 mph. (This is less of an issue in the Lower 48, as about 80% of the BNSF's track, for example, is signalled. Up here in Alaska, we have roughly 60-70 miles of signalled track and 500 miles of non-signalled track, as signalled track is much more expensive due to the electronics required.) For more details on all of this, you'll have to check with someone who's more familiar with the Code of Federal Regulations as it refers to railroading. cluth 08:57, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Cluth, this is VERY HELPFUL information. Thank you very much. I'm looking forward to seeing the Wiki page you create on Train Speeds (or US Train Speeds???). N2e 19:07, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I haven't gotten around to it yet, and I'm not sure that an entire article should be devoted to the subject, but here are a few source pages to look (courtesy of a quick Google search) at if anyone else wants to look into it.

Basically, speed restrictions are based on two things: the track itself (rail strength or "weight," design tolerances, maintenance) and the signaling method used (signals, manual blocks, automatic train stop systems, etc.). The FRA's limits based on track standards end in *9mph (i.e. 49mph), and the restrictions based on signaling end in *0. (i.e. 60mph). So, for example, on the Alaska Railroad, we have some stretches of track that are limited to 40mph, which would be due to the track, and some stretches of 49mph, which would be due to it being in non-signaled territory, even though the track itself could handle up to 60mph. (We do have some new 60mph track, too, which is in CTC and is continuous welded rail. I've been told it's very nice, though I haven't been over it yet.

cluth 02:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (please leave any replies both here and on my Talk page, as I won't stumble back across this page for a long while...)

[edit] Introduction

I'm a little worried that the introduction to this article has too much to do with the construction of railways. Maybe this is the point of htis article. Opinions? Oceanhahn 22:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tycoons page?

Although fairly recent to contributing to Wikipedia, I was mulling the idea of adding a page of (in-)famous railroad-related personalities, e.g. Vanderbilt, Drew, Fisk, Gould, Westinghouse, Carnegie, Pitcairn, Stephenson, Mallet, Trevithick, etc. Would there be any support for such a page? --Dsteckelberg 03:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Possible confusion on rails and flanges

The article on William Jessop contained the following text:

In 1790, he founded (with fellow engineer Benjamin Outram) the Butterley Iron Works in Derbyshire to manufacture (amongst other things) cast-iron edge rails – a design Jessop had used successfully with flanged wheels on a horse-drawn railway scheme for coal wagons in Loughborough, Leicestershire (1789).

whilst this article contradicted it with:

In the late 18th century iron rails began to appear: British civil engineer William Jessop designed edge rails (which have the flange on the rail, used with plain wheels) for use on a scheme from Loughborough, Leicestershire in 1789 ...

I initially assumed this article was definative, and hence William Jessop was wrong, and removed with flanged wheels from that article.

However in looking for original sources, I happened across another reference in WP. Our article Wagonway makes a distiction between plate-rails (where the flange is on the rail) and edge-rails (where the flange is on the wheel). This makes this article wrong, and William Jessop right. Still digging, but if anybody knows a definative source, I'd be grateful. -- Chris j wood 13:27, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] displaying markers

This phrase is obscure. Am loath to delete it unless it means something. Does anyone know what it means?

[edit] Passenger rail profitability

In California, high speed rail is under study. Initial indications are that a high speed rail line linking the San Francisco Bay Area with Los Angeles would be at least as time efficient as air travel, and if implemented, would at least break even in operating revenue versus expenses. So why is there substantial legislative resistance to this good idea?

Passenger rail service is the stuff of urban legend: that they require huge subsidies. In fact, after the loss of passenger service provided by local RR companies when Amtrak was formed, most of the commuter lines were quickly taken over by local metropolitan entities. Why? To fulfill a critical need for commuter trains to move lots of people quickly and efficiently. In communities where passenger rail was abandoned, we had he result of dramatically increased freeway construction and the relegation of commuters to smelly, crowded and unattractive buses.

In the SF Bay Area, the Key System was abandoned in the late 1950's. Yet in only a few short years, BART came into existence, using the very same right of ways for the most part and with vast improvements such as tunneling under the bay. Who made the original short-sighted decision and upon what reasonable information basis?

Current conventional wisdom would discontinue Amtrak except for its popular Northeast Corridor which has substantial ridership and shows some degree of profitability. On the west coast, the new commuter links of the Surfliner between San Diego and LA, the Capitols between Sacramento and San Jose, and the Altamont Express between the central valley and the bay area have been hugely successful, mostly because they have had California state sponsorship. The have had huge ridership increases and continue to be cost efficient in moving people rapidly and conveniently as an alternative to auto commuting.

The Amtrak Coast Starlight links Seattle with LA. It transverses some of the most scenic coastline and mountains in the whole west. Yet, Amtrak will not add service to this line even though it is mostly sold out every day, despite being chronically late and hard to use. It is limited to one train per day northbound and one southbound. It traverses the most scenic mountainous areas in the dark of night. It fails to connect conveniently with any other trains. Why?

One can only suspect deliberate efforts on the part of auto manufacturers, freeway builders, fuel suppliers and their allies as the culprits in preventing a rational, well thought out and well financed inter-city rail system from actually developing.--Rrman 11:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I've seen a few op-ed pieces in various publications that the US Federal government wants to shift the cost of passenger rail transport off of the Federal budget and onto State budges. So far, it's all been speculation and conspiracy theories, but I wouldn't be entirely surprised if someone finds the "smoking gun" to prove such a theory. Slambo (Speak) 12:48, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] measurement of wheel contact on rail?

The article currently notes "the contact between each wheel and the rail is the area of about one U.S. ten-cent piece". As a non-U.S. citizen I haven't a clue how big that is and nor is it easy for me to access US coins (apart from looking up a wikipedia article). Could we use other units of measurement? cheers. --mgaved 15:43, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] local passenger trains

"Few major US cities other than New York, Chicago, Boston, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia can lay claim to any significant use of local rail-based passenger transport;"

The L.A. area has the coaster, and San Francisco has ACE to Stockton, Caltrain down SF bay, and Amtrak Capitol service along the Sacto corridor. That, IMHO, is 'significant use'. I'm sure other cities must have this too, I'm just limited by personal knowledge. So it'd be helpful if somebody more knowledgable than I would either provide a cite or do a rewrite to eliminate this.

[edit] External links

I removed all of the external links because none of them really seemed appropriate for a top-level article. If anyone thinks any of them are appropriate, or can think of some good ones for this article, feel free to add them (back). JYolkowski // talk 21:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've just re-removed them again for the same reason. Slambo (Speak) 17:26, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Different versions of the article

Depending on where you get redirected to this article - from "Railroad" or "Railway" - there's a difference in (at least) the beginning of the article: From Railway -> "(termed sleepers (Commonwealth) or railroad ties (U.S. and Canada)" From Railroad -> "(termed sleepers (Commonwealth) or railroad ties (U.S. and Canada))"

Why does the first version lack the final parenthesis? Strange.

[edit] Histroy of the Railroad in the United States

I think that this should not be in the article. The article does not for example mention the first railways in Canada, Australia, Brazil etc. SO Why the USA? How about a new article called "Histroy of Rail Transport in the United States" and articles of such nature for other countries. The USA built many railways - true, but so did the Chinese and British in India and Dutch - but no mention of these! Segafreak2 21:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

This article could do with a bit of updating, but on my quick skim through it this morning, I see many references to worldwide rail transport history and operations. This article is not exclusively US, and I don't see a section that concentrates on US rail history. There is an article on the History of rail transport in the United States that goes into much more detail on US rail history. Slambo (Speak) 12:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/a/i/Talk%7ERail_transport_3de6.html"

Categories: B-Class rail transport articles | Top-importance rail transport articles | Wikipedia CD Selection