Hacker News Reader

The other advantage of rail is that rail is generally less affected by weather. (which anyone that's sat at SFO or waited in the air or elsewhere on the ground for an SFO fog delay will appreciate)

Last time I was in Japan, a typhoon hit, and was working its way up the islands. My flight up to Tokyo was already cancelled due to high winds, but I was able to get a Shinkansen ticket and arrive in time to catch my flight before Narita was affected by the Typhoon.

The flight would have been 90 minutes (not including travel time to the airport), and the train was 5 hours, but still, it was a comfortable journey and I'd do it again. If I were traveling from downtown to downtown, the airplane time would be more like 4 hours (60 minutes to get to airport with padding to get to gate on time, 90 minute flight (scheduled time is over 2 hours, but usually the flight is around 90 minutes gate to gate), then at least 90 minutes to get off the plan and catch an express bus to Tokyo.

Rail is also more environmentally efficient, once the initial infrastructure is put in place. Airplanes burn tons of fossil fuels, trains can run on renewables.

All the trains I have been on in California burn diesel fuel, including the one I commute on every day. Caltrain down the peninsula burns 10 million dollars in fossil fuels a year. I would hope we could convert already heavily used rail corridors to electric sometime in my lifetime.

http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/__Agendas+and+Minutes/JPB/Boa...

It's in progress:

http://www.caltrain.com/projectsplans/CaltrainModernization/...

As long as you're still alive in 2022 (and there are no more funding issues caused by the tie-in to HSR), it will happen within your lifetime.

Should have happened a decade or more ago, but Caltrain is the underfunded stepchild with the bulk of transit dollars going to BART.

Of course, BARTs eBART expansion is diesel, not electric.

At least it's standard gauge rail, so that's a plus.

Caltrain is being electrified right now and due to be done in six years, and of course CA High Speed Rail is going to be electric.

Caltrain is currently in a project to convert to electric, as others have noted.

It's not particularly feasible in the US to convert freight-dominated lines to electric. Modern freight generally uses the double-stacked container as its loading gauge, and electric catenaries would sit several feet below the top of the double-stack container--the standard height for a bilevel in the US is 14.5 ft, but the double-stacked container runs to 20 ft.

Could they use a third rail system? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_rail

Not really. Freight lines are usually built at-grade and occasionally intersect city streets. Caltrain tracks included. Some of the Caltrain stations doesn't even have elevated platforms.

It would be... unpopular... to have an electrified third rail, at ground level, that you have to step directly over at a station or running directly through a city street. Somebody would surely trip on it or it could get touched by a little kid.

Third rail systems are usually only used when the tracks are physically inaccessible to passengers or other pedestrians.

Plenty of third rail in the south of England, they just stop the rail before level crossings and start it again afterwards.

If you think longer-term, electric trains are realistic. If batteries are cheaper than Diesel, you could just put 2x20ft container at the front with batteries. They can be swapped en-route and used as battery storage when not in use. As far as I know, most newer freight trains are diesel-electric anyway so not sure if you couldn't just feed the electric engine directly from a battery without buying new engines.

Currently not feasible because of high battery prices but realistic in 1-2 decades. And losses are lower than for electrified rail.

Busy routes are still better electrified but the huge US freight rail network would likely be cheaper to convert that way.

This picture shows a double stack container under electric catenary, so it's possible. The cost would be high for the length of tank involved. Electrification's non-green advantage is faster acceleration, which is easy to justify on busy passenger lines as you get faster journeys and potentially more trains, but not important for freight.

http://testplant.blogspot.dk/2013/09/electrification-clearan...

> The other advantage of rail is that rail is generally less affected by weather

That one does certainly depend on the amount of money the rail operator(s) invest in maintenance and upkeep, as well as how much area on the sides of the track they bought. In Germany, rail has three major issues with weather:

- during cold times, railroad switches freeze because they lack heatings and so they become stuck, and special maintenance teams have to be at standby across the country (source: was part of such a team for one season, well paid but shit that was cold)

- during storms, stuff gets blown onto the rail. Mostly dead trees, the problem is when the area next to the rails didn't get cleaned up (trees so high that they could fall into the rails are cut to a safe height or removed altogether). This can be caused either by a lack of upkeep - or because the surrounding area is not owned by the train operator

- during hot periods, the running gag in Germany is "how many trains will fuck up today?". The trains are either not properly maintained (due to a lack of funds) or simply have not been ordered with strong enough air conditioners.

tl;dr: getting rail immune from weather-related influences takes serious money. The Swiss and Japanese railroads did the proper investments and thus have next to zero weather related problems, the German railroads are seen as a cash cow ready to be milked by the politicians, consequences be damned.

Hey your problems are too serious, in France, each autumn, we'll get delays because of tree leaves on the tracks! (in addition to the cold/storm/hot problems) From what I understood, the leaves increase braking distances, so the trains have to be slowed.

> in France, each autumn, we'll get delays because of tree leaves on the tracks!

Yeah we get these too, but that's just delays, not the complete shutdown of the entire country's railroad system for sometimes days like last autumn after storm Xavier.

Quite true.

I think I was lucky since I avoided the worst of the latest storm. I just had a lot of delays on my first day of work this year: they had a tree fallen on the tracks, but they had managed to keep a few trains rolling.

That's a yearly issue in the Netherlands as well. They even have special sweeper cars.

As you say, rail systems aren't immune to weather.

But the German experience is that lack of funding is usually exaggerated as a reason. It's caused by many things, but mostly underappreciated is zoning, eminent domain (or lack thereof) as well as just basic technology.

The three main reasons for delays in Germany are:

1) suicides (up to two per day in the whole of Germany)

2) trees/branches falling on cables/tracks

3) train system overheating

Also rail is affected by

4) catastrophes that are happening next to the tracks: As rail tracks usually are next to industrial areas a burning industrial plant usually brings all train traffic to halt.

5) Germany being densely populated: Cars get stuck on crossings and trucks get stuck under rail bridges constantly.

6) forced interruptions, e.g. by people who steal power lines.

(4), (5) and (6) have nothing to do with rail funding. (1) Suicides are not caused by a lack of funding. (3) System collapses are caused by money restraints, but those trains were designed decades ago and the Bahn usually manages heating issues pretty well by shutting off single wagons.

On 2 (wood interrupting trains): A problem that would disappear if the Bahn could enforce a buffer zone around its tracks, where trees are to be cut off. But due to environmentalists, noise and zoning restrictions, the Bahn has to play gardener and spend millions on cutting trees each day.

> (4), (5) and (6) have nothing to do with rail funding.

Oh yes they do. There is a total lack of redundancy in the German network, which was only recently shown when that Rheintalbahn tunnel caved in during construction and took out the major traffic artery above for months.

1) Suicides: they can be prevented by walling off the tracks, which is thankfully done for the new high speed routes and as rework to existing routes. In addition to preventing suicides these also prevent wildlife accidents (a herd of sheep, for example, caused an ICE to derail in a tunnel once).

Ad 5) this could be solved by removing at-level crossings (and remotely supervising those which cannot be removed) and by reworking those bridges that get often hit by cars. This is a lack of funding.

Ad 6) walling off the tracks would help there too. Or providing enough rail service even at nighttimes...

Generally yes, weather is less of an impact on rail, but occasionally you can get <cue ominous music> the Wrong Type of Snow (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_wrong_type_of_snow)

> [Amtrak] was really pleasant. It just takes forever.

Absolutely -- IMHO for mid-distance (200 mi to 500 mi or so) trips, Amtrak is a really underrated option. I travel semi-often from Pittsburgh to NYC (450 mi) and choose train over flights because it's actually not that much slower (consider to/from airport, security, and (de)boarding, as you say) and it's much more comfortable: I can walk up and down the whole train, with no fasten-seatbelt sign to stop me; there's a cafe car; I have about 2 feet of legroom; there is reliable AC power and functional wifi. I just make it a work-from-train day and all's well.

Judging from the Japanese HSR experience, that's also the distance range at which HSR door-to-door is faster. SF to LA is juuuust outside of that distance range, sadly.

Including security theatre, a modern conventional HSR (320~350 max speed) is competitive up to ~1000km (~600 miles), possibly 1500 but that could be over-reaching. SF-LA is well within that range, it's a shorter distance than Paris - Marseilles which is a ~3:20 trip by rail (and not the most modern line in the country/world, and one with a few stops on the way).

That's assuming euro-style cities where you probably want to go from one urban center to an other though: plane requires going outside the city (to the airport) in advance due to security procedure, waiting for security and boarding, then at the destination going from airport to city center.

With HSRs, the stations are in or relatively close to city centers (usually easily accessible through public transportation), you can arrive 5mn (or less) before departure, delays may be somewhat less common (though the justification differs e.g. suicides on the track is not an issue for planes) and you arrive at the city center with better travel comfort. Especially for people sensitive to air pressure.

Fair, but you are forgetting that this is California, so even though we are beginning construction in the 21st century all of the technological gains will be put toward safety and environmentalism, not efficiency or speed; we won't get a "modern conventional HSR (320~350 max speed)". And the the HSR line is not going to be one with "few stops along the way", but with lots of stops, this is further compounded by the reality that in California city centers aren't nearly as easily accessible through public transportation as they are in Europe or Japan. LA was built around cars, and good luck getting anywhere in the valley or even the East Bay without a car.

I agree completely, the sweet spot is in that 200-500 mile range. Anything longer and I’m not sure why someone would bother unless they really like to take things easy. I’ve always felt that the ideal scenario is just getting trains to average 100mph (forget the 200+mph stuff, you’re not going to sustain that very long). Then it would make it a no-brainer to take a train for those mid-range trips.

Having just moved to PGH, I had wondered about the viability and comfort of riding the rails for a weekend trip to the Big Apple. This is encouraging news.

Yup, the Pennsylvanian is actually pretty nice. The route is the old Penn Railroad mainline and zigzags through some really scenic parts of the Appalachians!

The only downside is that it's on a once-per-day schedule (Pgh->NYC at 7:30am and NYC->Pgh at 10:50am). It's 8-9 hr downtown-to-downtown (vs. ~5-6 when flying) so you'd really want to do Fri/Mon for a weekend. FWIW, there are three or four Megabuses per day too, including an overnight bus in each direction, for when the train schedule doesn't work.

Also, flying to NYC from Pgh is oddly expensive, like $400 roundtrip expensive. Amtrak is about $150 RT if far enough in advance.

Anyway, welcome to Pittsburgh! I hope you're surviving the snow...

Another Pittsburgher here endorsing the Pennsylvanian! From PGH to NYP, it runs from 7:30 AM to 4:50 PM, which is a workday plus lunch and a nap. Really nice. It's longer than it should be; you take those turnpike tunnels for granted until you're in a train and you have to navigate the mountains.

If you want to spice it up, check out Southern Airways Express[0]. You can fly between Pittsburgh and Lancaster for as little as $30 on a tiny little 8-to-10-seat plane, which is a really unique and scenic experience. Catch a ride to the Lancaster Amtrak where there are a lot more options for getting to NYC.

I've done Megabus and Greyhound on return trips. You get what you pay for. But if you happen to live in the North Hills, the bus depot for Megabus is in Ohio Township and if you ask nicely they'll let you ride up there.

[0]: https://iflysouthern.com/

For either end of the Northeast Corridor I almost always take the train. It's far easier and more relaxing. About the only reason I don't is if I have an AM meeting and can't head down the night before or if I have something odd going on that requires me to drive.

Boston to DC doesn't really make sense though unless I've just decided to work on the train for the day so I don't need to deal with the airport (and probably pay more to do so).

Other than that, it's hard to justify train from Boston. I looked at it once to Chicago and it made utterly no sense either in terms of time or cost given that I'm going to get a sleeper on a trip like that.

"and it's always a stressful and shitty experience" Many people overlook this. Because of this shitty experience, depending on your tolerance for shitty experiences, days of productivity is lost. If you are flying back on a Friday, your entire weekend is lost. If you are flying in for a business meeting on Monday, but for that 2-3 hour meeting, your entire day's productivity is lost. Frequent flying is a horribly stressful experience. No amount of luxury can make this palatable.

> First, you have to deal with the security boondoggle. Add 30 minutes for that

In all fairness, how many incidents will it take before boarding a train means 30 minutes of security theater?

Apparently quite a few. I take West coast trains semi-frequently and have never had to wait for security. Officials we're in the station once.

In fairness, I believe there's no indication the TSA will appear anywhere but airports anytime soon.

As I recall, a few years back they tried to push their way into train stations but Amtrak put their foot down and set get out. That's a good call. Trains are on rails and the amount of damage you can really accomplish with one is quite limited. Plus, is it even feasible to reach the engineer's position on the front of a train from inside the passenger cars?

I mean, they managed it in Snowpiercer. Just gotta claw your way to the front car.

When BART got a connection to SFO the TSA started using that as an excuse to bust people for pot on BART.

That lasted like two days.

On a modern trainset (walk through coaches with power integrated along the train) its usually possible. There's probably a door, so the driver's doors can be used to escape in an emergency.

But I don't know about high speed trains. The first and last coaches are often first class, I'm not sure I've seen them on the inside.

That's a good point. What qualifies as modern in my experience is a good old classic Amtrak which is powered by a full size diesel-electric locomotive front & rear. I imagine there are ways to make it to the front, but I imagine they involve catwalks on the side of the locomotive.

But, much like I am not a lawyer, I am also not a train engineer. Or even a railfan. So I am probably completely wrong.

I do appreciate Amtrak keeping TSA out, in any case.

There are still locomotive-at-the-front trains in Europe, and on these I've never noticed being able to walk through to the locomotive from the carriages.

I have found the term for the more modern type: "Multiple Unit" [0]. Smaller motors are installed on many axles, the same as a metro train. It seems they're more reliable and cheaper to run (less wear on the track due to a better distribution of weight), but I agree with the noise issue — I prefer it when I travel on a locomotive-hauled train, since the interior is close to silent.

A site like [1] has a few train interior (and exterior) photos aimed at foreign tourists in Europe, rather than railfans. [2] will get boring quickly, but shows a European view of modern intercity trains.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_unit

[1] https://www.seat61.com/France.htm

[2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-u1a2WswpI

You say that like there's a rational security analysis behind TSA's policies in airports.

But yeah, planes have a nasty habit of offering to amplify an attack of a certain magnitude by falling out of the sky and killing everyone on board, and potentially quite a few not on board. Trains just doesn't do that. The 7/7 attacks in London (bombs on three trains and a bus) resulted in probably an order of magnitude less loss of life than the same bombs on planes would have.

The thing about trains is, you can blow up a train anywhere.

Another thing about trains is, they only go on tracks, so you can't hijack them and fly them into famous buildings.

Also, since they only go on tracks, if you want to blow one up, you can do an attack on any piece of the rail infrastructure, rather than getting on the train.

We had a few train incidents in Europe and security hasn't been increased. They mostly handle that by more police at stations and in trains. The only train with heavy security is the Eurostar because it uses the Channel tunnel which is at higher risk.

Blowing up a train somewhere is not more dangerous than blowing up a car in the middle of a motorway.

We've got companies in the US who have some fancy security theater machines to sell.

Well, in France, it's the military that's deployed in the train station, since quite some time. And the number deployed has increased since the 2015 attacks.

> In all fairness, how many incidents will it take before boarding a train means 30 minutes of security theater?

If aircraft are any guide, until someone on the train drives a high-speed train off of a track into a skyscraper, national defense headquarters, and/or something similar causing massive non-passenger casualties and economic damages, it won't happen, even with lots of incidents, some of which result in complete loss of passengers.

As comparison point in France, Paris to Marseille by high-speed train (TGV) takes 3h11 at the shortest, for a similar (should be ~10% longer) distance. And it's not the fastest commercially-operated train line AFAIK.

Time is money and 12 hours is a long time indeed. And trains experience delays too.

But I like the train when I have the time. I took Amtrak when I moved to California. And I've taken it up to Portland and Seattle, but flew back, as it's much faster and cheaper.

It's fun to sleep on the train in your own cabin. Just very expensive. And that is subsidized by the government to a degree.

Megabus, if you're not too cool for coach? Incredibly cheap (cheaper than gas), really pleasant ride, great views if you grab a seat in the top deck. 7-8 hours.

In the 80s my dad had business with almost every county in California, and they each required annual or semi-annual visits. It didn't take him long to get sick of the airport dance and just start driving everywhere.

I like trains and agree with a lot you say here, but trying to be a devil's advocate... American cities are a lot more sparse than those in Europe/Japan, right?

e.g. if you're in Silicon Valley, won't you still need 1 hour to drive to SF? Even if there's a station in, like, Mountain View, isn't it still 30 minutes from places like San Jose? Once you arrive in LA, isn't likely that you'll need a car again from the station to your destination? And also for eating, commuting and other daily necessities?

I recommend looking into TSA PreCheck.

Noooo .. you want Global Entry, as that gets you TSA Pre as well.

> First, you have to deal with the security boondoggle. Add 30 minutes for that, because you never know what you are going to get.

You seem to be talking like the security theatre in airports is never going to come to rail? Have you ever been on the NY subway?

I take the train daily. I've only ever seen random cops walking around, setting up bag check tables in stations and infrequently armed swat guys on patrol. They never stop people and are more there as a show of force. The subway is no where near how awful the airports are.

Where are their bag check stations? I think I remember seeing this once or twice during Halloween and such by Times Square, but never in any other instance. Unless this is a new thing in that last year or so.

Usually in larger stations and it is really infrequent. It's usually a bunch of patrol cops with a plastic folding table and they set it up in the station outside the turnstiles. They'll "randomly" select people and check their bags. I've seen them in Queens (Roosevelt/74th) and other random stations.

Yes, I have. Literally hundreds of times. I lived in downtown Manhattan for a few years not too long ago (2010). Took the subway multiple times a day, every day. 1,2,3,4,5,6,A,C,R all the time. Metro-North to CT quite a bit one year as well. Never stopped or questioned. Saw some DHS uniforms maybe a dozen times over a period of 4 years? Maybe more, never paid attention as they just seemed to be minding their own business.

Have you ever been on the NYC subway? Has something changed recently?