This is the part that really frustrates me. Not that I've researched, but it seems like trains should have basically unlimited space for passengers, at very little increase in cost -- a five-mile-long train takes maybe 1-2 more people to operate than a 1-mile train? So why doesn't the U.S. lean into the sleeper concept? If we could increase speeds to 90mph and have affordable sleeper cars, trips of up to 1,000 miles would be conveniently achievable -- that's Chicago to Dallas, Los Angeles to Denver, or Miami to Washington, D.C.
"a five-mile-long train takes maybe 1-2 more people to operate than a 1-mile train"
Likely a bit more. Also there is maintainance, the extra weight, the extra cost of buying more waggons .. but still I agree, thay this should be the direction.
Still, a 5 mile train will have problems at most train station ..
Yeah, I would rather go with smaller, but automated trains. But in germany for example this would mean, basically changing everything installed electronically there already is.
The problem with trains in Germany is not high tech automation it is the aggressive cost-cutting that removed a lot of redundancy and stability, so now it is a worse service in quality and reliability
Well, it is one of the problem. Recently new tech was installed - but not at all with the idea of automatisation in mind. Apart from that I know, I often had the fun adventure of not knowing will I catch the last connection, or not.
Sure, I'm dramatically oversimplifying, but I think my point still stands: putting it another way, trains have an ability to accommodate travelers in a way that nothing else -- planes, cars, buses, etc. -- can even approach. It wouldn't be as easy as I'm making it out to be, but it also doesn't seem (in the larger picture) to be particularly challenging either.
And you're right, you'd probably have to designate a section of the train as the "getting on and off" bit, and make it easy for people to move from car to car.
I did <any research at all> and found the following in case anyone is interested:
1. It appears Amtrak sleeper cars accommodate between 30 and 50 people.
2. An Amtrak coach car seats up to 80 people (fewer than I expected).
3. So to switch everything to sleeper cars would require trains to be 2-3 times as long.
4. A typical Amtrak train is 11-12 cars long, and each car is about 85 feet long.
5. So Amtrak trains are currently about 1,000 feet long, which means they could be 2-3x as long and still be *well* under a mile long.
This seems easily doable. As others have pointed out, super-long trains have a number of issues, but trains could accommodate almost 2x the passengers, and be all-sleeper, and still be only a mile long. Then you run multiple trains to handle the larger demand!
Do you not expect attendants on these trains? And since your train only travels at 90mph you will need a larger number of dining cars and their associated cooks and waiters/waitresses.
The whole point is to offer sleeper accommodations. That requires more people to clean up/prepare the train for the next trip, but not (many) more for the actual operation while running. Although the goal is to get more people to take the train by making it more attractive as an option, the direct comparison is for the same number of passengers: take advantage of the flexible length of trains to provide a more compelling travel option, but with the same number of people. So no greater number of dining cars etc. -- unless you're pointing out that not everyone gets dinner on a regular trip, in which case sure, I guess.
