TRAINS THAT FLY : THE FRENCH DO IT, THE JAPANESE DO IT, THE SWEDES TO IT -- IS IT FINALLY TIME FOR AMERICANS TO TRY HIGH-SPEED?

SOMEWHERE NORTH OF TRENTON, N.J., AS THE TRACT housing, industrial parks and forested hillsides fly by at 125 miles an hour, the sensation begins to crystallize--a passenger railroad car has been transformed into a first-class airliner.

This is no clunky diesel with its clickety-clackety roadbed noises, shuddering stops and starts, overbooked with passengers forced to sit in the aisles, heat that doesn’t work, and a snack car that is always closed. This is a vision of an elegant railroading past, and a shimmering harbinger of a comfortable, high-tech future.

We are here, in a tunnel of speed, enjoying the X2000, a Swedish-built high-speed train that Amtrak is testing on the Washington-New York run. This sleek vehicle, capable of speeds up to 155 m.p.h., may mark the beginning of a new era of inter-city travel in the United States.

The X2000 runs on electrical power and can slow down or speed up with unerring smoothness. Car bodies have axles that move independently of each other, allowing the train to lean comfortably into curves and increasing average speed throughout the run. This improved design makes it possible to write a legible note as the train is moving and rest a cup of coffee on a table without spilling its contents.

Inside, the cars are quiet as a monastery. Seats are oversized and adjustable with fold-down pearwood tables. But the quiet is misleading--armrests feature jacks that plug into three stereo music channels. Wall outlets are available for cellular phones or laptop computers. Onboard phones and fax machines are kept busy, as are the small conference rooms in each car--glass-enclosed, four-seat compartments with desks, lamps and curtains for privacy. Other comforts include free soft drinks and juices available at the seats, and a complete meal of chicken roulade, salad and dessert for $9.

There is an elegant, almost pampered, feel to all this, a high-tech evocation of Pullman cars that once crisscrossed the land with their uniformed attendants, rich interior appointments and gourmet meals; of days when travel was an adventure and a pleasure, not a hateful and annoying necessity. You can see it on the faces of the passengers--the lack of tension, the look of awe. You can almost hear what they’re thinking: This is the way it could be. All the time.

HIGH-SPEED RAIL: NO GRIDLOCKED HIGHWAYS, OVERSTUFFED AIRPORTS,baggage hassles and weather delays. The speedy X2000, which has been in commercial use in Sweden since early last year, has reduced travel time on the 275-mile trip between Sweden’s two largest cities, Stockholm and Goteberg, from four hours to three.

In the United States, Amtrak already runs a hugely successful high-speed train. The New York-Washington Metroliner, with a top speed of 125 m.p.h., carries nearly half the air-rail traffic between the two cities. The agency is hoping the X2000, or a similar train, will do the same for service between Boston and New York, cutting the time between the two cities from more than four hours to three.

But the X2000 is not just a weapon in a war over passengers. Its appearance on American tracks is fraught with symbolism. Nearly 30 years after the Japanese Shinkansen, or bullet trains, made their first appearance, the United States is still well behind countries such as France, Germany, Sweden and Spain when it comes to factoring inter-city passenger trains into the transportation mix.

Spurred by environmental concerns, high gasoline prices and increasing airport traffic, these countries have decided that high-speed (150 m.p.h. and up) rail links between cities up to 500 miles apart are efficient, cost effective and environmentally benign. Their trains--the Japanese bullet, French TGV, German ICE, Spanish AVE and others--have proven to be exceedingly popular and safe. They have cut travel times by substantial margins, reduced energy consumption and helped take some of the burden off overcrowded highways and airline routes.

It all sounds like such an obvious way to move people around. But high-speed rail’s detractors say Americans already have a fabulous interstate highway network and an airline system second to none. And it would take significant infrastructure costs--upgrading roadbeds and signal systems, eliminating grade crossings--to bring high-speed rail to America.

High-speed rail’s proponents claim what’s good for Lyon is good for Motown. They point to a number of inter-city routes--Los Angeles to San Francisco; Minneapolis-Milwaukee-Chicago-Detroit-Cleveland; Dallas-Houston-San Antonio--where rail seems an obvious way to take the pressure off overtaxed highways and airports. Energy savings--the bullet trains use one-fifth the energy of a jet airliner--and safety factors accrue just by having less traffic on the ground and in the sky.

The new generation of high-speed trains are also comfortable, less subject to weather delays than planes or cars, and generally run from city center to city center instead of to out-of-the-way metropolitan airports. Additionally, supporters say, the lessened wear and tear on the nation’s highway and airport infrastructure could mean enormous savings in the long run.

“There isn’t anyone who doesn’t believe that less traffic on our highways would be beneficial,” says Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), chairman of a Senate transportation subcommittee. Lautenberg, a longtime Amtrak supporter, has also been instrumental in bringing the X2000 to the United States. “When people see they can travel with this degree of comfort,” he says, “they’ll be behind this, and also appreciate the environmental impact and the reduction of wear and tear on the highways. But Congress has to be convinced.”

Congress will be hearing from a powerful new advocate. President Clinton has repeatedly stated his support for high-speed rail projects. “Passenger rail service creates jobs, conserves energy and provides an opportunity to avoid airport expansion,” he said last year. For the next fiscal year, the Clinton Administration is proposing to spend $140 million on various as-yet unspecified high-speed rail projects, as well as more than $200 million for Amtrak, the national passenger rail system.

Transportation Secretary Federico Pena says his department’s four-year budget projections include more than $1 billion for high-speed rail systems and research into magnetic levitation, a futuristic technology in which train-like vehicles will run along raised platforms. This marks a distinct about-face from the policies of the past two administrations, which refused to fund rail research and attempted to sharply reduce Amtrak’s subsidy.

The pieces of the puzzle are coming together. The potential high-speed routes are there. The technology is available. Ridership surveys in states such as Ohio and Pennsylvania suggest millions of people are interested in the concept. And there are a number of projects--in Florida, Texas and the Northeast Corridor--in various stages of development.

But these are big infrastructure deals that involve enormous capital outlays. The recession, and the need to reduce the national debt, have made it much more difficult to raise the money needed. Partly because of anti-rail pressure from powerful lobbies like the airline industry, there remains a reluctance to pass the laws and form the public-private coalitions that will bring American surface transportation up to Euro-Japanese standards. For now, the X2000 may be the closest most Americans get to high-speed heaven.

RAILROADS HAVE ALWAYS BEEN ABOUT BEING CONnected--they have linked us as individuals and as a nation. In Utah in 1869, the golden spike ceremony that opened the first transcontinental railroad was not only a symbolic affirmation of this connectedness, it was a recognition of an enormous technological achievement. In the same decade that the Civil War would drive the nation apart, railroads would bring it together.

The merger of the Central Pacific and Union Pacific meant people could now traverse enormous distances in relatively short periods of time and freight could be moved to areas previously thought unreachable. But it also signified the real opening up of the West.

That was then. Less than 100 years later, railroads were in intensive care. By the early 1970s, the powerful one-two punch of airlines and automobiles had put inter-city passenger rail service on the ropes. Most rail companies decided to concentrate on their lucrative freight businesses instead. When Amtrak, the national rail passenger corporation, was created in 1971 to save passenger service, the company did not own any equipment of any kind, and was dependent on the private railroads over which its trains ran.

But Americans were unwilling to give up their legacy. Amtrak not only survived, in some ways it has actually prospered. The New York-Washington Metroliner route now carries 2 million passengers yearly, making it the largest single carrier between those cities. Los Angeles-San Diego, Amtrak’s second most heavily traveled line, is nearing the 2-million passenger mark.

These figures are the reason Congress was able to resist attempts to cut into Amtrak’s federal subsidy. They are also the reason that state transportation directors, rail industry leaders, private sector executives and politicians are talking about high-speed inter-city systems. And why several public and private rail initiatives are in various stages of development, based on three competing technologies:

* High speed on existing track. The X2000, and several European trains like it, promise a quick high-speed fix because, after infrastructure upgrades, they can run on any number of inter-city corridors. Amtrak’s Northeast High-Speed Rail Improvement Project brought the X2000 to the Northeast Corridor, and will be testing the German ICE on the same line later this summer. Amtrak will then develop specs for an American model, and plans to place 26 trains capable of 150 m.p.h. speeds on the Washington-Boston line by 1997. Total cost for the trains and infrastructure upgrade: $1.3 billion.

* Bullet trains. Texas TGV Corp., a consortium of French and American interests, plans to build bullet train lines linking Dallas-Ft. Worth, Houston, Austin and San Antonio. The system will use the French TGV (tres grande vitesse, or “very great speed”) technology, which operates at up to 185 m.p.h.

TGV trains, like their Japanese version, run on “dedicated” track--straight lines with no grade crossings. This means Texas TGV must build its infrastructure from scratch, at a cost of more than $5 billion. TGV officials say they cannot raise this kind of money without $3 billion in tax-free bonds. This might require changes in federal law, which sets a cap on tax-free bonds, or some form of government loan guarantee, which is how the French system was built.

* Magnetic levitation. A futuristic technology in which magnetic fields lift, propel and guide train-like vehicles along raised platforms. Maglev systems can reach enormous speeds within short distances, are energy efficient and virtually silent. Maglev offers the promise of increased top-end speeds (well over 300 m.p.h.) and a reduced infrastructure outlay.

Maglev Transit Inc., a mix of American, German and Japanese firms, plans to break ground later this year on a 13.5-mile magnetic levitation line linking Orlando International Airport and the area’s main tourist complex. The train will reach speeds of 250 m.p.h. The $550-million project is expected to be ready for commercial operation by 1997.

This technology could be put in motion along five corridors designated by the Federal Railroad Administration in 1992 as potential high-speed rail routes: Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Milwaukee, Chicago-St. Louis; Miami-Orlando-Tampa; Washington-Richmond-Charlotte; Seattle-Vancouver, B.C., and multiple routes in California, including Los Angeles-San Diego. The lines became eligible to split $30 million over six years, the money to be spent on eliminating grade crossings and developing plans to increase speeds on already existing roadbeds.

Thirty-million dollars isn’t exactly a major federal commitment, but it’s the first time the government has funded high-speed projects outside the Northeast Corridor. The President’s recent budget proposal has rail advocates hoping that more funding is on the way.

“For the first time in my memory,” says Neil Peterson, former executive director of the L.A. County Transportation Commission, “we have a President who actually mentioned the transportation infrastructure during his campaign.”

CALIFORNIA HAS LONG BEEN A FAVORITE OF HIGH-SPEED DREAMERS. IT features enormous amounts of highway and air traffic between cities relatively short distances apart, and already has two of Amtrak’s four most highly traveled lines: Los Angeles to San Diego and Oakland to Bakersfield. But no passenger train here runs at more than 90 m.p.h. and lines like L.A.-San Diego have numerous grade crossings that are an impediment to high speed travel.

The state also boasts two of the more prominent no-show projects in high-speed history. In the early ‘80s, the American High Speed Rail Corp. proposed linking L.A. and San Diego by bullet train. But the company’s ridership estimates--11 million passengers--were ludicrously high, and it lost the support of some allies when it petitioned Sacramento for a release from all environmental requirements. A proposed maglev link between Anaheim and Las Vegas hasn’t fared much better. Last year, giant Bechtel Corp. gave up its franchise to build the multibillion-dollar project, and the governmental entity created to oversee the line has been plagued by political problems.

Southern Californians are currently quite infatuated with commuter trains. Los Angeles’ new Red Line is carrying nearly 25% more passengers than initially projected. Add to that ridership on the Blue Line and Metrolink, and nearly 50,000 people are using commuter rail daily. In March, Gov. Pete Wilson established a task force to oversee development of high-speed passenger rail service, with a mandate to prepare a development plan by the end of the year and a detailed financial and construction plan for one high-speed line by June 30, 1995.

Californians have also expressed their interest in rail at the ballot box. In 1990, voters approved propositions 108 and 116, providing nearly $3 billion for transportation funding. Of the amount set aside for rail, most was targeted for commuter and urban rail systems. Buried in among this massive cash outlay was $5 million for a study of a proposed high-speed link over the Tehachapi Mountains between Bakersfield and Los Angeles, a route that may prove to be a technological pipe dream because of geographic reasons.

But there is still the question of whether high-speed ridership actually exists. “We have to show that trains can work,” says Cindy McKim, Caltrans deputy director for rail and transit, “and that we can offer the kind of service that will make people stop and think before they get into their cars. But we do need to do some additional work to establish the market before putting some public funds into the system.”

Neil Peterson, now a consultant with the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, formed when the County Transportation Commission merged with the Southern California Rapid Transit District this year, believes that an attempt to upgrade the line between the Bay Area and Southern California “ought to be a state priority.” The MTA is studying how to upgrade the L.A.-San Diego line for higher speed (but not high-speed) trains, and is considering bids for a 70-m.p.h. link between LAX and a proposed international airport in Palmdale.

The MTA also has an option to purchase Southern Pacific’s Coast Line, running from Los Angeles to San Jose. Southern Pacific vice chairman Bob Startzel estimates it would cost “well under” $1 billion to upgrade the line to an average speed of 85 m.p.h., which could reduce the 11-hour travel time to San Jose to just under six hours. The MTA is meeting with other state and county entities to try to get the line appraised, and see if funding, and support, is there.

Franklin White, the MTA chief executive officer, sees high-speed rail as an economic boost for the state and a major political priority. “There has been a complete transformation in attitude (regarding rail) in Southern California in the past 10 years,” he says. “And the best example of that is the willingness of the voters to put up money for commuter rail.”

The development of the rail network also provides tremendous economic opportunities, such as for the aerospace industry to adapt its technology to the rail industry, he adds.

OSEPH VRANICH, TALL AND GRAY-SUITED, IS ONE OF THE ANONYMOUS army of lobbyists who swarm around Washington. But during this trip on the X2000, he’s positively giddy, running up and down the train aisles, testing just about every piece of high-tech equipment on board. He’s already sent a fax to a friend--”Kevin, come here, I need you,” an allusion to the first telephone conversation. He chuckles with glee while watching the digital display at the front of each car, which informs passengers of the next stop and how fast the train is going.

Vranich is seeing a dream come true. He is president of the High Speed Rail/Maglev Assn. and author of “Supertrains,” a work of advocacy journalism that has gone through multiple printings. For years he has been like Johnny Appleseed, sowing the message of high-speed rail among an indifferent population.

“In the mid-’70s, people actually scoffed at me,” he says. “But now, things are different. There’s more interest in inter-modality, where you tie systems together.”

There are still problems, not the least of which are the railroads themselves. As the owners of almost all track in the nation, freight lines are wary of passenger traffic. “What we have with rail is a privately owned infrastructure controlled by people who are in the business of wholesale movement of freight,” Vranich says. “They know nothing about, and care nothing for, the retail movement of people.” Like any good advocate, Vranich may be overstating the case somewhat. In California, both Southern Pacific and the Santa Fe, which own the vast majority of potential high-speed track, have stated their interest in cooperating with Amtrak and other agencies to improve their lines.

The larger impediments, obviously, are other transportation groups and funding problems. The Air Transport Assn., for example, which speaks for the airline industry, feels threatened by the inroads high-speed rail could make into short-haul routes. “We don’t think there’s any need for additional high-speed rail,” says the group’s spokesman, Ed Merlis.

Taking a more moderate view are the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and the American Automobile Assn. Both believe there is some need for high-speed technology, but question how it will be funded. The auto group opposed a recent attempt to raise more money for Amtrak by raising the gas tax a penny. Both organizations also oppose financing rail through the Highway Trust Fund. “If there is a market for high-speed rail,” says AAA spokesman Richard F. Hebert, “then the users of that service should pay for it.”

In this highly competitive arena, high-speed rail advocates are looking to Congress and local governments for some form of help. Here, too, the messages are mixed. A 1992 attempt to put tax-exempt high-speed bonds under the same status as large infrastructure projects like airports and highways was passed by the Senate but failed in the House. Rail proponents say that unless this financial cap is lifted, they cannot raise the billions of dollars needed for their projects.

On the state level, any number of routes could be upgraded for X2000-type trains within two to five years. But while states like Ohio and Pennsylvania have done studies that point to a large ridership for high-speed service, they lack the funding to institute it. Two hours and forty minutes after it left New York, the X2000 pulls into Washington’s Union Station. These pioneers are chipper. They have experienced the future, and can report back that it works.

“People appreciate this hassle-free traveling,” says Wade Parks, a ruddy-faced New Yorker traveling with his wife, Elizabeth. “You’re treated like a human.”

Vranich overhears comments like these, and it is as if he has just attended his own testimonial dinner. The trains work. The passengers like them.

As Vranich strides through Union Station, one can imagine a vision passing through his mind; it is a dream he has seen many times before, of a futuristic map published by the High Speed Rail Assn. of potential rail corridors. A thick black line links several Colorado cities. In California, multiple lines crisscross the state, from Sacramento to Tijuana. The East and Midwest are thick with possible routes. There are lines connecting New Orleans to Houston and Dallas, more in Florida.

Most of these routes are barely in the planning stage. They may never become a reality. But today, in the post-X2000 glow, anything seems possible. For Joseph Vranich and his co-passengers, the future of American rail seems to be coming at them in a blur of high speed.