Ken Loves Trainz

Im just realizing this my first post this on this account....huh. Anyways...

In 2024, Amtrak launched its Borealis service, a daytime train running between Chicago and the Twin Cities. Total travel time end to end takes about seven and a half hours, with a top speed of 80mph. It is not high speed, not only when compared to the American definition of high speed rail, but even compared to the Twin Cities Hiawatha, a train that ran the same route that traveled at a top speed of 100mph. But despite that, it has been one of Amtrak's most popular trains; having an annual ridership of over 200,000 passengers as of 2025. It has sparked a ridership boom between Chicago and the Twin Cities and is so popular that Amtrak has considered adding a second train according to trains.com.

Why do I bring this up you ask? Well, the success of the Borealis, alongside Amtrak's recent success has had me rethinking my stance on high speed rail in America. A few years ago, I was one of those guys who felt America NEEDED high speed rail, that we needed to be on par with other countries who did like Japan and China. But after the current president was re elected, who cut funding for the East River Tunnel rehab during his first term, and whos party has generally been hostile to passenger rail in the past, that perspective has changed quit a bit. But apart of me is glad that happened (the perspective change, not the assentation of the demented clown in the white house) because its allowed me to have a more grounded look at what America needs rail wise, and I've come to the conclusion that America doesn't really need high speed rail. At least not yet.

Looking at the high speed rail discussion in this country, it seems the focus is more on bullet trains replacing existing passenger services, rather than both coexisting at the same time. And that really pisses me off because the people who think like this dont understand why high speed rail has worked in Europe and Japan. Those countries had existing slower, higher speed trains by the time construction on their lines began, trains that could help prop up the bullet trains, and serve communities not served by the bullet trains along their route. America doesn't really have that. The amount of passenger routes America has is a fraction of what we used to have during the golden era of rail travel, and the only way high speed rail would work here was if our system was as big as it was during the 40s. So if you did introduce high speed rail with our current passenger levels, the only advantage that train would have is that it would be faster. And if you went as far as to replace the existing slower passenger trains with the high speed ones, that would be way worse. Someone who wanted to go from Chicago to Galesburg wouldnt be able to travel by train because the high speed train from Chicago to Omaha doesnt stop there. "Why not just add a stop there?", then its not really high speed rail is it? The point of high speed rail is to link large destinations as quickly as possible, not to serve every single town along its route, and thats one of my major gripes with California High Speed Rail. Why is it stopping at every single town along its route when you could just use the San Joaquin to serve those local areas!

But at least CHSR can justify itself by the fact that its route through the mountians is quicker than the existing rail lines, which is another reason why High Speed Rail has been built in places like Japan, where its mountainous terrain prevents higher speeds from being achievable. And while we have similar topographic challenges, there are vast stretches of traditional railway lines that are incredibly straight and could be upgraded for faster speeds. "But those are owned by freight companies! They wont allow anything faster than 79mph", so your solution to that is to build a whole a new railroad costing billions of dollars and requiring partison effort from both political parties. Which is easier said than done because republicans have shown themselves to be anti passenger rail and especially high speed rail whenever the opportunity would show itself. Like look at Texas! They've been trying to build a high speed rail line for 30 years, and have always run into problems due to the politics over there! Even though I would like to see Texas Central Railway happen, I dont know if it will. And I would like to stress that I am not against high speed rail as a concept. And Im not against the ongoing HSR projects happening in this country at the moment. Im just annoyed at how high speed rail as a replacement for conventional rail, when the reality is that both need to exist in order for one to prop up the other. America is at a much lower level rail wise when compared to Europe and Asia, and we cant just skip the other levels just to have high speed rail.

And just because a train is not going 200mph, doesn't mean it sucks. Like look at the Borealis! It is not even close to reaching high speeds but it doesn't need to be that in order to be successful. It just needs to exist for people for to use it, and this goes for Amtrak's other services like the Capital Corridor, Northeast Regional, Pacific Surfliner and others! Can they upgrade the speeds in the future? Of course they can, but the train needs to exist before we start thinking about building high speed trains. Only when the traffic levels demand it can we start thinking about building new high speed railroads, but for now, its important for us to pace ourselves instead of trying to sprint to the finish.