>and so on and so forth
But it is left bewildered and confused at trying to implement or even actually running railways?

What? We just don't want to ride fucking trains here any more faggot. That's why we buy SUVs instead.

Fuck off

I don't suppose we can force every citizen in the US to relocate, so that a bullet train railway would be practical?

>>1428681

My thoughts exactly. Trying to force trains is communism when we clearly dont want them by the free market.

>>1428681
not only cant they competently run railways
they often dont even know how to, or they end just running some half arsed regional trains on a single freight line - or putting some lame lightrail downtown.
And then figure that is all there is to it.

>>1428675

No, the US just doesn't need to care about trains. It's a national imperative for European countries because trains can run on electricity that is produced locally, where car fuel needs to be imported from foreign sources. How come we never hear people screaming at Canada for not having high speed railways? They don't have it either, because they have oil sources locally that they can refine locally.

Because freight lines dont need to go 400 km/h and passenger planes go dead straight and faster.

Let them stay in the dark ages while the rest of the world is enjoying the new renaissance.

>>1428699
We ran and invented rail roads

The reason they don't work any more is because no one here wants to ride them, so they can't survive fiscally as anything except cross nation commerce/goods transferring from point A to point B

We have cars and airplanes and buses for mass transit and trains are the last thing we are concerned with

>>1428694
>PRIVATE INVESTMENT IN TRAINS IS COMMUNIST

>INSTEAD WE SHOULD SPEND BILLIONS OF GOVERNMENT DOLLARS ON HIGHWAYS

>>1428694
but forcing everyone into cars through lack of a competent alternative - thats the free market

>>1428729
highways are way more useful than rail ways you dumb shit

for instance in a time of crisis you can drive rescue vehicles on an actual highway, you can't do that shit on a fucking railroad track

Comparing the two is laughably retarded, full force

There are military reasons to have a solid national highway system as well as a functioning railway system as well. And commercial reasons.

Comparing the two is just dumb. You're dumb. You should feel bad.

>>1428686
major regions: North East, Mid-West, Texas, West Coast
High Density locations are 400-600 miles from one another there, often with other major locations in between as in the case of the Mid-West and North East
Making a High-Speed Train capable of making the journey in 1-3 hours ideal.

Eurofags ignoring the American shutting them down: >>1428714

>>1428729
wat, he didn't say there was something wrong with private investment in railroads, just government interference

>>1428725
>The reason they don't work any more is because no one here wants to ride them, so they can't survive fiscally as anything except cross nation commerce/goods transferring from point A to point B
no the reason they don't work is because the Federal government clamped down so hard on passenger rail, while pouring billions into highways, that it's impossible for it to even get a foothold in the market

before government intervention in US transportation, railroads were totally dominant

railroads only stopped being dominant when the government basically dismantled them

Americans, more than most nationalities, are terrified of each other.

Public transit just will not work with a group of people that terrified of one another.

When I ride the bus, there are nothing but nice people. One time a crazy old lady hit on me. And a midget rides the bus here sometimes. But the average American seems to think that they're going to get robbed, contract a disease, or generally suffer an ill fate if they are put around a large body of people.

So private transit will be the choice of the xenophobic American for decades to come.

>>1428753
the government has been killing every single private initiative for high speed rail in the US for decades

The reasons they don't work is because the distances in the US are still too far to make trains faster than planes. Look at the distances in Europe where high speed rails have killed entire plane routes just because they don't need security check-ins and make traveling a faster and less stressful experience than by plane. In the US even with all the additional security shit since 9/11 taking a plane is still much faster than even the fastest high speed trains in Europe (400kph)

>>1428768

That doesn't make any sense, if anything the security checks should be even more strict in America.

>>1428745
>There are military reasons to have a solid national highway system as well as a functioning railway system as well. And commercial reasons.
German military did not use their Autobahn during the War, nor did the invading Allies. German Autobahns back then were two-lane roads that deliberately went out of their way to provide the best scenic view - it was a luxury for the wealthy.
Germans used their railroads. Allies used their railroads.
You can move a large volume of freight and man power quickly and efficiently on rail, not on roads.
This is why railways have been major targets for bombing campaigns in WWII, Korea, Vietnam, etc.
And in fact one of the curious aspects of the High-Speed Designated Corridors is that there is a spur juncture to a place called Hampton Roads - why is this, the place has less than 2 million people. Could it have something to do with the major military bases and naval facilities also located there?
As for the supposed defense purposes of the Inter-State Highway System, a myth. The fact is in the 1950s if you wanted to get any major funding for something you just tacked on defense too its name. It was a sop for the auto industry and a shitty inefficient way of preventing a recession after Korea.
And last but not least in the 1980s both the American and Soviets were developing mobile ICBM launchers that would use railways!

You guys are the reason we'll forever be a slave to the Arabs and dependent on their foreign oil. Why must we keep giving them our money and making them rich? A high speed rail would be better but you guys want to keep driving your useless gas guzzlers. And if we do construct this, we can't half ass it, it should be fast like in Asia.

Fuck you guys, I hope this country collapses hard into its own asshole sooner.

>>1428745
>There are military reasons to have a solid national highway system
SURE WORKED OUT FOR SADDAM

>>1428768
>The reasons they don't work is because the distances in the US are still too far to make trains faster than planes.
Paris to Marseilles is longer than Boston to DC

>>1428754
>no the reason they don't work is because the Federal government clamped down so hard on passenger rail, while pouring billions into highways

laughable bullshit. The Federal government subsidizes Amtrak you dumb shit.They didn't clamp down on shit. They fucking all but nationalized it

communism

>>1428768
WTF? Heard of Easyjet and Ryanair? Go back to bed u idiot.

>>1428807
79mph restriction, weight requirements for locomotives, etc
found nowhere else in the world

railroads cost money
america has no money

>>1428765
well thats the bus, the least form of public transportation
this is about rail

>>1428807
>They didn't clamp down on shit
they don't allow new trains, they have a ridiculous speed requirement, they have insane union rules, they don't allow any new tracks to be laid even by private companies

when a german consortium tried to bring high speed rail to texas a few years ago, the government stepped in and revoked their charter, and built more highway lanes instead

try again faggot

Seriously, why don't we? If we devoted more energy into building a better railway infrastructure, we could alleviate a lot of the stress on the Interstates which would dramatically increase the time in between repaving, meaning more goods can be transported over a longer period of time.

>>1428843
they don't allow that shit because

1. They don't want to spend more on a system that isn't being utilized by the public
2. They don't want a private company to compete with the nationalized in all but name only heavily subsidized Amtrak

When you realize that the government already pays like 200 plus dollars for every ticket sold on Amtrak, you'll realize why they don't want a third party, independent railway system, coming in and competing with their shitacular public transit service

I was about to be pissed there wasn't a stop anywhere near Alabama. Then i looked again and there is what appears to be a station right in my city. Oh bad eyesight.

>Speak of the military, controlled by the government
>Wonder why private railways can't be efficient.
>Nationalize railways, see wonders. Oh wait AMTRAK. We're fucked either way.

MONORAIL! MONORAIL! MONORAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIL!

>>1428859
>1. They don't want to spend more on a system that isn't being utilized by the public
it isn't being utilized by the public because GM and Eisenhower dismantled every street car company in the US, nationalized the rail industry, then built highways so that nobody would ever ride it
>2. They don't want a private company to compete with the nationalized in all but name only heavily subsidized Amtrak
thanks for repeating what i said

>>1428859
79mph restriction, weight requirements, and so on are from the 1950s. That is before Amtrak.
"we don't want to spend on it, so we'll introduce a regulation preventing it" - does that sound right to you?
And why wouldn't they want to privatize it? Every US government has been in love with the Neo-Liberal agenda since Reagan.
Every one of them hate Universal Healthcare, want to privatize Social Security, determined to sell & privatize every aspect of our lives etc - but are determined to keep the railways? That doesn't sound right.

>>1428714

>implying this won't be a problem

>>1428715

But are disproportionately expensive compared to train travel.

>>1428867
>Wonder why private railways can't be efficient.
>Nationalize railways, see wonders. Oh wait AMTRAK. We're fucked either way.
Britains railways have been shit since they privatized.
Meanwhile Frances government owned SNCF just gets better & better.

>>1428884
>it isn't being utilized by the public because GM and Eisenhower dismantled every street car company in the US, nationalized the rail industry, then built highways so that nobody would ever ride it

lol so they built highways because they knew then no one would want to ride railways, and thusly it's wrong that we don't invest in more railways?

Doesn't this simply prove the point that WE the CONSUMER don't want railways and will only use them when forced to?

>>1428910
No no, I was refering to that the US government can't even do nationalized railways right. We already have one (AMTRAK), and we have to subsidize every single ticket.
Every ticket sold is in the red. So having a national railsystem controlled by the US government that was larger would only screw us harder.
Honestly at this point we just use the rails to move freight.

>>1428916
no, they built highways to destroy the railroads, so that GM would make massive profits from selling cars and buses to everyone

they even advertised those intentions as such

>>1428930
>build highways
>destroy railways
>everythingwentasplanned.jpg

Look, even if they built the highways, and gave everyone a car, if the PEOPLE chose to RIDE THE TRAINS because they were MORE CONVENIENT, LESS EXPENSIVE or had some other highly desired marketed trait, those railways would still be around.

People here don't like trains, they suck. We like our cars.

>>1428926
well it does not help that it does not own its railways and thus must use freight & commuter railways that slow it, force it to conform to their regulations, use old bridges & overhead, etc

>>1428944
you have a lot of reading to do

how can someone take a train, when there is no more train company to take them?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_American_streetcar_scandal

get educated

>>1428944
How do you chose to ride the trains when they're introducing regulations to limit it, or replacing it with buses, or just plain shutting it down - and at the exact same time building lots of brand new roads?
The market choice is obvious, you'll switch to a car

>>1428944
>Look, even if they built the highways, and gave everyone a car, if the PEOPLE chose to RIDE THE TRAINS because they were MORE CONVENIENT, LESS EXPENSIVE or had some other highly desired marketed trait, those railways would still be around.
They removed that convenience with regulations, replacement with loud & smelly buses, or shutting them down.

>>1428963>how can someone take a train, when there is no more train company to take them?

becuase the trains were there, and then started shutting down when (gasp logic leap here, big one) PEOPLE STOPPED RIDING THEM IN FAVOR OF MORE PERSONAL TRANSPORTATION IN THE FORM OF THE FAMILY CAR VAN OR TRUCK AND ALSO IN FAVOR OF THE INFINITELY SUPERIOR FASTER AND MORE RELIABLE AIR TRAVEL INDUSTRY

Jeez

>>1428999
people switched when the trains became less convenient due to regulations, replacement with buses, or being shut down

>>1428999
>didn't read my link at all
no, they didn't shut the trains down when people stopped riding them, they shut the trains down BEFORE people stopped riding them

THAT'S THE WHOLE FUCKING POINT OF THIS YOU DUMB SHIT

IT. WASN'T. A. FREE-MARKET. CHOICE.

IT. WAS. A. PLANNED. DESTRUCTION. BY. GM. AND. THEY. ADMITTED. AS. SUCH.

>>1429017

Picture is perfect.

>>1429059
that's how i roll dawg

>>1429016
no I"m pretty sure they quit when it became more convenient and fun to travel with their wife and kids in a car to their summer vacation because they could hook a camper to the back of the sucker and go where ever the fuck they wanted without having to wait around for a train to show up.

>>1429017
>no, they didn't shut the trains down when people stopped riding them, they shut the trains down BEFORE people stopped riding them

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? The truth is sales were flagging because people were switching to cars and air travel and so then the government came in and took control of the industry and tried to make it viable from a government perspective and they still failed.

200 bucks government subsidy for every 150 dollar ticket to go from San Francisco to New Orleans for the lulz

>>1429017
You linked a conspiracy. There are other explanations besides just your conspiracy.

>>1429076
>The truth is sales were flagging because people were switching to cars and air travel
jesus fucking christ, how many different ways do i have to explain this to you

if that had been the way it'd happened, your argument would be legit

BUT THAT'S NOT THE WAY IT HAPPENED, READ THE FUCKING LINK, READ ANY FUCKING HISTORY OF IT WHATSOEVER

Eisenhower built the Interstates because he had noticed how massively useful the autobahn was for moving troops around back when he was invading germany.

since the us is so big, and since nuclear war was now a potential threat, he thought it would be a good idea to be able to move troops around rapidly in an emergency or war type situation.

the interstates connected all the older highways and roads creating a decentralized network (unlike trains, but like the internet, which was also created to avoid being completely shut down by multiple nuclear strikes!) allowing multiple routes to any location.

>>1429094
it's not a conspiracy theory, it was taken before Congress and they were indicted on it

Commuter Trains: operating from a city centre terminal, the railways are arranged in a hub and spoke style with multiple radiating out. Going from the city centre to and through suburbia. Maximum range of 20-40 miles from the city centre to a suburban/rural fringe terminus I would suppose. Their greatest frequency is in the morning and evening for the peaks, running every 10-15 minutes or less. Rest of the day will be less.
Metro Train: operating inside a city, totally grade separated so either in a subway or elevated causeway, it might be 1 line or 3 lines or 12 lines or however many depending on the city size and density. Frequency of 10 minutes or better.
Trams/Streetcars/Lightrail: running on the streets and roads in the city and the medium density urban surroundings, stops are placed every 500 meters. Frequency of 10 minutes. Big towns/Small cities may use this as their primary means of rail transportation, and could also use it outside their area to travel further to nearby communities, towns, etc.
Regional Trains: extending beyond the terminus of one or more of the commuter trains, these go to rural settlements and big towns/small cities up to 100-200 miles away. The frequency could range anywhere from hourly to just twice a day, hourly services to big towns/small cities could operate at up to 110mph.
High-Speed Trains: going still further, going much faster.

>>1429107
yeah that is how it happened though

You see, trains were dirty, loud, and really inconvenient. And cars were the hot new fangled device, and highways were the new expression of the American dream. Route 66 and all that shit, you know. James Dean. Harley Davidson and Ford and Chevy and all that.

So trains just sorta became the old dog everyone looks at and remembers having fun with, but never actually plays with any more

>>1428904
But worth it because it doesn't take 15 hours.

>>1429017
>>1429107

From your link.

Robert C. Post wrote that "nationwide, the ultimate reach of the alleged conspirators extended to only about 10 percent of all transit systems—sixty-odd out of some six hundred—and yet virtually all the other 90 percent also got rid of trolleys (as happened with all the tramcar systems in the British Isles and France)."

Refute please.

>>1429076
>200 bucks government subsidy for every 150 dollar ticket to go from San Francisco to New Orleans for the lulz
that really isn't the sort of rail travel this being discussed here

>>1428675
People don't want to spend their tax dollars on things they can actually find useful here in the states.

>>1429137
that's how it'll be run here bro, like it or not

Because no one will ride that shit and it will have to be subsidized, just like city bus systems and shit

/new/ - Trains and Transportation

>>1429111
>Eisenhower built the Interstates because he had noticed how massively useful the autobahn was for moving troops around back when he was invading germany.
Wrong. Complete myth. See here: >>1428796
>unlike trains
>implying you can't build another railway along another route and stabling yards and switching points at some other damn place
>You see, trains were dirty, loud, and really inconvenient.
>dirty
nope
>loud
This is because the USA has insisted on continuing to use Diesel locomotives, while everyone else electrified and moved to Electric locomotives or Electric Multiple Units. The fact that these Diesel locomotives were built by General Motors is surely a coincidence.
>and really inconvenient.
you cant check the schedule and rock up at an appropriate time? you fucking aspie.

>>1429133
And which ones did they buy and shut down? Major networks like the Red Cars & Yellow Cars in L.A.
If they is gone and not buying streetcars and components initiating large production runs then how can some little city with a few lines or a town with just two hope to continue to operate them?
Its like the manufacturing equivalent of the Chilling Effect.

>>1429152
fuck, first transportation steals /n/, and now they annexing /new/ as well.... This sucks

>>1429191
And then in other places you got Mr. GM saying "well gee these streetcars are looking awfully old, hows about you replace them with buses?"

>>1429165
Uh, hate to break it to you bro but my grandfather was a train conductor for like 30 years from the time of the Great Depression on and those things were dirty as fuck back then

For real

>>1429205
no pride in his work then

>>1429220
ah no, he was just honest

they were dirty machines at the time

Phoenix shut down their Streetcars in 1948 after a fire in the stabling yard destroyed all their rolling stock.
Anyone know if that happened elsewhere around that time, not saying there was a conspiracy but...

>Wrong. Complete myth. See here: >>1428796

Holy Balls what a complete pile of harbl

the allies used the shit out of the autobahns, particularly during the occupation.

also, use all electric locomotives??? not only would laying third rails/overhead lines crisscrossing the continent be dangerous and expensive, it would be ridiculous and impractical in the extreme. you're a moron.

>>1429363
>dangerous
nope
>expensive
well you rarely get something for nothing
>It has been said that another aim of the autobahn project, beyond creating national unity and strengthening centralized rule, was to provide mobility for the movement of military forces. This, however, overlooks the fact that gradients on autobahns built before the war were far too steep for the goods vehicles of the time. The autobahn's main purpose, then, was to enable a large proportion of the population to drive long distances in their own cars, enjoying the countryside along the way. This explains some of the autobahn's routing (as at Irschenberg on the A 8 from Munich to Salzburg) which offers spectacular views but is impractical for today's heavy goods traffic (see Nazi architecture).
>uring World War II, the central reservation of some autobahns were paved to allow their conversion into auxiliary airports. Aircraft were either concealed in numerous tunnels or camouflaged in nearby woods. However, for the most part, the autobahns were not militarily significant. Motor vehicles could not carry goods as quickly or in as much bulk as trains could, and the autobahns could not be used by tanks as their weight and caterpillar tracks tore up the roads' delicate surfaces. Furthermore, the general shortage of gasoline which Germany experienced during much of the war, as well as the relatively low number of trucks and motor vehicles badly needed for direct support of military operations, further decreased the attractiveness of autobahns for significant transport. As a result, most military and economic freight continued to be carried by rail. After the war, numerous sections of the autobahns were in bad shape, severely damaged by heavy Allied bombing and military demolition. As well, thousands of kilometers of autobahns remained unfinished, their construction brought to a halt by 1943 due to the increasing demands of the war effort.

>>1429420
>they didn't use autobahns, they used railways

>>1429420
militarily insignificant to the germans, yes. to the allies, not so much. And are you seriously telling me you don't believe a deuce-and-a-half would be incapable of driving on the autobahn? after all the muddy, swampy, sandy non-roads those things rolled over en mass?

you ARE a moron.

>>1429471
*capable

>>1429471
>After the war, numerous sections of the autobahns were in bad shape, severely damaged by heavy Allied bombing and military demolition. As well, thousands of kilometers of autobahns remained unfinished, their construction brought to a halt by 1943 due to the increasing demands of the war effort.

>>1429471
>and the autobahns could not be used by tanks as their weight and caterpillar tracks tore up the roads' delicate surfaces.

trains are for sissies

>>1429493

notice how when a marine corp basic washout (stalker) showed up the thread went to shit?

Pic related.

>>1429483
>>1429486
right so six wheel drive vehicles designed for use in a war zone can't traverse the autobahn because it wasn't in perfect condition, that's what you're trying to say???

>and the autobahns could not be used by tanks as their weight and caterpillar tracks tore up the roads' delicate surfaces.

YOU THINK THEY GAVE A FUCK ABOUT THE ROADS DELICATE SURFACE???

The FEMA Train is going to be a model of efficiency or so I am told. The destination is the problem.

>>1429561
well whats the autobahn got to do with anything then? they could just as easily drive anywhere
and keep in mind the originals did not take the most convenient route, they went out of their way to provide a scenic vista - I'm sure that would be of high strategic value to the occupying armies right?

>>1429570
whatever happened to the take over that supposed to occuring during Clintons presidency?
Remember the early 1990s when every man and his dog was joining a militia, black helicopters were blitzing the countryside, foreign military equipment was being transshipped on the railways, the UN was going to invade, et cetera

>>1429592
holy shit you're retarded. even a meandering, banged up road is quicker than going off road and bushwhacking. undoubtedly when there was open terrain they took shortcuts, but going through hills and forests is a million times easier on a real road, even if it isn't completely finished.

Sure is people who've never driven on the autobahn criticizing it

>>1429592
well it did work for the allies when they invaded

They just got done working NEC. Do you realize how many people use it?

I am for high speed rail, but it is going to turn in to air ports 2.0 Everyone will get butthurt and their will be security devices everywhere, 3 hour waits to get on the train, etc.

Also as a Michiganfag, I am completely insulted that if I want to travel to anywhere else I have to go through the shit hole that is Chicago. Fucking connect me straight from Detroit to Toledo and you will have a little more of my support I suppose.

>>1429643
Sure is people who've never taken convenient frequent rapid Public Transportation criticizing it

>>1429666

Whats funny is when I was in Amsterdam and Heidelburg I got day passes to the trams, and it was nice - especially considering I took a 2 hour train ride to Heidelburg, but hey you knew that.

Keep on talking about something you know nothing about (autobahn)

>>1429660
>They just got done working NEC. Do you realize how many people use it?
Acela isn't really High-Speed Rail. Gotta use freight and commuter railways which give it lower priority, conform to their regulations which can restrict its tilting, use old bridges and overhead, etc. Fact is it doesn't do much more than 90-110mph which is why the whole route Boston to DC takes 7 hours, while the longer Paris to Marseilles takes just 3 hours.
>Also as a Michiganfag
Well what do you think of this map of the SNCF proposal for the Mid-West, operating trains capable of up to 200mph I might add.

>>1429707

Only let local governments fund it after being lied and swindled by private companies - that way when it emplodes all the damage is soaked by the local population only.

>>1429731

Let the consumer choose what they want, stay classy extremist liberal.

I like my car here in Germany, feels good man.

>>1429731
>High speed rail would change nothing about the shit state of commuter rail and regular interstate rail.
their stations would become transport hubs, you would build your regional and commuter and metro trains to link with them to provide a smooth interchange.

>>1429743
>Let the consumer choose what they want, stay classy extremist liberal.
>after they've been given one choice
stay classy America

>>1429693
>Whats funny is when I was in Amsterdam and Heidelburg I got day passes to the trams, and it was nice
and what did you think of them?
and what did you think of their government subsidization?
and why are you opposed to both in the USA?

>>1429707
See my thing about HSR is that it is only good for semi-long distances, about 4 to 10 hours in a car. I could see the interests of connecting Chicago and Detroit but only if New York City was connected to Toledo. Cities in America generally sell the same stuff as the other people everywhere else. So it isnt like someone from Michigan would want to go out to Chicago all the time to buy their "local goods". But from a businessman mobility point of view trains can offer better accommodations for them and allow for more comfortable situations if prep-meetings need to be done. You cant really sit at a table and spread information out on an air plane.

If I was going anywhere out west with value, aka past the rocky mountains, I would fly my ass there.

>>1429775
a 3 hour High-Speed Train ride can carry you up to 500-600 miles
You can not do that in a car.
As for NYC, well that map shows Toledo connecting to Cleveland, and Cleveland has future proposals to Pittsburgh and what is presumably Buffalo, and it would presumably continue going eastward from them.
There'd be services that stop at these locations, and services that are express bypassing them via a passing loop - a train from Paris to Marseilles doesn't bother to stop at Lyons, Valence, Avignon.

People that say trains are useless have never been on a train.

>>1429829
>a 3 hour High-Speed Train ride can carry you up to 500-600 miles
That is my point, any distance longer than that it would be more reasonable to fly.

>There'd be services that stop at these locations, and services that are express bypassing them via a passing loop - a train from Paris to Marseilles doesn't bother to stop at Lyons, Valence, Avignon.
I have used Japan HSR many times, the concept isnt new to me from a practical point of view. In a matter of fact, because of my experiences on the Japanese HSR I came to like it. But that is also cause I had the foreigner rail pass everytime I have gone, so for 2 weeks I can use all the Japan rail, including non-reserve seats on HSR, as much as a want for paying 300 dollars or so.

>>1429760

Well the train to heidelburg was nice - minus the uncomfortable fucking seats crammed in close together. I know I am a minority here but Im 6'6 and weigh 270 those flimsy uncomfortable seats where my knees were near touching the seat in front of me was annoying. But I also got the damn ticket for my wife and I for under 30 euro to there and back so thats ok I suppose you pay for what you get. Ive been told the ICE trains are a little better but who knows. Felt like I was sitting on a brick.

The commuter tram? same thing but better than walking everywhere

>>1429872
I'm 5'11" and the Siemens built trains Melbourne has are fucking uncomfortable on my knees
Also their brakes tend to not work...

>>1429872
and why do you oppose these things for America?

>>1429872
You are 6'6''

Anything other than a Escalade with a row of seat removed is going to be uncomfortable.

That is, STFU.