Hacker News Reader

Comment by srgseg | Hacker News Reader

"In an era when the railway companies were highly competitive, they strove to keep journey times as short as possible, avoiding intermediate stops wherever possible".

Anyone know what made the railway companies less competitive? I had always assumed that since they each had a monopoly over the tracks in each region, they had no real incentives to innovate.

View on HN

In the US, air travel made rail obsolete. For long distances (>500 miles) rail just can't compete with air. The was one of the main points in the book "Turbulent Skies: The History of Commercial Aviation" by T. A. Heppenheimer.

Another reason is that the freight companies own a vast majority of the rail tracks in the US which means freight trains get priority over passenger trains..

This only happened after the airlines stole most of the passenger traffic. By the 70s the rail vs flight curves had crossed and most passengers were on planes, after deregulation of the airlines the market for long-haul passenger carriage was owned by the airlines; the only thing left for railroads was freight and short-haul passenger traffic in populated corridors. When passengers were the bulk of the rail revenue stream the system was optimized in their favor, and when fright took over the conditions were inverted.

The airlines did not "steal" the passenger traffic... they offered something people wanted... a journey lasting hours instead of days.

I did not mean to imply that rail had any "right" to the passengers, just being a bit informal in the description. Faster transit was definitely the initial draw, but the implied status and luxury that early air travel provided was also important. The speed difference at the time was significant, but not as large as it is today -- NYC to Chicago was an overnight trip and you arrived blocks from the loop and in much better shape than you do today after enduring a similar trip.

Not any more. These days it is easier and faster for me to drive 500 miles from Boston to Toronto then to fly. Wonder if I could take a train...

You might have a case for Boston to NYC, but even with the 15 minute security check and the requirement to arrive 30 minutes before your flight leaves, you are still probably better off flying. In terms of time, that is.

The Boston to NYC trains are fantastic! I wouldn't fly between those two if I had the choice. Arrive in the city. Power plug on the train, tons of room. Real food. Cheap to do last minute. Not sure why anyone would want to fly between Boston any NYC these days.

As for Boston to Toronto I have done it many times the past two years before giving driving a try so I know how much time it actually takes. Door to door it was within a half hour of total traveling time, ton cheaper, real food, and the security at the boarder was not stupid. Driving I can go there whenever I want without needing to plans weeks in advance, adding another last minute person isn't a $2000 plane ticket, and I can change my return home plans on a whim. And as a bonus when I rent a cars I have been able to try out different models which I personally very much enjoy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com