High Speed Rail In America

[Noooo245 0]

I think they need to have one from Philidelphia to Ney york and the lehigh valley

[bwong 36]

Personally, I believe that developing a nation-wide, and perhaps even developing into Canada, would be impractical. Perhaps, some HSR in some places of the US, but not the entire country. The issue with having so much HSR is that the initial costs are extremely high. Neither the United States, or Canada have enough money to do that, without ignoring other things that the country requires. Another possible issue is that there aren't enough riders; high supply, but no demand. Why there isn't enough demand, is still up to debate, whether it is flying is more efficient, cost per tickets are high, the reasons are endless. When we look at how the Air Traffic, compares to Train Traffic per day (estimates and for inter-regional transit), there are about 41,000 people who fly around the US daily, compared to the 10,000 people who travel by train. There is such a big difference between these two numbers mainly because travel by long distance is impractical, and really, not a lot of people will be willing to change a couple trains to get from Point A to Point B. There are indeed some places with a demand for HSR, including the Washington-Boston corridor (yes, already in place, but could be improved), and also the Chicago-Washington corridor.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: bwong

Personally, I believe that developing a nation-wide, and perhaps even developing into Canada, would be impractical. Perhaps, some HSR in some places of the US, but not the entire country. The issue with having so much HSR is that the initial costs are extremely high. Neither the United States, or Canada have enough money to do that, without ignoring other things that the country requiresquote>

You're missing the biggest reason why nationwide HSR is impractical: distance. Even if you could average 200 mph over the whole trip (which you won't, what with stops, mountains, urban areas, etc.), it would still take 15 hours to get from New York to Los Angeles. More practical to just fly.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: bwong

Personally, I believe that developing a nation-wide, and perhaps even developing into Canada, would be impractical. Perhaps, some HSR in some places of the US, but not the entire country. The issue with having so much HSR is that the initial costs are extremely high. Neither the United States, or Canada have enough money to do that, without ignoring other things that the country requiresquote>

You're missing the biggest reason why nationwide HSR is impractical: distance. Even if you could average 200 mph over the whole trip (which you won't, what with stops, mountains, urban areas, etc.), it would still take 15 hours to get from New York to Los Angeles. More practical to just fly.

quote>

thats why these regional ones would work better. LA - Sanfran, Dallas- Houston, DC-Baltimore-Boston.

they could probabaly keep ticket prices reasonable or competative with airfares and pick up non bussiness trafic from the airlines. especialy if they didnt charge for baggage.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

I have decided to take the train for all travel to the edge of the state and beyond. I might change my mind but a luxury train car might be more fun than flying coach. I already take the train to the Columbia River.

[bwong 36]

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: bwong

Personally, I believe that developing a nation-wide, and perhaps even developing into Canada, would be impractical. Perhaps, some HSR in some places of the US, but not the entire country. The issue with having so much HSR is that the initial costs are extremely high. Neither the United States, or Canada have enough money to do that, without ignoring other things that the country requiresquote>

You're missing the biggest reason why nationwide HSR is impractical: distance. Even if you could average 200 mph over the whole trip (which you won't, what with stops, mountains, urban areas, etc.), it would still take 15 hours to get from New York to Los Angeles. More practical to just fly.

quote>

thats why these regional ones would work better. LA - Sanfran, Dallas- Houston, DC-Baltimore-Boston.

they could probabaly keep ticket prices reasonable or competative with airfares and pick up non bussiness trafic from the airlines. especialy if they didnt charge for baggage.

quote>

I would have to agree with both of you, and I should have been more clear when stating our the distance variable.  

@Duke87: But, I would need to disagree with your 15 hours, because it is only about 10 hours, but really what difference does that make.  

@Easy Bakes: Yes, creating a lot of regional HSR lines would indeed help out the train industry, and eventually these lines would most likely connect with each other, and perhaps, accidentally, there would be a nation wide HSR network.  

And lastly, I was wondering, where was the US transcontinental railway built to, and from?

[sneakeypete 16]

Originally posted by: hym

Which might be viable till someone tries to blow up the train, at which point the delays at the airport will find their way to the HSR system.quote>

People have blown up trains in france before, but i don't see any crippling security screening. Not to mention that a High speed train is no different to any commuter/subway train.  The difference between planes and trains comes, however, with the fact that one has a much higher potential energy than the other. Plane is damaged? it falls out of the sky. Train is damaged? it rolls to a stop.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

But you have to be careful with cars on elevated tracks. Monorails can have disastrous results from stopping or catching fire, as seen by what has happened to Seattle's tourist monorail from the theme park (Seattle Center) to the mall/transportation hub (Westlake Center).

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: bwong

Originally posted by: Easy Bakes

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: bwong

Personally, I believe that developing a nation-wide, and perhaps even developing into Canada, would be impractical. Perhaps, some HSR in some places of the US, but not the entire country. The issue with having so much HSR is that the initial costs are extremely high. Neither the United States, or Canada have enough money to do that, without ignoring other things that the country requiresquote>

You're missing the biggest reason why nationwide HSR is impractical: distance. Even if you could average 200 mph over the whole trip (which you won't, what with stops, mountains, urban areas, etc.), it would still take 15 hours to get from New York to Los Angeles. More practical to just fly.

quote>

thats why these regional ones would work better. LA - Sanfran, Dallas- Houston, DC-Baltimore-Boston.

they could probabaly keep ticket prices reasonable or competative with airfares and pick up non bussiness trafic from the airlines. especialy if they didnt charge for baggage.

quote>

I would have to agree with both of you, and I should have been more clear when stating our the distance variable.  

@Duke87: But, I would need to disagree with your 15 hours, because it is only about 10 hours, but really what difference does that make.  

@Easy Bakes: Yes, creating a lot of regional HSR lines would indeed help out the train industry, and eventually these lines would most likely connect with each other, and perhaps, accidentally, there would be a nation wide HSR network.  

And lastly, I was wondering, where was the US transcontinental railway built to, and from?quote>

I assume you mean the 1st one. it was from Omaha, Nebraska to Sacramento CA.

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

but that was built with what amounted to slave labor.

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Originally posted by: hym

Which might be viable till someone tries to blow up the train, at which point the delays at the airport will find their way to the HSR system.quote>

People have blown up trains in france before, but i don't see any crippling security screening.quote>

That's because the incident was "over there" and not "at home."  People blew up planes before 9/11 and US security measures didn't change much, but as soon as it happened in the US, people freaked out.  The same principle is at work with train security.  Major rail terrorism incidents have all happened somewhere outside the US, so the US didn't really change it's security measures as a response.  That will all change the day the US experiences such a disaster.

Train is damaged? it rolls to a stop.quote>

Not necessarily.  Depending on what the extent of the damage is, the train has a high probability to jump the tracks.  About 5 years ago, a freight train derailed along I-55 near Imperial, Missouri.  The reason for the derailing was a brake failure shifting the weight distribution of the train.  Even at the slow speed of 10 mph, this was a sufficient shock to the train to derail over half the train, leaving the entire mess sprawled out over half a mile.  Had the train been going about 20 mph when the accident happened, it probably would have had enough force to careen down the hill and roll onto the interstate.

As trains go faster, their tolerance for disruptions decreases and very minor problems are more than enough to derail the entire train.  HSR systems are extremely likely to derail if an incident ever occurs.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

As such, there is virtually 0% chance of there ever being an Ecotopian style high speed rail. Most of the reasons have been stated here so it is easy to see why. I feel no need for a HSR corridor on the west coast, though it might work for the San Francisco-LA region.

[krbe 193]

Originally posted by: hym

Originally posted by: sneakeypete

Train is damaged? it rolls to a stop.quote>

Not necessarily.  Depending on what the extent of the damage is, the train has a high probability to jump the tracks.  About 5 years ago, a freight train derailed along I-55 near Imperial, Missouri.  The reason for the derailing was a brake failure shifting the weight distribution of the train.  Even at the slow speed of 10 mph, this was a sufficient shock to the train to derail over half the train, leaving the entire mess sprawled out over half a mile.  Had the train been going about 20 mph when the accident happened, it probably would have had enough force to careen down the hill and roll onto the interstate.

As trains go faster, their tolerance for disruptions decreases and very minor problems are more than enough to derail the entire train.  HSR systems are extremely likely to derail if an incident ever occurs.

quote>

A passenger train can in no way be compared to a freight train. Passenger trains are light, and rather than to derail neatly, their high speed tend to slam the carriages into each other in a very small area.

Still, death tolls tend to be low in railway accidents, even in the most horrible ones. In the Eschede accident an ICE-1 train (two locomotives and 12 cars) collapsed due to wheel fatigue, and slammed into a bridge (which subsequently collapsed on top of the train). Out of nearly 300 passengers and crew, one third died and one third suffered severe injuries.

In Amgasaki, Japan a commuter train with 700 passengers travelled in 100 kmh through a 70 bend, hitting a building. 100 died as a cause (about 5-600 suffering injuries) – however, sharp curves are contrary to the HSR principles.

These are two of the largest train accidents in developed countries; most train accidents leave few people dead. That said, LGV lines don't have a lot of accidents either. Build them, test them, and keep the Japanese far, far away from your schedule, and they'll be pretty safe.

[bwong 36]

I would, again, have to agree with krbe about how much more serious the accidents with passenger trains are compared to freight trains. But, the damage for passenger trains are amplified, because passenger trains are both FASTER, and lighter. But, really, accidents are really rare, and usually lead to some change within the network that would allow for even safer use and development. Remember, no pain, no gain.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: bwong

I would need to disagree with your 15 hours, because it is only about 10 hours, but really what difference does that make.quote>

I'm going based on 3000 miles / 200 mph = 15 hours. Where are you getting 10 from?

Although... hmm, according to Google maps, it's more like 2800 miles. Okay, 14 hours then.

[bwong 36]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: bwong

I would need to disagree with your 15 hours, because it is only about 10 hours, but really what difference does that make.quote>

I'm going based on 3000 miles / 200 mph = 15 hours. Where are you getting 10 from?

Although... hmm, according to Google maps, it's more like 2800 miles. Okay, 14 hours then.

quote>

hmm... Actually, thinking back now, I have no idea.  But, I think I just forgot for the moment right now.... there was a reason

EDIT: I was thinking about the train travelling at 300mph+.  And another factor was because I was thinking in kilometers.  I didn't convert the numbers from miles to km.

[hamsterTK 93]

nobody is building a HSR from NY to LA. ever. The Chinese might do the equivalent someday with a train reaching Lanzhou and then on to Urumqi, but they are pretty much crazy.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

The basic problem with HSR is that it would take something like the 1930s New Deal to build it.  Existing road beds mostly can't handle it.  Among other things, it needs longer rail sections, and vastly improved ballast.  With labor priced out of the market, it won't be done by North American workers, and the unions wouldn't stand for importing cheap labor. 

Also, there are long, long distances of nothing where the tracks have to be electrified.  The maintenance problem would be as bad as the one for the electricity grid.  The weather won't cooperate, either.

[ILL Tonkso 1,239]

The Chinese are planning Beijing to London.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

According to one broadcast on the National Geographic Channel, the Americans and Russians are building a rail tunnel under the Bering sea.  At the Russian end they are building a railroad across the tundra.  If all goes well, you will be able to catch the boat train in London and travel to Alaska via the Trans-Siberian Railroad.  Makes the Chunnel look like chump change.

The Russians are working very hard to avoid thawing the permafrost.  Not only would this sink the railroad, it would release a very large amount of methane.

Oh, yes, and the Bering Sea is in the ring of fire and is quite seismically active.  Whee!

[Duke87 1,070]

Somehow I don't see a Bering Strait bridge or tunnel, rail or road, ever getting built. It's over 30 miles across the water at the narrowest point, and that's from nowhere to nowhere. The closest speck of civilization in Alaska is Brevig Mission, 40-50 miles away, population: 278. Nome, over 100 miles away, is home to a whopping 3,505 people. On the Siberian side it isn't any better: Provideniya (population: 2,723) is over 150 miles away.

It certainly looks tempting on a map to stick a crossing there, but when you compare the cost with how much use it would get, it just doesn't make sense.

And while it's all well and good to say that in theory you could take a train from London to Los Angeles, it would be so much more practical to just get on an airplane. Consider, also, that this trip involves going more than halfway around the world. A plane making the trip would fly in the other direction.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Finally, some reason (logic)!

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I thought it was silly myself, but with fossil fuels running out, you'll be crossing the Atlantic by nuclear powered liner or under sail (or both).  Not too long ago, there was a serial in Analog magazine called 'A Transatlantic Tunnel. Hurrah!' which was really about the navvies building it.

And nobody has to assume the liner would be surface ship.  We have to do something with all those decommissioned boomers.

[Finkle 14]

Sounds Great, I thought we are sinking all the bombers to make reefs ;}

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

I thought it was silly myself, but with fossil fuels running out, you'll be crossing the Atlantic by nuclear powered liner or under sail (or both).quote>

Or, far more likely, simply by an airplane running on fuel that's based on something other than petroleum. Diesel made from algae is already well on its way to becoming commercially viable; it's not unfathomable that we'll be able to produce something that can be used as jet fuel by similar means.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: A Nonny Moose

I thought it was silly myself, but with fossil fuels running out, you'll be crossing the Atlantic by nuclear powered liner or under sail (or both).quote>

Or, far more likely, simply by an airplane running on fuel that's based on something other than petroleum. Diesel made from algae is already well on its way to becoming commercially viable; it's not unfathomable that we'll be able to produce something that can be used as jet fuel by similar means.

quote>

Well, maybe, but jet fuel is a very low fraction of petroleum.  Don't be surprised if you are riding in the equivalent of a B-47, props and all, or a dirigible air ship.  Air screws are not much affected by volcanic dust, too.

I am more inclined to consider a passenger carrying submarine.  Great depths are not needed, but get below the weather.

[Duke87 1,070]

Considering that a good submarine has a top speed about a tenth that of an airplane... I seriously doubt it.

[Easy Bakes 253]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Considering that a good submarine has a top speed about a tenth that of an airplane... I seriously doubt it.quote>

And people who are claustrophobic  would never get on. But i guess that would be about the same number of people who are afraid to fly.

[Ocram's Razr 964]

Jet fuel could be made from pollution+water.

Carbon scrubbers would collect CO and CO2 and High Temperature Nuclear Power plants can split water into Hydrogen and Oxygen using the sodium/iodine method.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Considering that a good submarine has a top speed about a tenth that of an airplane... I seriously doubt it.quote>

The alternative is an airship or a surface vessel.  The pace of life needs to slow down.  All this rushing about is bad for us as it is a cause of stress.  What is so urgent that you need to get from Paris to New York today?  Why not just relax and enjoy the trip. 

We need more leisure time, and you can do things on the Internet while you are in transit anyway.  And, unless you are planning a sexual encounter, personal presence these days is not really necessary because of the communications net.

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 8, 2012 by Barbarossa