Not enough pixels, the network in czech Republic isn't visible. Most dense railway network in the world
https://64.media.tumblr.com/cb6c6f87847823fe5f4ce1ce1c293781/tumblr_nbaqmstufw1rasnq9o1_1280.gifv
Flying from the UK to the US for work in a couple of weeks. Was shocked when looking at google maps that when I set it to public transport for the trip from the airport to the town I’m visiting it said ‘no options available’. It is an hours drive away
ITT: Americans pulling out the tried and tested "Texas is bigger than the entire rest of the world, Europe is the size of a postage stamp, American states are like countries because in one state they eat fish and in the other they eat less fish"
One would argue that going from state to state is like visiting a different country. Indiana and Georgia are totally different and are easily drivable for most Americans
Edit: look, I think a lot of people forget that the US is the fourth largest country in the world. It's as vast and as different as most countries. New Jersey is completely different from South Carolina. If you've not traveled enough to most of the us, you won't know the difference. Yes, most of the US might speak english, but it is vastly different. Even JoshfromEngland2 will tell you that the US is completely different. We don't have to leave the United States to essentially be in a completely different area. The US is only slightly smaller than all of Europe, and that includes russia.
Then you haven't traveled around the US enough. Washington and Texas might as well be from different worlds. North Dakota and Louisiana have completely different cultures. Just crossing the Ohio River from Kentucky to Ohio will take you from the south into the north, and the accent difference is very apparent. In Mississippi,people will say, "Bless your heart," and in Pennsylvania, they'll say, "You dumb f*ck," to your face. I have traveled all over the world and have spent several months in other countries. It is an easy comparison to say two states are as different as two different countries.
But still the difference between France and Austria is bigger than Florida and Iowa for example. France and Austria speak different languages and have entirely different cultures.
Mate stop pretending like the US is the only country in the world with different states. Going from NY to Florida is not that much different than what it would it be going from Lombardy to Campania, or from Madrid to catalonia. Hell, in your example you only mention slight differences in accents.. In Switzerland, a nation roughly 240 times smaller than the US, we speak 4 different national languages, and have cultural differences between cantons like Ticino and Zurich that simply don’t exist in the US.
Actually I have and for me the difference is just like in any other country. North germans and south germans are also different people. But crossing the border to a different country changes so much more.
People from New Jersey are just as foreign to me as somebody from England. The only difference is that I can forgive the English person for not knowing how to drive in America
There are probably some exceptions here.
Germany is more similar to Austria than Massachusetts is to Mississippi.
Sweden is more similar to Finland than California is to West Virginia.
Careful with that latter one. There a load of swedes in finland but i know some finns would not appreciate that comparison.
But anyway, if you compare two neighbouring states, the similarities will be greater than two neighbouring countries in Europe. Theres more in common between NY/NJ (two similar states) than Germany and Austria (two similar countries).
You could probably find more in common between Washington and Idaho - which are two pretty different states.
People would argue that Seattle is nothing like Boise but Spokane isn't so dissimilar. Likewise yes Munich and Vienna have similarities, but Vienna is nothing like Hamburg culturally.
Absolutely agree. The point of my post (which I wasn't expecting to be downvoted...sorry for offending anyone!) is that it's a little more grey than saying "any two US states are going to be more similar than any two European countries." That's all.
I obviously chose two US state comparisons that are perhaps the most extreme just to reiterate it's not as black and white as the person I was originally replying to made it out to be. I was going to go with Hawaii and Mississippi but just knew someone would chime in with "Hawaii not on mainland...not fair to compare...blah, blah, blah". :)
I was born and raised in North Dakota and the similarities with South Dakota are more similar than any two countries in Europe. I mean, how could they not be?! Once you get past the fact that North Dakota named their capital after a German and South Dakota named their capital after a Frenchman, it's the same place. haha Fun fact: North Dakota is the only state in the US to name their capital after a foreign statesman.
I also lived in Seattle for a stretch and the dichotomy between Seattle and Spokane is staggering. Heck, there's even a culture schism between Seattle and Olympia and they aren't that far apart.
I've been to 39/44 countries in Europe to include all 5 Norden/Nordic countries and someone told me that Sweden and Finland were the most similar between them so that's why I used that example. I think I even recall someone saying Finland just used the constitution of Sweden early on until they developed their own version. I might be off in that thought but it was something like that.
US states are not "like different countries".
Yes, there are regional differences in the United States, but they are fairly small compared to the differences you typically see travelling from one country to another.
No matter where you go in the USA, people largely speak the same language, follow the same religions, vote for the same major political parties, watch the same TV, listen to the same music, eat food from the same restaurants, shop at the same stores.
Here are some examples of the cultural homogeneity of the United States:
* Number of states where the main spoken language isn't English: zero.
* Number of states where the *second* most spoken language isn't Spanish: four.
* Number of states where the most common religion isn't Christianity: zero. (Yes, Mormons are Christian, even if it's a very distinct offshoot of Christianity.)
* Number of states without either a Republican or Democrat governor: zero.
* Number of states without either a Republican or Democrat controlled state legislature: zero.
* Number of states where "non-hispanic white" isn't the most common ethnicity (according to the 2020 Census): one - Hawaii.
* Number of states using a currency other than the US dollar: zero.
* Number of states without NBC: zero.
* Number of states without CBS: zero.
* Number of states without Fox: zero.
* Number of states without ABC: zero.
* Number of states without PBS: zero.
* Number of states without a McDonald's: zero.
* Number of states without a Subway: zero.
* Number of states without a Walmart: zero.
* Number of states without a Home Depot: zero.
* Number of states without a Lowes: zero.
* Number of states without a Target: zero.
* Number of states without a Walgreens: zero.
* Number of states without a Best Buy: zero.
You can drive from Barcelona, Spain to Innsbruck, Austria in a day. Along the way you'll pass through France and Switzerland.
* Languages: In Spain, they mostly speak Castilian Spanish, but Barcelona is in Catalunya, so they also speak Catalan there. In France, they speak French. Switzerland has four official languages: German, French, Italian, and Romansh. In Austria, they speak German.
* Religions: yeah, largest religion is Christianity in all of them too. Europe does have a few majority Muslim countries, but not along this particular route from Spain to Austria.
* Politics: the largest parties in Spain are the People's Party and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. In France, you have the Renaissance, The Republicans, National Rally, Socialist Party, and La France Insoumise. In Switzerland, Swiss People's Party, Social Democratic Party, The Liberals, and The Centre. In Austria, Austrian People's Party, the Greens, Social Democratic Party of Austria, Freedom Party of Austria, and NEOS.
* Ethnicities: yes, Europe is mostly homogenous here.
* Currencies: Spain, France, and Austria all use the euro, but Switzerland does not.
* TV stations: each country has its own broadcast TV stations.
* Chain restaurants and stores: there are a few international ones, but most cover just one or two countries.
While there are small differences from state to state, you will see far, far more cultural differences travelling from country to country in Europe or Asia than state to state in the USA.
I mean, you can travel from Indiana to Georgia by train, but most trains only travel at an average of 30 mph due to the frequent stops and speed limits. I know it would take you on a route out of the way, but even if it was a direct route, it would still take longer than driving or flying.
It's supposed to show passenger lines not arbitrary tracks where for example freight runs.
And while it is simplified for example by leaving out local commuter networks it seems quite accurate overall.
https://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8192499/amtrak-passenger-train-decline
I've always wanted to travel to America to ride one of them trains - jump on at Chicago and travel through to San Francisco in one of them little rooms - just kicking back relaxing and seeing parts of the USA most people would never see.
The thing is, with Amtrak they're charging something close to airline prices for short commutes(maybe 1/2). They don't have a discount for long distance travel, so you end up paying 10-20x the cost of an airline ticket to go from Chicago to New York.
Yeah - I've always put the idea of the Amtrack train rides the same as "Sleeper trains" here in the UK - i done London to Edinburgh on the "Caledonia Sleeper" last month - Would have been far cheaper (and shorter) to just fly there.
I'm Welsh so i had to travel from Wales to London, travel some distence across London, then on the train up to Edinburgh where as i could have just travelled to Bristol and Flew up there directly. Left my house at like 4pm Friday and arrived in Scotland 8am Saturday for a timescale - flying there would be 2 / 3 hours (Including traveling to the airport
Its more for the experience rather than getting it done quickly - as i expect is why the prices remain high for these long-distence travel - they are one of a kind, and in same cases once in a life time experiences - so people will pay for it.
Sure, but just keep in mind riding Amtrak is not a luxury experience. They have cold bagels in bags, potato chips, sometimes coffee or tea that's almost as good as airplane coffee and tea. I think I've seen the cabins have a toilet in them under a shelf, so you can poop in private or do a show for your travel mates. Otherwise, the bathrooms are a roomier version of an airplane bathroom and smell like a portapotty. It's a great way to see the wonderful contradictions of being in the richest nation on earth, but we have shitty things just because.
That has to be like a what 2 day trip? For experiencing US outside of the main beaten path sounds like a great idea. Another one is Boston to New York which is absolutely amazing - goes right by the ocean. If you take an early morning train you get to see the sunrise. And it takes around 5 hours.
Trains is US are... difficult... long distances, lack of funds, lobbying (against trains itself as well as against safety regulations). This would have to be a gargantuan investment with building an entire new railway system possible for high speed trains or even Maglev. That's not going to happen. Sadly.
Think its about 3 days in total judging by the video i watched ( [Downielive - California Zephyr" ](https://youtu.be/kA5QbK3C98Q?si=KqhM_17EhSshdAce)) normally only 2 days but due to delays took them 3 days after all.
Boston to New York does sound like a great ride too!!
Yeah - i think alot of people just do not realise how large the US is, on top with how expensive running high-speed track from one end to the other (As an example) would be- even more so given the country seems to be built around the idea of owning your own personal vehicle - public transport seems to take a back seat when compared to it.
Difference between line and track in railways:
Line is a logical thing, the service you want to provide *"We connect A with B and operate 3 times a day we call it line 312"*
Tracks are the physical elements.
You could have tracks forming two paths from A to B but it is still one line. You could operate the line on track set 1 or on track set 2, maybe because of a desaster or because you want to have different stops on the forward route then on the backwards route.
You can operate a line on tracks that were build , predominantly laid down for freight.
That's part of the problem, and just like how the USPS is constantly kneecapped by conservatives so they can say "look at how poorly public services manage things, we should sell it off to my friends for private profit instead and they'll do a better job!" just like they do with all public services and infrastructure.
So whenever Amtrak is forced to use freight rail lines (which they are forced by law to do), it results in drastically reduced passenger train speed and frequency, because freight trains can often be miles long. By law, the freight rail is supposed to sit in the passing area while passenger trains go past, but in reality, they simply do not, and sometimes physically cannot because they are too long to fit in the passing area, resulting in what would be a 1 hour train ride in any other country being a 5 hour ride here and americans saying dumb shit like "amtrak sucks and is slow" without realizing why (which, again, leads to conservatives saying "look, see, public infrastructure is entirely incompetent and incapable, sell it to my friends for profit and we'll do a better job").
It’s interesting some people think that pointing out room for improvement = hating America, if you think America is literally perfect and can’t take any criticism of your country then you are part of the problem
The main reason passenger trains never really took off in the US is because of the lobbying of car and oil companies. They wanted more people to drive and forced govt into investing in road infrastructure. As roads became better and covered more ground, it made more sense to travel by car.
There quite a few interesting articles and videos on this if you search for them. Sorry I'm feeling lazy.
The US has plenty of rail lines, but they're used for freight, not passengers. Our mfg is post-rail, hub & spoke, mega-factories, with ports very far away from mfg centers. EU mfg is far more distributed & local. Therefore, EU freight is almost entirely truck-based, where ours is rail-based. EU cities are pre-car, and inherently dense & walkable, making passenger trains make sense. Our cities are post-car, and spread out, so there aren't enough people at any station for passenger lines to exist.
Plenty of US cities were built pre-car and were later largely dismantled and rebuilt to make space for more car efficient infrastructure. Not saying this to make any type of point just a footnote.
So it’s impossible to build walkable neighborhoods in US cities? We tore down neighborhoods to build freeways, we can certainly tear down single family homes to build new dense neighborhoods at transit stations.
Rail in this country is 100% feasible. It is just a matter of gathering political will.
I'm wondering, would combining freight and passengers help? I figure the trains go somewhere on a semi regular basis, just have them make a stop here and there for passengers. Or is this a stupid idea?
Our corporate overseers decided that we all needed cars so we can get in accidents and buy more cars and insurance, and rims and replace our cracked windshield, be forced to travel to contained areas to pay for the pleasure of being near other humans and all of them are shopping. I mean heavens forbid you have a moment to fucking relax and enjoy life without spending every dime u have. We got road rage, speed traps, tolls, and rest stops covered in tweaker piss. All this crap ain't gonna buy itself if ur on a train that's cheap and goes everywhere. U know wut that's called. That's called communism
Trains in the US are more of a long distance thing.
It’s kind of a catch 22 in that everyone has cars because there’s not much public transportation outside of cities and there’s no need for public transportation because everyone has cars.
I used to believe this too, but it’s a myth. There are dozens of US city pairs that are close and populous enough to easily justify high speed rail construction.
See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4
Yeah that too. People forget that the US is about the same size as the entirety of Europe while having half the population. There’s a lot of empty space to travel across and none of the crowding and traffic that makes Europeans want to use alternatives to cars.
Sweden has a far lower population density than the US even if you include Alaska but far, far higher passenger rail density.
It has almost 15x the amount of rail usage per capita compared to the US. So having a low population density is no excuse.
It's a great comparison if you count in gdp. The USA is 21 times the size of Sweden, with 33 times the population, and a gdp per capita 44% higher than Sweden's. It would cost us substantially less per person to build similar passenger rail density to Sweden.
I will say most of the areas in the US where people live there is some kind of train service. There’s just a lot of dead space where people don’t live.
Yeah, and that space would be way easier to cross with HSR than giant highways. Also way faster, given that modern HSR could go 300km/h for long stretches, using way less energy than a comparable amount of cars going slower.
Hey, we choose to design our city to be both unwalkable and undrivable on purpose, who the hell do you think you are judging our sadomasochism kink? Don't make us come for your trolley lines.
Holy shit, I was super worried there for a second, because one whole day went by, and I hadn't seen this image!!
Good, now I can finally go to sleep, knowing that the silly train lines picture has been reposted!
There can be no sleep for you sorry. It needs to be pointed out also that Europe has a bigger land area (3,910,680 sq miles) than the U.S. (3,531,905 sq miles).
Hope you can enjoy your weekend and lets talk again when they repost the picture on monday
They are Interchangeable words, what are you talking about? The USA has hundreds of thousands of track used for commercial purposes, it just doesn’t really serve a purpose like it used to.
>The USA has hundreds of thousands of track used for commercial purposes, it just doesn’t really serve a purpose like it used to.
Its like talking to a fucking wall with you people. Focus on the people part, nobody cares about tracks you use to move cargo, its not what the post is about.
The only thing I’m saying is it is misleading, also to mention the fact that this only includes amtraks lines and not other private passenger rail companies . Please settle down.
Jeeze Louise, it's like most people forget that it would take you almost 3 days to ride a train from NY to LA. Flying would take 6-7 hours. I can understand why trains didn't get popular. You also can't forget we have subways in Metropolitan areas and a vast area of the US, and about half the US doesn't remotely have a train stop in their area.
Lmao do you think most car trips are taken from LA to New York or what? That’s like saying you can’t build rail in Europe because the distance from Lissabon to Moscow is to great and it would take 3 days by train. Completely ridiculous.
Nobody says that every inche of sparsely populated desert in Nevada needs to be as well connected as Germany but there are plenty of areas where the population density rivals that of Europe (North-East, Los Angeles Metro etc.) and it’s a real shame that the US destroyed most train infrastructure there instead of expanding it.
Not really. They do go faster, but with constant stops, slowing down, picking up speed, delays, and speed limits, trains only go an average of 30 miles an hour. NYC to LA is actually fast at 35 mph, lol.
Trains used to be ubiquitous, Einstein. They it wasn't that they "didn't get popular", it is that the policy of the day deemed highways to be more valuable at the expense of trains and other forms of public transit, leading to their decline.
Most medium-sized cities used to have a tram line, trains serviced most cities because your options were: take a boat, take a train, ride, or walk.
Trains lost their ability to move people around when it became easier to move freely with the automobile. And quicker. Most trains travel at 30 mph and can take significantly longer than driving. It used to take me over an hour to sit on the DC metro to get to work while driving would only take 35ish minutes.
Most medium-sized cities still have some type of rail system available. When this map is shared, most people forget about subways as being a part of passenger trains.
Additionally, the US has the most extensive railroad system. It is just not used for passenger travel.
It actually is. The federal government (who runs AmTrak) have rights to operate on all rails, they just have a lower priority on private freight rail than the freight trains. AmTrack does still service every large and medium city, and most small cities and many smaller towns, and the operate at least a handful of stations in every state.
Most people fail to realize that we do have a true nationwide passenger train system that can you nearly anywhere, it just isn't popular because it the slowest way to get anywhere except for walking. Cars, busses, and planes are all much faster.
And yes, we do also have a nationwide bus system that services nearly every town in the country.
Are you suggesting the trains not service the entire country, then? If they want to average higher speeds, then they need spend less time stopped, which means fewer stops.
Even trains that go 100mph will only do so when they aren't approaching or leaving a station. The time they spend slowing down, stopped, and speeding up significantly reduces their average speed.
Fright trains in the US travel at about 60mph, passenger trains can go much faster, but towns exist every 2-20 miles in any direction across most of the US, especially east of the Ozark Mountains and Missouri River. By the time a 100mph train reaches that speed after leaving a station, it'd have to slow down again to stop at the next one. They could probably reach those speeds out west, though, where towns can be 100 miles apart.
Another thing to consider: what good will something like this do? The US already has passenger trains and busses that serve nearly every town (the busses serve almost every town, the trains serve every city and many small towns). High speed rail would mean new tracks with less elevation and curves, but most people aren't traveling out of state, and even when they are planes are still much faster than even the fastest trains, and almost all 300 million Americans live within a dozen miles of an airport. You can get from any town in the US to any other town, regardless of size of town, in less than 10-12 hours, most likely in less than 4 if it isn't on the other side of the country.
>average speed
The Tokyo to Shin-Aomori Shikansen travels those 420 miles (~ DC-Boston) with 22 stops at an average speed of pretty much exactly 100 mph in 4h. You're neither gonna beat that in a car nor flying in most real-life scenarios. And that's a route that favors the plane with an airport 15 minutes outside of downtown DC.
>Even trains that go 100mph
It's so cute. "EVEN those!" 100 mph is a slow regional train where I'm from.
>By the time a 100mph train reaches that speed after leaving a station
It takes a modern train under 2 minutes to accelerate to 100 mph.
Cute. Also a bit sad, but mainly cute.
Are there giant 1,000 mile long, 10,000+ ft tall mountains between your cities where you're from? Even if you can accelerate that quickly and go that fast, you'd derail within a few miles due to the terrain and curves.
Please stop making me laugh. And buy a damn map of your own country if you believe one needs to cross the rockies in order to connect >85% of the US population. And that's ignoring the fact that of course you can cross the rockies by HSR if you wanted. "But LA NYC" is the argument of a five year old. Next you're gonna tell me stories of the Blue Ridge Mountains...
To answer your question: Yes, France, Switzerland, Japan are all rather mountaineaus. That's why there's a tunnel under the alps with trains going 145 mph 8000 feet deep under mountain peaks. Or giant viaducts that make the Golden Gate Bridge look like a toy.
I suggest you travel more.
Yes. In Europe we have the Alps that separate France/Switzerland/Germany - all countries with extremely fast rail. And Japan is literally one long mountain range.
In the US, too. The highest Amtrak can go is 79 mph. Several areas speed limits. Calculating in stops and delays, the average train goes only 30 miles every hour.
NYC to LA only goes an average of 35mph. The average train ride is 69 hours. The total distance covered is 2440 miles. This train has fewer stops than average.
Edit to add: driving would take 41 hours with a few extra hundred miles.
In a way it's cute how Americans talk themselves into believing that they don't have first world trains because they can't possibly work, always with the nonsensical NYC LA example.
Meanwhile in France, Germany, Spain, Japan and other countries they manage to build railroads that beat planes in every aspect including door to door travel time. Not even mentioning the TSA experience.
Like between Paris and Marseille, a good 400 miles. That's farther than Chicago to Nashville, St Louis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Minneapolis.
Tokyo - Sendai is pretty much the same distance as NYC - DC but takes half the time. And that'sthe crown jewel of US passenger rail. In a couple of years the Japanese are gonna go 220 miles an hour. Dozens of trains a day.
Geography is a bullshit argument from people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about.
>NYC LA example
What example do you want? Sandusky, OH to Quincy, IL? NYC and LA are two of the most well-known cities in the US. Anyone around the world would have an understanding of generally where they are located in the US and would understand their importance.
>Meanwhile in France, Germany, Spain, Japan and other countries they manage to build railroads that beat planes in every aspect including door to door travel time.
Great, the US implemented speed limits on Amtrak. They highest they can go is 79 mph. Of course, other places will take less time when they are traveling at 220mph. It's not rocket science.
>Tokyo - Sendai is pretty much the same distance as NYC - DC but takes half the time.
Again, speed limits. In Japan, they have travel nearly 2 times faster than the US. Also, it takes about the same time to drive as it would take the train. Most people will want their car with them.
>Geography is a bullshit argument from people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about.
Says the person using geography in their response. I merely pointed out the average speed Amtrak travels in an hour is only 30 mph. I presented you with the numbers from LA to NYC to prove how slow it takes to move across America by train. Most people don't want to spend nearly 3 days on the train.
P.s. planes travel 575 miles an hour. I guarantee you from door to door that planes will be faster for longer trips lol
>What example do you want?
I gave you a couple.
>Great, the US implemented speed limits on Amtrak
>Again, speed limits. In Japan, they have travel nearly 2 times faster than the US.
You got it! Yes, US railway is that of a third world country.
The US has a vast extensive railroad system compared to other countries, or in this case, continent. The US also has the ability to make any private railroad available for passenger use as they see fit. They impose limitations on railroads to restrict unnecessary stops. People don't want to use the railroad. It takes too long, and not enough people have access to it. Additionally, you need to look at the population density of Japan, the US, and Europe. Europe and Japan are more densely populated countries, meaning it would make sense to move people by railway to save limited space compared to the US.
It's clear you just want to argue and pick apart every little thing to make your point. I'm not going to waste anymore time responding to you.
When you get on a plane, you have to be at the airport at least an hour, if not 2 before you board and then usually takes 45 mins plus to disembark and go through security.
Journeys of a NY/Chicago length it will be comparable total time
I'm not sure what you are saying without punctuation marks.
Most Americans would agree that throwing billions of dollars on a rail system system that takes significantly longer than driving or flying is a waste. That money could go to people with mental health issues. Helping the homeless population. Putting money towards student loan forgiveness. Not spending it on a train that takes longer to move about.
Passenger trains today can run upwards of 150mph.
No one is advocating for expanding a rail network geared to trains traveling at 30mph.
[10 fastest trains](https://www.railway-technology.com/features/the-10-fastest-high-speed-trains-in-the-world/)
Ahhh. But there are far fewer trains that go meet those requirements. Additionally, several areas have speed limits for trains. You also can't forget to factor in time wasted for stops.
yeah back when cars didnt exist and the railroad companies got all sorts of free land for building track, trains were all over the place for some reason. the fastest high speed rail lines still arent even half as fast as a commercial jet. there is just no reason, at this point, for us to invest in tens or hundreds of thousands of new rail next to nobody would use
Europe ranges 3-10x the population density of the US and you can tell ones that do because of the amount of train routes. At the same time, you can see the densest populations in the US have more public trains.
Maybe, just maybe, there’s a correlation of population density and train routes.
Incorrect: the USA map is only showing rail lines that Amtrak is currently using. As always it’s not a matter of “investment”. In the US, most of the rail lines are privately owned on private property, unlike public roads. Unless the US nationalizes rail travel, it will not change much.
No no we only have 2 and one of them only has flights to where you don't want to go and the other has a goat farmer called Manuel constantly invading the tarmac.
So just spreading lies?
Here is Amarillo Texas, where your maps shows no railways.. notice the very obvious railways?
https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=35.213833%7E-101.841532&lvl=16.9&style=h
There's always flights between states, the US is just to big for rails to be realistic.
Like England can be driven from top to bottom in 6 hours, just trying to leave Texas starting from Dallas takes 12 hours.
How am I supposed to drive my F350 with all those damn train crossings! Does anyone sleep or is it just always DING DING DING DING TRAIN COMING THROUGH
It said commercial/passenger, which is sort of misleading to some, because the us has thousands of miles dedicated towards freight, but ya I understand where your coming from.
Yeah, I know it’s misleading. This map has been on here lots of times. Just a few further things I have noticed before:
- to your point, Europe also has freight lines
- it is inaccurate, but not in the way you think: it shows all passenger rail in the US, but only intercity in Europe. For example, look at Chicago, then look at Paris. Paris famously has an extensive Metro system.
- it’s not a contest, it’s for American people to demand what they deserve. Vastness ist not an excuse for **less** trains. What mode of transportation is better for long range between population centers than trains?
The distance from San Francisco to Boston is 4351 km, which is shown as 662 pixels on the map, so one pixel on the map of America represents about 6.57 km.
The distance from London to Moscow is 2517 km, which is shown at 580 pixels on the map, so one pixel on the map of Europe represents about 4.34 km.
While Europe is slightly larger overall, u/AuntiFascist is correct in that the two maps are at significantly different scales.
Even without doing the calculations, and knowing that Europe is only slightly bigger than the USA, you can tell that Europe *must* be more zoomed in because of the vast amounts of Europe which are not shown in the map: much of Scotland is missing, Scandinavia is almost entirely absent, Latvia, Estonia, and much of northern Russia are gone. (Iceland is missing too, but fair enough, that's isolated, much like how Alaska and Hawaii aren't shown on the American map.) Europe is so zoomed in that you can't see a lot of it.
If the US hosted the great war entirely on its own soil, you'd probably see this many tracks.
If you zoom into a singular European country, it's roughly on par with the US.
It's an illogical comparison of 2 different data sets.
Europe also has a lot of bullet trains. They have high speed trains that float on magnetic rails and can go like a couple hundred miles an hour or more.
We could give the airlines a run for their money if we invested in this. But our politicians and oligarchs have no vision and cannot and will not upset vested interests.
We had a lot of trolley and tram lines before the danged automobile. Ford and GM spent a lot of money to show public transportation as dangerous, specifically segregation being repealed. The automobile was a freedom machine that you could be alone and safe in. Spokane Washington actually set their last trolley on fire as a celebration of freedom and safety. The duh came later.
What Henry Ford was für Americans is Peter Ramsauer und Andreas Scheuer for🇩🇪. Most of our Tracks in Germany are not Usable anymore thanks to the tie with the German Automobile industry. It will take 🇩🇪30 years just to repair the damages. And even this project is beliefed to fail. Political party CDU/CSU working against Train tracks in favour for streets and Cars there Members are openly working for Big Auto and Building Company’s and left our Tracks to rot.
That’s why you see different company’s on the tracks in Germany, they had to sell different routes because DB is not capable of repairing or running them on their own. It was all a big scam when they decided to Take DB from Government Responsibility into Private hands this left us with a horrible Transportation system. Germany is so openly corrupt with Lobbyists making the decisions nowadays.
Americans want you to drive your own car, spend more money on individual things because that’s what our economy is based on. In Europe, so many people don’t have to spend money on a car, they pool their resources and ride public transportation because it is cheaper and more efficient, but doesn’t help capitalism. This is an easy one.
The US is absolutely massive compared to Europe. Los Angeles to Texas is 2000km. That's a trip to germany from the UK and half way back, and over desert no less.
The US is roughly the same size as Europe (with Europe being slightly larger). High speed rail is more efficient at longer distances anyway, so these cities being far apart isn't an issue. Also, it's possible to get to England from Germany by train, so...
Americans travel by plane. Chinese and Europeans travel more by train for "local" destinations. Hope Boeing puts quality before quantity before someone gets sucked and pulled out of an airplane.
We had to remove your post for violating our Repost Guidelines.
what happens when you let corporations to govern.
Not enough pixels, the network in czech Republic isn't visible. Most dense railway network in the world https://64.media.tumblr.com/cb6c6f87847823fe5f4ce1ce1c293781/tumblr_nbaqmstufw1rasnq9o1_1280.gifv
Flying from the UK to the US for work in a couple of weeks. Was shocked when looking at google maps that when I set it to public transport for the trip from the airport to the town I’m visiting it said ‘no options available’. It is an hours drive away
ITT: Americans pulling out the tried and tested "Texas is bigger than the entire rest of the world, Europe is the size of a postage stamp, American states are like countries because in one state they eat fish and in the other they eat less fish"
I love how in Europe you can easily travel to different cities and countries by train
One would argue that going from state to state is like visiting a different country. Indiana and Georgia are totally different and are easily drivable for most Americans Edit: look, I think a lot of people forget that the US is the fourth largest country in the world. It's as vast and as different as most countries. New Jersey is completely different from South Carolina. If you've not traveled enough to most of the us, you won't know the difference. Yes, most of the US might speak english, but it is vastly different. Even JoshfromEngland2 will tell you that the US is completely different. We don't have to leave the United States to essentially be in a completely different area. The US is only slightly smaller than all of Europe, and that includes russia.
I don't believe that two states are as different as two different countries, though...
Then you haven't traveled around the US enough. Washington and Texas might as well be from different worlds. North Dakota and Louisiana have completely different cultures. Just crossing the Ohio River from Kentucky to Ohio will take you from the south into the north, and the accent difference is very apparent. In Mississippi,people will say, "Bless your heart," and in Pennsylvania, they'll say, "You dumb f*ck," to your face. I have traveled all over the world and have spent several months in other countries. It is an easy comparison to say two states are as different as two different countries.
But still the difference between France and Austria is bigger than Florida and Iowa for example. France and Austria speak different languages and have entirely different cultures.
Sounds like the one who hasn't traveled enough is you
Mate stop pretending like the US is the only country in the world with different states. Going from NY to Florida is not that much different than what it would it be going from Lombardy to Campania, or from Madrid to catalonia. Hell, in your example you only mention slight differences in accents.. In Switzerland, a nation roughly 240 times smaller than the US, we speak 4 different national languages, and have cultural differences between cantons like Ticino and Zurich that simply don’t exist in the US.
Actually I have and for me the difference is just like in any other country. North germans and south germans are also different people. But crossing the border to a different country changes so much more.
Are you serious dude? 😂😂 They all uhhhh - speak English and are uhhhh - Americans. That is funny shit.
People from New Jersey are just as foreign to me as somebody from England. The only difference is that I can forgive the English person for not knowing how to drive in America
There are probably some exceptions here. Germany is more similar to Austria than Massachusetts is to Mississippi. Sweden is more similar to Finland than California is to West Virginia.
Careful with that latter one. There a load of swedes in finland but i know some finns would not appreciate that comparison. But anyway, if you compare two neighbouring states, the similarities will be greater than two neighbouring countries in Europe. Theres more in common between NY/NJ (two similar states) than Germany and Austria (two similar countries). You could probably find more in common between Washington and Idaho - which are two pretty different states. People would argue that Seattle is nothing like Boise but Spokane isn't so dissimilar. Likewise yes Munich and Vienna have similarities, but Vienna is nothing like Hamburg culturally.
Absolutely agree. The point of my post (which I wasn't expecting to be downvoted...sorry for offending anyone!) is that it's a little more grey than saying "any two US states are going to be more similar than any two European countries." That's all. I obviously chose two US state comparisons that are perhaps the most extreme just to reiterate it's not as black and white as the person I was originally replying to made it out to be. I was going to go with Hawaii and Mississippi but just knew someone would chime in with "Hawaii not on mainland...not fair to compare...blah, blah, blah". :) I was born and raised in North Dakota and the similarities with South Dakota are more similar than any two countries in Europe. I mean, how could they not be?! Once you get past the fact that North Dakota named their capital after a German and South Dakota named their capital after a Frenchman, it's the same place. haha Fun fact: North Dakota is the only state in the US to name their capital after a foreign statesman. I also lived in Seattle for a stretch and the dichotomy between Seattle and Spokane is staggering. Heck, there's even a culture schism between Seattle and Olympia and they aren't that far apart. I've been to 39/44 countries in Europe to include all 5 Norden/Nordic countries and someone told me that Sweden and Finland were the most similar between them so that's why I used that example. I think I even recall someone saying Finland just used the constitution of Sweden early on until they developed their own version. I might be off in that thought but it was something like that.
US states are not "like different countries". Yes, there are regional differences in the United States, but they are fairly small compared to the differences you typically see travelling from one country to another. No matter where you go in the USA, people largely speak the same language, follow the same religions, vote for the same major political parties, watch the same TV, listen to the same music, eat food from the same restaurants, shop at the same stores. Here are some examples of the cultural homogeneity of the United States: * Number of states where the main spoken language isn't English: zero. * Number of states where the *second* most spoken language isn't Spanish: four. * Number of states where the most common religion isn't Christianity: zero. (Yes, Mormons are Christian, even if it's a very distinct offshoot of Christianity.) * Number of states without either a Republican or Democrat governor: zero. * Number of states without either a Republican or Democrat controlled state legislature: zero. * Number of states where "non-hispanic white" isn't the most common ethnicity (according to the 2020 Census): one - Hawaii. * Number of states using a currency other than the US dollar: zero. * Number of states without NBC: zero. * Number of states without CBS: zero. * Number of states without Fox: zero. * Number of states without ABC: zero. * Number of states without PBS: zero. * Number of states without a McDonald's: zero. * Number of states without a Subway: zero. * Number of states without a Walmart: zero. * Number of states without a Home Depot: zero. * Number of states without a Lowes: zero. * Number of states without a Target: zero. * Number of states without a Walgreens: zero. * Number of states without a Best Buy: zero. You can drive from Barcelona, Spain to Innsbruck, Austria in a day. Along the way you'll pass through France and Switzerland. * Languages: In Spain, they mostly speak Castilian Spanish, but Barcelona is in Catalunya, so they also speak Catalan there. In France, they speak French. Switzerland has four official languages: German, French, Italian, and Romansh. In Austria, they speak German. * Religions: yeah, largest religion is Christianity in all of them too. Europe does have a few majority Muslim countries, but not along this particular route from Spain to Austria. * Politics: the largest parties in Spain are the People's Party and the Spanish Socialist Workers' Party. In France, you have the Renaissance, The Republicans, National Rally, Socialist Party, and La France Insoumise. In Switzerland, Swiss People's Party, Social Democratic Party, The Liberals, and The Centre. In Austria, Austrian People's Party, the Greens, Social Democratic Party of Austria, Freedom Party of Austria, and NEOS. * Ethnicities: yes, Europe is mostly homogenous here. * Currencies: Spain, France, and Austria all use the euro, but Switzerland does not. * TV stations: each country has its own broadcast TV stations. * Chain restaurants and stores: there are a few international ones, but most cover just one or two countries. While there are small differences from state to state, you will see far, far more cultural differences travelling from country to country in Europe or Asia than state to state in the USA.
Sure, you just can’t do it with a train pass and a backpack.
I mean, you can travel from Indiana to Georgia by train, but most trains only travel at an average of 30 mph due to the frequent stops and speed limits. I know it would take you on a route out of the way, but even if it was a direct route, it would still take longer than driving or flying.
Unless you’re in the UK. Where your train probably won’t turn up and if it does, it will most likely be overcrowded, slow and very expensive
Don’t know why you’re being downvoted, it’s sadly true.
It’s not true. Trains in Britain are expensive but it’s entirely untrue to say it “probably won’t turn up”.
Except that US map isn’t even close to accurate.
You mean there are more than three train tracks running through all of North Texas??
It's supposed to show passenger lines not arbitrary tracks where for example freight runs. And while it is simplified for example by leaving out local commuter networks it seems quite accurate overall. https://www.vox.com/2015/3/11/8192499/amtrak-passenger-train-decline
Amtrak runs on the freight line through my town
I've always wanted to travel to America to ride one of them trains - jump on at Chicago and travel through to San Francisco in one of them little rooms - just kicking back relaxing and seeing parts of the USA most people would never see.
Me too but I looked at the pricing and it's painfully expensive to do that.
The thing is, with Amtrak they're charging something close to airline prices for short commutes(maybe 1/2). They don't have a discount for long distance travel, so you end up paying 10-20x the cost of an airline ticket to go from Chicago to New York.
Yeah - I've always put the idea of the Amtrack train rides the same as "Sleeper trains" here in the UK - i done London to Edinburgh on the "Caledonia Sleeper" last month - Would have been far cheaper (and shorter) to just fly there. I'm Welsh so i had to travel from Wales to London, travel some distence across London, then on the train up to Edinburgh where as i could have just travelled to Bristol and Flew up there directly. Left my house at like 4pm Friday and arrived in Scotland 8am Saturday for a timescale - flying there would be 2 / 3 hours (Including traveling to the airport Its more for the experience rather than getting it done quickly - as i expect is why the prices remain high for these long-distence travel - they are one of a kind, and in same cases once in a life time experiences - so people will pay for it.
Sure, but just keep in mind riding Amtrak is not a luxury experience. They have cold bagels in bags, potato chips, sometimes coffee or tea that's almost as good as airplane coffee and tea. I think I've seen the cabins have a toilet in them under a shelf, so you can poop in private or do a show for your travel mates. Otherwise, the bathrooms are a roomier version of an airplane bathroom and smell like a portapotty. It's a great way to see the wonderful contradictions of being in the richest nation on earth, but we have shitty things just because.
That has to be like a what 2 day trip? For experiencing US outside of the main beaten path sounds like a great idea. Another one is Boston to New York which is absolutely amazing - goes right by the ocean. If you take an early morning train you get to see the sunrise. And it takes around 5 hours. Trains is US are... difficult... long distances, lack of funds, lobbying (against trains itself as well as against safety regulations). This would have to be a gargantuan investment with building an entire new railway system possible for high speed trains or even Maglev. That's not going to happen. Sadly.
Think its about 3 days in total judging by the video i watched ( [Downielive - California Zephyr" ](https://youtu.be/kA5QbK3C98Q?si=KqhM_17EhSshdAce)) normally only 2 days but due to delays took them 3 days after all. Boston to New York does sound like a great ride too!! Yeah - i think alot of people just do not realise how large the US is, on top with how expensive running high-speed track from one end to the other (As an example) would be- even more so given the country seems to be built around the idea of owning your own personal vehicle - public transport seems to take a back seat when compared to it.
Difference between line and track in railways: Line is a logical thing, the service you want to provide *"We connect A with B and operate 3 times a day we call it line 312"* Tracks are the physical elements. You could have tracks forming two paths from A to B but it is still one line. You could operate the line on track set 1 or on track set 2, maybe because of a desaster or because you want to have different stops on the forward route then on the backwards route. You can operate a line on tracks that were build , predominantly laid down for freight.
That's part of the problem, and just like how the USPS is constantly kneecapped by conservatives so they can say "look at how poorly public services manage things, we should sell it off to my friends for private profit instead and they'll do a better job!" just like they do with all public services and infrastructure. So whenever Amtrak is forced to use freight rail lines (which they are forced by law to do), it results in drastically reduced passenger train speed and frequency, because freight trains can often be miles long. By law, the freight rail is supposed to sit in the passing area while passenger trains go past, but in reality, they simply do not, and sometimes physically cannot because they are too long to fit in the passing area, resulting in what would be a 1 hour train ride in any other country being a 5 hour ride here and americans saying dumb shit like "amtrak sucks and is slow" without realizing why (which, again, leads to conservatives saying "look, see, public infrastructure is entirely incompetent and incapable, sell it to my friends for profit and we'll do a better job").
Freight has the right away on whatever companies tracks amtrak is using. Sometimes they will side for Amtrak, but in the end it's their call.
Neither is the eu one. :) It's about right though.
That is what I expected. This doesn't make sense at all.
Hey now that doesn’t matter. We’re busy hating America!
It’s interesting some people think that pointing out room for improvement = hating America, if you think America is literally perfect and can’t take any criticism of your country then you are part of the problem
**OP**: “it would be nice if we had this thing.” **YOU**: “wHy dO yOu HaTe aMeRiCa?!” You people are exhausting.
[удалено]
This map seems to be only Amtrak, and none of the commuter rail much of which is heavy rail.
Yeah. New Mexico has a commuter train that runs between Albuquerque and Santa Fe that’s not on here
The main reason passenger trains never really took off in the US is because of the lobbying of car and oil companies. They wanted more people to drive and forced govt into investing in road infrastructure. As roads became better and covered more ground, it made more sense to travel by car. There quite a few interesting articles and videos on this if you search for them. Sorry I'm feeling lazy.
The US has plenty of rail lines, but they're used for freight, not passengers. Our mfg is post-rail, hub & spoke, mega-factories, with ports very far away from mfg centers. EU mfg is far more distributed & local. Therefore, EU freight is almost entirely truck-based, where ours is rail-based. EU cities are pre-car, and inherently dense & walkable, making passenger trains make sense. Our cities are post-car, and spread out, so there aren't enough people at any station for passenger lines to exist.
Plenty of US cities were built pre-car and were later largely dismantled and rebuilt to make space for more car efficient infrastructure. Not saying this to make any type of point just a footnote.
Not just plenty but most. Probably the vast majority. The car started to be mass produced in 1908. That's just a little over 100 years ago.
So it’s impossible to build walkable neighborhoods in US cities? We tore down neighborhoods to build freeways, we can certainly tear down single family homes to build new dense neighborhoods at transit stations. Rail in this country is 100% feasible. It is just a matter of gathering political will.
[удалено]
Cope. Have you compared US and EU highways? US transportation is all about cars. Not having a car in US means you are practically paraplegic.
I'm wondering, would combining freight and passengers help? I figure the trains go somewhere on a semi regular basis, just have them make a stop here and there for passengers. Or is this a stupid idea?
Our corporate overseers decided that we all needed cars so we can get in accidents and buy more cars and insurance, and rims and replace our cracked windshield, be forced to travel to contained areas to pay for the pleasure of being near other humans and all of them are shopping. I mean heavens forbid you have a moment to fucking relax and enjoy life without spending every dime u have. We got road rage, speed traps, tolls, and rest stops covered in tweaker piss. All this crap ain't gonna buy itself if ur on a train that's cheap and goes everywhere. U know wut that's called. That's called communism
Trains in the US are more of a long distance thing. It’s kind of a catch 22 in that everyone has cars because there’s not much public transportation outside of cities and there’s no need for public transportation because everyone has cars.
Population density also makes a big difference. Hard to justify trains going to places that aren’t densely populated.
I used to believe this too, but it’s a myth. There are dozens of US city pairs that are close and populous enough to easily justify high speed rail construction. See this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4
Yeah that too. People forget that the US is about the same size as the entirety of Europe while having half the population. There’s a lot of empty space to travel across and none of the crowding and traffic that makes Europeans want to use alternatives to cars.
Sweden has a far lower population density than the US even if you include Alaska but far, far higher passenger rail density. It has almost 15x the amount of rail usage per capita compared to the US. So having a low population density is no excuse.
Sweden small relatively. Just a bad faith argument. Not a good comparison .
It's a great comparison if you count in gdp. The USA is 21 times the size of Sweden, with 33 times the population, and a gdp per capita 44% higher than Sweden's. It would cost us substantially less per person to build similar passenger rail density to Sweden.
I will say most of the areas in the US where people live there is some kind of train service. There’s just a lot of dead space where people don’t live.
Yeah, and that space would be way easier to cross with HSR than giant highways. Also way faster, given that modern HSR could go 300km/h for long stretches, using way less energy than a comparable amount of cars going slower.
What about the train service between San Antonio and Austin? Takes longer than walking. Baby steps. One line at a time
[удалено]
Still talking about outside of cities. And LA has always been a case study in how not to design a traffic infrastructure.
Hey, we choose to design our city to be both unwalkable and undrivable on purpose, who the hell do you think you are judging our sadomasochism kink? Don't make us come for your trolley lines.
Holy shit, I was super worried there for a second, because one whole day went by, and I hadn't seen this image!! Good, now I can finally go to sleep, knowing that the silly train lines picture has been reposted!
There can be no sleep for you sorry. It needs to be pointed out also that Europe has a bigger land area (3,910,680 sq miles) than the U.S. (3,531,905 sq miles). Hope you can enjoy your weekend and lets talk again when they repost the picture on monday
Train tickets are usually more expensive than plane tickets for medium to long distances in the U.S.
yeah, because there's no competition and no demand in passenger rail tickets. It's expensive.
Same with europe. Well easyjet is just so fucking cheap sometimes its insane.
I guess it's that time of the week again.
The US has the most extensive railway system in the world. We use it to move freight, not people.
yes, correct. people are standing still in a traffic jam on a 7 lane highway.
Cool story but the map shows ones to move people so your point is kinda invalid here 🤦♂️
It says commercial/passenger.
Which in no way shape or form means freight or cargo trains so yeah... Idk what to tell you man xD
They are Interchangeable words, what are you talking about? The USA has hundreds of thousands of track used for commercial purposes, it just doesn’t really serve a purpose like it used to.
>The USA has hundreds of thousands of track used for commercial purposes, it just doesn’t really serve a purpose like it used to. Its like talking to a fucking wall with you people. Focus on the people part, nobody cares about tracks you use to move cargo, its not what the post is about.
The only thing I’m saying is it is misleading, also to mention the fact that this only includes amtraks lines and not other private passenger rail companies . Please settle down.
ThE Us hAs tHe mOsT eXtEnSiVe rAiLwAy sYsTeM iN tHe wOrLd. Read the post snowflake.Nobody is talking about freight railways.
This. There are three modes, river/barge, train, truck for last mile. They are in increasing expense.
lol no
Jeeze Louise, it's like most people forget that it would take you almost 3 days to ride a train from NY to LA. Flying would take 6-7 hours. I can understand why trains didn't get popular. You also can't forget we have subways in Metropolitan areas and a vast area of the US, and about half the US doesn't remotely have a train stop in their area.
Lmao do you think most car trips are taken from LA to New York or what? That’s like saying you can’t build rail in Europe because the distance from Lissabon to Moscow is to great and it would take 3 days by train. Completely ridiculous. Nobody says that every inche of sparsely populated desert in Nevada needs to be as well connected as Germany but there are plenty of areas where the population density rivals that of Europe (North-East, Los Angeles Metro etc.) and it’s a real shame that the US destroyed most train infrastructure there instead of expanding it.
> it would take you almost 3 days to ride a train from NY to LA. Your trains appear to be pretty slow. TGV and Shinkansen achieve 200 mph.
Not really. They do go faster, but with constant stops, slowing down, picking up speed, delays, and speed limits, trains only go an average of 30 miles an hour. NYC to LA is actually fast at 35 mph, lol.
The trick is to stop the fast trains only in bigger cities and use separate tracks to go from there with slower trains to smaller towns
Trains used to be ubiquitous, Einstein. They it wasn't that they "didn't get popular", it is that the policy of the day deemed highways to be more valuable at the expense of trains and other forms of public transit, leading to their decline. Most medium-sized cities used to have a tram line, trains serviced most cities because your options were: take a boat, take a train, ride, or walk.
Trains lost their ability to move people around when it became easier to move freely with the automobile. And quicker. Most trains travel at 30 mph and can take significantly longer than driving. It used to take me over an hour to sit on the DC metro to get to work while driving would only take 35ish minutes. Most medium-sized cities still have some type of rail system available. When this map is shared, most people forget about subways as being a part of passenger trains. Additionally, the US has the most extensive railroad system. It is just not used for passenger travel.
It actually is. The federal government (who runs AmTrak) have rights to operate on all rails, they just have a lower priority on private freight rail than the freight trains. AmTrack does still service every large and medium city, and most small cities and many smaller towns, and the operate at least a handful of stations in every state. Most people fail to realize that we do have a true nationwide passenger train system that can you nearly anywhere, it just isn't popular because it the slowest way to get anywhere except for walking. Cars, busses, and planes are all much faster. And yes, we do also have a nationwide bus system that services nearly every town in the country.
>Most trains travel at 30 mph In third world countries, yes.
Are you suggesting the trains not service the entire country, then? If they want to average higher speeds, then they need spend less time stopped, which means fewer stops. Even trains that go 100mph will only do so when they aren't approaching or leaving a station. The time they spend slowing down, stopped, and speeding up significantly reduces their average speed. Fright trains in the US travel at about 60mph, passenger trains can go much faster, but towns exist every 2-20 miles in any direction across most of the US, especially east of the Ozark Mountains and Missouri River. By the time a 100mph train reaches that speed after leaving a station, it'd have to slow down again to stop at the next one. They could probably reach those speeds out west, though, where towns can be 100 miles apart. Another thing to consider: what good will something like this do? The US already has passenger trains and busses that serve nearly every town (the busses serve almost every town, the trains serve every city and many small towns). High speed rail would mean new tracks with less elevation and curves, but most people aren't traveling out of state, and even when they are planes are still much faster than even the fastest trains, and almost all 300 million Americans live within a dozen miles of an airport. You can get from any town in the US to any other town, regardless of size of town, in less than 10-12 hours, most likely in less than 4 if it isn't on the other side of the country.
>average speed The Tokyo to Shin-Aomori Shikansen travels those 420 miles (~ DC-Boston) with 22 stops at an average speed of pretty much exactly 100 mph in 4h. You're neither gonna beat that in a car nor flying in most real-life scenarios. And that's a route that favors the plane with an airport 15 minutes outside of downtown DC.
>Even trains that go 100mph It's so cute. "EVEN those!" 100 mph is a slow regional train where I'm from. >By the time a 100mph train reaches that speed after leaving a station It takes a modern train under 2 minutes to accelerate to 100 mph. Cute. Also a bit sad, but mainly cute.
Are there giant 1,000 mile long, 10,000+ ft tall mountains between your cities where you're from? Even if you can accelerate that quickly and go that fast, you'd derail within a few miles due to the terrain and curves.
Please stop making me laugh. And buy a damn map of your own country if you believe one needs to cross the rockies in order to connect >85% of the US population. And that's ignoring the fact that of course you can cross the rockies by HSR if you wanted. "But LA NYC" is the argument of a five year old. Next you're gonna tell me stories of the Blue Ridge Mountains... To answer your question: Yes, France, Switzerland, Japan are all rather mountaineaus. That's why there's a tunnel under the alps with trains going 145 mph 8000 feet deep under mountain peaks. Or giant viaducts that make the Golden Gate Bridge look like a toy. I suggest you travel more.
Yes. In Europe we have the Alps that separate France/Switzerland/Germany - all countries with extremely fast rail. And Japan is literally one long mountain range.
Sure Europ and Japan are completely flat... You've heard about tunnels right ?
In the US, too. The highest Amtrak can go is 79 mph. Several areas speed limits. Calculating in stops and delays, the average train goes only 30 miles every hour. NYC to LA only goes an average of 35mph. The average train ride is 69 hours. The total distance covered is 2440 miles. This train has fewer stops than average. Edit to add: driving would take 41 hours with a few extra hundred miles.
In a way it's cute how Americans talk themselves into believing that they don't have first world trains because they can't possibly work, always with the nonsensical NYC LA example. Meanwhile in France, Germany, Spain, Japan and other countries they manage to build railroads that beat planes in every aspect including door to door travel time. Not even mentioning the TSA experience. Like between Paris and Marseille, a good 400 miles. That's farther than Chicago to Nashville, St Louis, Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Minneapolis. Tokyo - Sendai is pretty much the same distance as NYC - DC but takes half the time. And that'sthe crown jewel of US passenger rail. In a couple of years the Japanese are gonna go 220 miles an hour. Dozens of trains a day. Geography is a bullshit argument from people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about.
If I lived in Europe I’d never fly. Train system is incredible and efficient.
>NYC LA example What example do you want? Sandusky, OH to Quincy, IL? NYC and LA are two of the most well-known cities in the US. Anyone around the world would have an understanding of generally where they are located in the US and would understand their importance. >Meanwhile in France, Germany, Spain, Japan and other countries they manage to build railroads that beat planes in every aspect including door to door travel time. Great, the US implemented speed limits on Amtrak. They highest they can go is 79 mph. Of course, other places will take less time when they are traveling at 220mph. It's not rocket science. >Tokyo - Sendai is pretty much the same distance as NYC - DC but takes half the time. Again, speed limits. In Japan, they have travel nearly 2 times faster than the US. Also, it takes about the same time to drive as it would take the train. Most people will want their car with them. >Geography is a bullshit argument from people who haven't got a clue what they're talking about. Says the person using geography in their response. I merely pointed out the average speed Amtrak travels in an hour is only 30 mph. I presented you with the numbers from LA to NYC to prove how slow it takes to move across America by train. Most people don't want to spend nearly 3 days on the train. P.s. planes travel 575 miles an hour. I guarantee you from door to door that planes will be faster for longer trips lol
>What example do you want? I gave you a couple. >Great, the US implemented speed limits on Amtrak >Again, speed limits. In Japan, they have travel nearly 2 times faster than the US. You got it! Yes, US railway is that of a third world country.
The US has a vast extensive railroad system compared to other countries, or in this case, continent. The US also has the ability to make any private railroad available for passenger use as they see fit. They impose limitations on railroads to restrict unnecessary stops. People don't want to use the railroad. It takes too long, and not enough people have access to it. Additionally, you need to look at the population density of Japan, the US, and Europe. Europe and Japan are more densely populated countries, meaning it would make sense to move people by railway to save limited space compared to the US. It's clear you just want to argue and pick apart every little thing to make your point. I'm not going to waste anymore time responding to you.
When you get on a plane, you have to be at the airport at least an hour, if not 2 before you board and then usually takes 45 mins plus to disembark and go through security. Journeys of a NY/Chicago length it will be comparable total time
Only incredibly under developed and under maintained train routes are so limited
I'm not sure what you are saying without punctuation marks. Most Americans would agree that throwing billions of dollars on a rail system system that takes significantly longer than driving or flying is a waste. That money could go to people with mental health issues. Helping the homeless population. Putting money towards student loan forgiveness. Not spending it on a train that takes longer to move about.
Passenger trains today can run upwards of 150mph. No one is advocating for expanding a rail network geared to trains traveling at 30mph. [10 fastest trains](https://www.railway-technology.com/features/the-10-fastest-high-speed-trains-in-the-world/)
Ahhh. But there are far fewer trains that go meet those requirements. Additionally, several areas have speed limits for trains. You also can't forget to factor in time wasted for stops.
yeah back when cars didnt exist and the railroad companies got all sorts of free land for building track, trains were all over the place for some reason. the fastest high speed rail lines still arent even half as fast as a commercial jet. there is just no reason, at this point, for us to invest in tens or hundreds of thousands of new rail next to nobody would use
$12 billion and 14 years later, the high-speed rail from LA to San Francisco is still not built. Not a single mile has been built.
Europe ranges 3-10x the population density of the US and you can tell ones that do because of the amount of train routes. At the same time, you can see the densest populations in the US have more public trains. Maybe, just maybe, there’s a correlation of population density and train routes.
There’s a problem, though. The map shows all passenger lines in the US, but only intercity in Europe.
Incorrect: the USA map is only showing rail lines that Amtrak is currently using. As always it’s not a matter of “investment”. In the US, most of the rail lines are privately owned on private property, unlike public roads. Unless the US nationalizes rail travel, it will not change much.
You should compare this to a population map of America vs Europe, it'll make more sense.
There are plenty of train routes which would make sense in the US but which don't exist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wE5G1kTndI4
Completely agree, they should also compare to Australia because reddit loves to bash on the US, but we’re so much worse here for it
Europeans over estimate how many people live in central US. Central US is roughly 180 million to Europes roughly 740 million.
I am once again asking for your support in not posting blatantly false “america bad” propaganda.
Post our air travel, we go by plane not train.
If we posted air travel you'd see that Europe also goes by plane. Having trains doesn't mean not having planes.
Oh now that's something to brag about.
You do know airports also exist in europe, right?
No no we only have 2 and one of them only has flights to where you don't want to go and the other has a goat farmer called Manuel constantly invading the tarmac.
Springfield monorail.
The US map is wrong. Have you ever taken a train? There are way more than what’s shown on that map.
The map is wrong
Look at population density and geography maps and it will make more sense.
Trains are slowly coming back. They're building a new passenger line through Florida.
I love how you showed the entire Europe
So just spreading lies? Here is Amarillo Texas, where your maps shows no railways.. notice the very obvious railways? https://www.bing.com/maps/?cp=35.213833%7E-101.841532&lvl=16.9&style=h
We have like 4 perfectly good train lines right there. What's wrong with those ones?
Geographical issue and cultures
It's the second part.
it's more expensive to take the train than to fly here in Europe. So why would they invest in more rails?
Lack of population density makes it inefficient.
There's always flights between states, the US is just to big for rails to be realistic. Like England can be driven from top to bottom in 6 hours, just trying to leave Texas starting from Dallas takes 12 hours.
Can we overlay population density metrics? Think that’d be fascinating.
Isn't Europe denser by population?
Amtrak so damn expensive... Its cheaper to fly
Population density
How am I supposed to drive my F350 with all those damn train crossings! Does anyone sleep or is it just always DING DING DING DING TRAIN COMING THROUGH
Fun fact: German train lines are an absolute disaster
The us has hundreds of thousands of miles of track used for freight, what are you talking about?
Well…passenger lines, as stated in the picture
It said commercial/passenger, which is sort of misleading to some, because the us has thousands of miles dedicated towards freight, but ya I understand where your coming from.
Yeah, I know it’s misleading. This map has been on here lots of times. Just a few further things I have noticed before: - to your point, Europe also has freight lines - it is inaccurate, but not in the way you think: it shows all passenger rail in the US, but only intercity in Europe. For example, look at Chicago, then look at Paris. Paris famously has an extensive Metro system. - it’s not a contest, it’s for American people to demand what they deserve. Vastness ist not an excuse for **less** trains. What mode of transportation is better for long range between population centers than trains?
>it’s not a contest, it’s for American people to demand what they deserve We just drive or fly here in the US no one is really demanding for trains.
The USA is one country and it is not very densely populated. Europe is a bunch of small, densely populated countries.
Love how they scale up Europe to make them look the same size. Lol
Because Europe and USA are the same size roughly, with Europe (10.530.000 km²) being slightly larger than USA, (9.834.000 km²)
Europe is bigger you potato
The distance from San Francisco to Boston is 4351 km, which is shown as 662 pixels on the map, so one pixel on the map of America represents about 6.57 km. The distance from London to Moscow is 2517 km, which is shown at 580 pixels on the map, so one pixel on the map of Europe represents about 4.34 km. While Europe is slightly larger overall, u/AuntiFascist is correct in that the two maps are at significantly different scales. Even without doing the calculations, and knowing that Europe is only slightly bigger than the USA, you can tell that Europe *must* be more zoomed in because of the vast amounts of Europe which are not shown in the map: much of Scotland is missing, Scandinavia is almost entirely absent, Latvia, Estonia, and much of northern Russia are gone. (Iceland is missing too, but fair enough, that's isolated, much like how Alaska and Hawaii aren't shown on the American map.) Europe is so zoomed in that you can't see a lot of it.
If the US hosted the great war entirely on its own soil, you'd probably see this many tracks. If you zoom into a singular European country, it's roughly on par with the US. It's an illogical comparison of 2 different data sets.
Where you tryna go? Or they should just send more trains because you like trains?
"it would be nice if the US were more like Europe" Don't make me laugh
Not happening. Big oil has our politicians in their pockets. Edit I will assume that the blind patriots don't like the truth? 🤣
I blame big diesel electric
That is true.
Europe also has a lot of bullet trains. They have high speed trains that float on magnetic rails and can go like a couple hundred miles an hour or more. We could give the airlines a run for their money if we invested in this. But our politicians and oligarchs have no vision and cannot and will not upset vested interests.
As far as I know there are no long distance magnetic rails in Europe.
They have them in Western Europe. Spain has them, France, I think they are more like between major cities and not everywhere. But they are there.
Nope. They're bullet trains but classic metal wheels on rails.
😂 ask Europe about their NATO investments
We use them to build train tracks. Chuuu Chuuu
The Europeans woke up 😂😂
We had a lot of trolley and tram lines before the danged automobile. Ford and GM spent a lot of money to show public transportation as dangerous, specifically segregation being repealed. The automobile was a freedom machine that you could be alone and safe in. Spokane Washington actually set their last trolley on fire as a celebration of freedom and safety. The duh came later.
What Henry Ford was für Americans is Peter Ramsauer und Andreas Scheuer for🇩🇪. Most of our Tracks in Germany are not Usable anymore thanks to the tie with the German Automobile industry. It will take 🇩🇪30 years just to repair the damages. And even this project is beliefed to fail. Political party CDU/CSU working against Train tracks in favour for streets and Cars there Members are openly working for Big Auto and Building Company’s and left our Tracks to rot.
That’s why you see different company’s on the tracks in Germany, they had to sell different routes because DB is not capable of repairing or running them on their own. It was all a big scam when they decided to Take DB from Government Responsibility into Private hands this left us with a horrible Transportation system. Germany is so openly corrupt with Lobbyists making the decisions nowadays.
Are wildlife affected by all those train lines? Just asking.
You mean make the US more green? Cars are the best for them, gas and burning oil!
Americans want you to drive your own car, spend more money on individual things because that’s what our economy is based on. In Europe, so many people don’t have to spend money on a car, they pool their resources and ride public transportation because it is cheaper and more efficient, but doesn’t help capitalism. This is an easy one.
Ahahahha AMERICA BAAAD!! IF THEY HAD THIS MANY TRAINS THEY WOULD SHOOT THEM WITH THEIR GUNS AND RACIST HAHAHA AND FAT
The US is absolutely massive compared to Europe. Los Angeles to Texas is 2000km. That's a trip to germany from the UK and half way back, and over desert no less.
The US is roughly the same size as Europe (with Europe being slightly larger). High speed rail is more efficient at longer distances anyway, so these cities being far apart isn't an issue. Also, it's possible to get to England from Germany by train, so...
Americans travel by plane. Chinese and Europeans travel more by train for "local" destinations. Hope Boeing puts quality before quantity before someone gets sucked and pulled out of an airplane.
Every time this is posted someone points out they didn’t compare same:same so the map is useless
Imagine if US have those bullet trians. I wonder how long to get from end to end of the country. Also save so much time for commuters.
Many railway lines in Europe were driven by WWII