U.S. High Speed Rail

[Snugies 91]

I believe Exxon Mobil is a net importer of oil to the U.S. they then refine it and sell it. They conduct speculative trading on it with help from the commercial banks like J.P. Morgan in order to drive the price up. I think the goal is to make America addicted to oil such that you can drive the price up whenever you want. I don't care if today you say Exxon is exporting oil. My argument is to finish price shocks like the 70's and the bush era by just not using oil anymore. I also know America is the world's largest oil consumer meaning all of Exxons profits come from the American consumer. So Exxon brings no money into the U.S. economy all of Exxon's profits are a redistribution of wealth from the American middle class to Exxon's wealthy shareholders. Plus how about all the pollution caused by car exhaust?

 

Instead of cutting back on pollution from other sources like coal and industries that export products therefor bringing money into the U.S. why don't we cut back on CO2 emissions?

 

 

In general I think it is a hard sell to try to say the U.S. oil industry is a net exporter. I think the oil industry is worried right now I mean the bush era exposed how corrupt the U.S. oil industry is. You also have the electric car now thanks of course to the Japanese. LNG is also becoming more common. In Canada our Freight trains are getting natural gas engines. Also all the buses in South Korea run off natural gas. So ya I think the oil industry is worried.   

[hym 358]

One of the problems here is that HSR doesn't really help with any of this stuff.  Let's go through it in smaller chunks...

 

I believe Exxon Mobil is a net importer of oil to the U.S. they then refine it and sell it.

 

Exxon sources oil from all over the world, both domestically and internationally.  They sell it both domestically and internationally too.  Realistically, Exxon does what everyone else does: get the raw goods for the lowest possible price and sell it for the maximum profit.  Money flows into America, money flows out of America, and it flows around inside America.  The addition of a few HSR lines, no matter how popular, isn't going to help with this.

 

 

 

They conduct speculative trading on it with help from the commercial banks like J.P. Morgan in order to drive the price up. I think the goal is to make America addicted to oil such that you can drive the price up whenever you want.

 

This also won't stop because of a few HSR lines, nor will a few lines do much to reduce America's dependence on oil.  (If those HSR systems require any form of electricity to operate, it will very likely be provided by natural gas.)

 

 

 

My argument is to finish price shocks like the 70's and the bush era by just not using oil anymore.

 

Unless the average lifespan increases significantly past 100 in the next several years, we will likely not live to see this happen.  Major energy sources take an incredibly long time to develop and to stop using (decades to centuries).  Furthermore, considering it is relatively impossible for nations to insulate themselves from the effect of price increases in the oil market, it is much more likely that the costs to protect ourselves from future price shocks aren't worth the benefits we would reap from them.

 

 

 

I also know America is the world's largest oil consumer meaning all of Exxons profits come from the American consumer. So Exxon brings no money into the U.S. economy all of Exxon's profits are a redistribution of wealth from the American middle class to Exxon's wealthy shareholders.

 

At the moment, America may still be the top oil consumer, but those days are coming to an end.  As of April 2013, OECD demand for oil has been surpassed by non-OECD countries.  Demand for oil in the US and Europe is continuing to fall while demand in China and India is continuing to grow.  (China's demand for oil is expected to surpass the US around 2020.)

 

Exxon does bring money into the US economy.  The company does business in Canada, for one.  The company is also investing tens of billions of dollars into Southeast Asia, and Exxon is reaping billions in sales as a result of those investments.  So yeah, Exxon imports oil into the US, but it also does bring money into the country too.  As I said earlier, money flows in, it flows out, it flows around in circles, and more.

 

This doesn't even begin to address the issue of contracts that Exxon gets to help other countries develop their oil resources because the state oil company in charge lacks the technical knowledge to develop the reserve.

 

 

 

In general I think it is a hard sell to try to say the U.S. oil industry is a net exporter.

 

I'm not saying that it is.  I'm saying that it will become one in the near future.

 

 

 

I think the oil industry is worried right now... You also have the electric car now thanks of course to the Japanese. LNG is also becoming more common. In Canada our Freight trains are getting natural gas engines. Also all the buses in South Korea run off natural gas. So ya I think the oil industry is worried.

 

None of these issues worry the oil & gas industry, especially the industry giants like Exxon.  Exxon deals in both oil and natural gas (hence the "oil & gas" designation).  If you use oil, Exxon will sell you oil.  If you switch to natural gas, Exxon will happily sell you natural gas instead.  Exxon doesn't really care which one you use as Exxon makes money on you either way.

 

HSR doesn't really impact the oil & gas industry.  For HSR to make a meaningful dent in American oil consumption, there will have to be a reasonably extensive network of HSR lines (or those few lines will have to be really successful).  Furthermore, even if it does make a meaningful dent in oil consumption, so what?  The oil & gas industry considers the American gasoline market to be dead anyway, and is working to reduce gasoline production or leave the market entirely.  All an HSR-induced reduction in gasoline demand would serve to do is confirm their forecast that the American gasoline market sucks and it was time to leave anyway.

 

This leads back to the question of political involvement.  The oil & gas industry is much more concerned, and politically active, on issues that affect it much more directly.  The delusions of grandeur of some politicians, presidents, and presidential wannabes are not a serious concern.

[Wiimeiser 452]

 

European and Japanese rail operators believe the best way to survive a train accident is to simply not have one in the first place. Their design philosophy is to rely on modern signaling and proper maintenance to prevent collisions and derailments.

Also, a law in the US states that if two trains meet on a track, neither shall move until the other has passed. There's still one such case from the 1810s where the trains are waiting for each other to this very day.

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

 

 

European and Japanese rail operators believe the best way to survive a train accident is to simply not have one in the first place. Their design philosophy is to rely on modern signaling and proper maintenance to prevent collisions and derailments.

Also, a law in the US states that if two trains meet on a track, neither shall move until the other has passed. There's still one such case from the 1810s where the trains are waiting for each other to this very day.

 

<citation needed>

Do you have a source?

[timmie 988]

Pics or it didn't happen!

[LexusInfernus 908]

Indeed, do not buy trains from the Italians. They have no idea how to make a train, plus there is a good chance one of the trains you ordered gets gifted to some dictator whose close friends with the Italian Prime Minister (actually happened, a highspeed train the Danish ordered ended up being gifted to Gadaffi, courtesy of the Danish tax payer). 

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

I believe it was 1869 when the U.S. was connected by the transcontinental railway. Profitable or not can't the government pay for it? The U.S. did the panama canal, hoover dam. I really think they have resources for high speed rail.

Surely you don't believe that the government produces money by magic?  They'd have to increase taxes.  Government pay = Citizens pay.

[AcmeSigns 97]

I have a friend who works for the railroad (Southern Pacific to be exact) doing rail maintenance. When the voters here passed the high speed rail initiative/bond measure (I, for one, voted against it) I asked him about it. High speed trains can't use the existing rail lines for many of the reason Duke87 pointed out in post #26, but even more importantly, the existing easements don't allow enough room for a parallel line. In some places, the easement isn't even big enough for my friend to park his work vehicle.

 

So, where exactly, are these new HSR lines to be placed? Oh, I know...we'll just use 'Emanate Domain' and take land away from the property owners because it's all for the 'common good'.

[timmie 988]

I am rather confident there is enough place for HSR in the USA. We Belgians have managed to build 4 high speed lines, and this happened in a country with the worst urban planning in the world. And still we did it without too many problems. Outside the cities, HSR can be built close to highways, in cities it can run on existing/upgraded tracks. HSR does take up some land, but really, I don't see the fuss, it's not really that much land. And it really is for the common good: millions of travellers, the economy in which we all live. I don't know how eminent domain works in the States, but in Belgium those procedures take a lot of time, and people are compensated in a fair way.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

'Emanate Domain'?  Surely you mean 'Eminent Domain'?  This is not the acme of brilliance, but it requires a certain amount of due process.  I think it would be very hard to expropriate a new HSR right of way where the industrial complex was involved and were resisting it.  Don't forget that General Bullmoose is really the government of the US.

[AkemiAzula 280]

I think in a country like Australia with dense population centres with long distances between HSR makes sense. While aviation can provide quicker and cheaper travel there are still many reasons a lot of people would choose HSR, such as greater luggage allowance, comfort, etc etc. And some people might genuinely have a preference for it, for, say, environmental reasons.

 

I think HSR would work out as being more eco-friendly/cost effective than plane travel? Unless we are speaking solar powered microplanes

 

In England we are, indeed, quite densely packed with many scattered centres. And yes we do have fairly fast trains. (It took me six hours to get to Bristol I think from Sussex, but I had to change trains twice).

 

America I think has some possibility for HSR, but one never knows how its future shape will look. Will population centres shift?

[timmie 988]

When it comes to CO2-emissions, HSR comes at 2/3 of the emissions of a plane, I think (but that might be untrue, I don't remember where I got that, but I did buy it). HSR trains use a lot of power, I guess.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

Nuclear powered HSR would emit zero green house gas and have no dangerous "third rail" system.  Self-contained like a nuclear submarine, far more comfortable than a flying garbage can, and therefore the thing of the future.  The number of jobs that could be created in the building and operating of such a venture might save some transportation companies from bankruptcy.  Think about it.

 

What would happen if, say, American Airlines were to embrace HSR?

[FreewayofFlight 41]

Maybe a HSR train similar to the French TGV? I think a high-speed rail line would best serve the east coast through the Great Lakes, From Florida through Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, up to Washington (and/or Philadelphia) to connect with the NE Corridor. The Great Lakes route could go through Pittsburgh, Columbus or Cincinnati, Indianapolis, Chicago, and Minneapolis-St. Paul.

[timmie 988]

Florida-Washington would be too long for a HSR line. Brussels-Berlin is 700 km and takes 6:30 (you need to change trains in Köln). Florida-Washington DC is double that distance? HSR is uncompetitive at such distances. It typically is a means of transport for distances up to 800 km.

[FreewayofFlight 41]

I'm thinking in a more regional system, like say a Atlanta-Florida system and a North Carolina system and so on with links between them for regional travel. 

[Duke87 1,070]

Florida-Washington would be too long for a HSR line. Brussels-Berlin is 700 km and takes 6:30 (you need to change trains in Köln). Florida-Washington DC is double that distance? HSR is uncompetitive at such distances. It typically is a means of transport for distances up to 800 km.

 

Existing track from Washington, DC to Orlando, FL is 899 miles, so 1446 km. (driving 847 miles/1363 km)

 

Amtrak already runs service between those two points (and beyond). The trip takes... 19 hours and 17 minutes. Yes, that is an average speed of 46.6 mph. Welcome to the lovely world of Amtrak. (if you drive you can do it in 12 hours and change).

[FreewayofFlight 41]

 

Florida-Washington would be too long for a HSR line. Brussels-Berlin is 700 km and takes 6:30 (you need to change trains in Köln). Florida-Washington DC is double that distance? HSR is uncompetitive at such distances. It typically is a means of transport for distances up to 800 km.

 

Existing track from Washington, DC to Orlando, FL is 899 miles, so 1446 km. (driving 847 miles/1363 km)

 

Amtrak already runs service between those two points (and beyond). The trip takes... 19 hours and 17 minutes. Yes, that is an average speed of 46.6 mph. Welcome to the lovely world of Amtrak. (if you drive you can do it in 12 hours and change).

 

 

Among other reasons, Amtrak trains have to make several stops at small stations along the way (closest one to me is Florence, SC). Is there a way for trains to just pass stations where no one is departing/boarding?

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Well they would have to slow down significantly in order to find out.

Stations could be installed with a signal system, which sends a message to the train that it needs to stop. The same goes for in the train itself.

[timmie 988]

There is a system like this in England, where you need to push a button in small stations to alert the train driver that there are people who want to get on the train. The same goes for people on the train who need to alert the train driver if they want to get off the train.

[AkemiAzula 280]

... and have no dangerous "third rail" system. ...

Here in southern England our trains have third rails. But railways tend to be lined with fences and someone told me they get electrified by section so only sections with a train running on them are alive, thus level crossings don't pose a threat.

 

Well if I was constructing an American HSR route I'd link Mexico to San Diego, LA, SF, then Seattle and Vancouver. Also a NE route along the Atlantic seaboard, and one connecting Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, NY.

 

The idea of a bus bell type system but also on stations so the driver knows when he needs to make a stop or not could allow for more stops along a HSR route, although the whole idea of HSR is big centre-big centre travel. 

 

I think regarding lengthy routes as being uncompetitive well... Airplanes are the present. But they seem highly unsustainable and inefficient things. All that preparation going into a flight, buying tickets, going to the airport, waiting in a departure lounge etc... Whereas with a train it is a lot easier, even if the journey itself takes a bit longer. But I for one would rather spend twenty hours in a comfortable seat with leg room and a table that can fit more than one plate on it than two hours in a sardine can.

 

After all there was a time when travelling around the world in 80 days seemed brisk... I am sure many would be willing to sacrifice a couple of extra hours in return for the benefits of rail travel. 

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

 

... and have no dangerous "third rail" system. ...

Here in southern England our trains have third rails. But railways tend to be lined with fences and someone told me they get electrified by section so only sections with a train running on them are alive, thus level crossings don't pose a threat.

 

Well if I was constructing an American HSR route I'd link Mexico to San Diego, LA, SF, then Seattle and Vancouver. Also a NE route along the Atlantic seaboard, and one connecting Chicago, Detroit, Toronto, NY.

 

The idea of a bus bell type system but also on stations so the driver knows when he needs to make a stop or not could allow for more stops along a HSR route, although the whole idea of HSR is big centre-big centre travel. 

 

I think regarding lengthy routes as being uncompetitive well... Airplanes are the present. But they seem highly unsustainable and inefficient things. All that preparation going into a flight, buying tickets, going to the airport, waiting in a departure lounge etc... Whereas with a train it is a lot easier, even if the journey itself takes a bit longer. But I for one would rather spend twenty hours in a comfortable seat with leg room and a table that can fit more than one plate on it than two hours in a sardine can.

 

After all there was a time when travelling around the world in 80 days seemed brisk... I am sure many would be willing to sacrifice a couple of extra hours in return for the benefits of rail travel. 

 

You're an Aussie, so you would agree the best HSR route would go Melbourne-Canberra-Sydney-Brisbane?

The problem with this is that there are many small towns on the way. I read somewhere that a train travelling 300kph needs 26kms to come to a complete safe halt. Considering on the route I just mentioned, Seymour is the next major regional centre, being 98km from Melbourne. If people wished to access the rail from their town, the train would need to start breaking over a 1/4 the distance before it arrived. That's a long time.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

For all our sophistication, Newtonian physics still applies.  Acceleration is always a problem for HSR, so the distance between hops has to be around 400 Km or more to make sense.  With a lot of power (nuclear) the trains could be maglev which would be economic and perhaps not so tough on the roadbed.

 

A thought:  How do you decelerate a maglev train going 300 K/h.

[hym 358]

I think regarding lengthy routes as being uncompetitive well... Airplanes are the present. But they seem highly unsustainable and inefficient things. All that preparation going into a flight, buying tickets, going to the airport, waiting in a departure lounge etc... Whereas with a train it is a lot easier, even if the journey itself takes a bit longer. But I for one would rather spend twenty hours in a comfortable seat with leg room and a table that can fit more than one plate on it than two hours in a sardine can.

 

I think it is a bit premature to believe that travel via HSR will not turn into the exact thing that flying has become, only ground based and slower. There is an economic incentive to follow the airline model and cram people in like sardines, and one terrorist attack against an HSR line and the TSA will be screening people.

 

After all there was a time when travelling around the world in 80 days seemed brisk... I am sure many would be willing to sacrifice a couple of extra hours in return for the benefits of rail travel.

 

Some of the things that rail proponents consider to be benefits are considered by others to be negatives. The ability for a company in Dallas, Texas to put a sales representative on a plane so he can meet with a client in Houston, Texas in under an hour is not be underestimated. An extra hour to get the sales guy there is simply unacceptable. It's a pain for the sales guy to do this, but the needs of the job demand it.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Surely in this day and age sales talks should be conducted via Skype or somesuch video conferencing tool?

 

Well yes but I am also from Wollongong so I'd prefer a Syd-Gong-Canberra-Albury?wtvr-Melbourne route. 

 

Then again... The ride to Newcastle from Sydney... Around Broken Bay... and the Central Coast... is best described as 'scenic'. I think a possibly continuation north to there or even Brisbane would make sense.

 

Then again I am a train person so...

 

The arguments such as terrorism, economy of sardining passengers... Well if it was my rail company I'd want to make comfortable seating arrangements... But I have a quaint old-fashioned (and possibly expensive) notion of the best standards of travel practice. I envision Hogwarts Express style comfort lol

[ROFLyoshi 1,760]

Knowing the terrain, Wollongong is out of the question. I believe he existing line is one of Australia's steepest standard railways.

[AkemiAzula 280]

Well I read that the original route at Stanwell Park had to be remade because the tunnel to Otford was so steep. I think however that the plan would be to tunnel under the escarpment some way... Mind you I have always felt that the whole Illawarra was a touch overdeveloped... It has a landscape that seems (to my eye) more suited to low-density zoning and even the town centre I think should be more 'country-town' than it has become. Just my two cents.

[Duke87 1,070]

There is a system like this in England, where you need to push a button in small stations to alert the train driver that there are people who want to get on the train. The same goes for people on the train who need to alert the train driver if they want to get off the train.

 

This concept is nothing new, it's called a "flag stop" and it's been around as long as trains have. Having a button to push is merely a high tech version of it as opposed to telling the conductor you're getting off/the engineer approaches the station slowly and then speeds back up if he doesn't see anyone waiting on the platform.

 

This works great when you have a station that might for whatever reason have more trains passing it on a given day than people looking to get on or off there (e.g. a station that leads directly to an office park might operate this way after hours and on the weekend). But it doesn't help if the station is well used enough that most trains are stopping anyway.

 

I think it is a bit premature to believe that travel via HSR will not turn into the exact thing that flying has become, only ground based and slower. There is an economic incentive to follow the airline model and cram people in like sardines, and one terrorist attack against an HSR line and the TSA will be screening people.

 

If the TSA starts giving rail passengers the same treatment as plane passengers then we as a country have truly lost our minds. A train cannot be hijacked and crashed into a building. Yeah, you can blow it up, but you can blow anything up. Might as well screen everyone every time they leave their house then.

[A Nonny Moose 8,262]

One of the things that has to happen if our civilization is to survive is to lose the sense of urgency.  All this rushing about is a major cause of circulatory disease and cardiac problems.  Notwithstanding the need to 'be there first' in sales situations, a lot of the face to face stuff can now be handled over the net.  The day is coming when airlines will only be useful for moving freight, and the cost may kill that.  In the end I think comfort will win over the sardine can.

 

Also, what will the airlines do if there are no more fossil fuels allotted to them?  We need the oil much more for power than we need it for luxury items like flying a couple of hundred miles.  I can see a day when dirigible airships may be the order of the day because they are the only things big enough to lift the necessary power plant.  Nuclear powered electric ram jets will be the propulsion source, and flights will be trans-oceanic or trans-continental.  HSR and other tracked services will replace a lot of the fossil fuel vehicles we now see in the air and on the roads.

 

We might not be running out of oil soon, but blasting the combustion products all over the sky is surely adding to the green house effect.  If the weather in the last couple of years is not a signal that we need to start paying close attention, I can't imagine what will wake people up.

 

And don't be surprised if large submersibles become the ocean liners and freighters of the future.  Surface travel when possible, but with a storm blowing, things are calmer at a depth of, say, 100 fathoms or 200 metres if you prefer.  A nuclear submarine is faster under water than our fastest surface ships these days.  Does anyone remember the old movie of USS Skipjack running circles around the Navy's newest destroyer?

[hym 358]

If the TSA starts giving rail passengers the same treatment as plane passengers then we as a country have truly lost our minds. A train cannot be hijacked and crashed into a building. Yeah, you can blow it up, but you can blow anything up. Might as well screen everyone every time they leave their house then.

 

Out of curiosity, what is the TSA screening airline passengers for?  (Considering, as has been said before, there is very little risk that a terrorist will attempt to hijack a plane and crash it into something.)

 

All it takes for HSR to get the TSA treatment is for someone to blow something up and people complain that the government didn't do enough to stop this from happening.

 

One of the things that has to happen if our civilization is to survive is to lose the sense of urgency.  All this rushing about is a major cause of circulatory disease and cardiac problems.  Notwithstanding the need to 'be there first' in sales situations, a lot of the face to face stuff can now be handled over the net.

 

Many corporations have found teleconferencing to be less than satisfactory.  Many won't trust major sales to phone/video calls, and some companies won't even trust important internal meetings to digital communications.  (I've personally seen a few individuals who were flown all of 250 miles just so the meeting could be conducted and the internal consultant could be back at the main office before the end of the work day.)

 

There is also the issue of emergency callouts, like this one:

 

Party A: "The skid you sold us isn't starting us as you said it should.  We need you to send your expert on this so he can be onsite to help with startup."

Party B: "Well, we're all in a conference in New York at the moment, and the earliest we can send someone is Monday."

Party A: "That's not good enough.  Get your expert on the earliest plane possible, and make certain he is here today.  We will have someone waiting to pick him up and bring him onsite."

 

Point being, the "go, go, go" culture isn't going away, and to a certain extent, with justifiable reason.  There are times when you need to get someone somewhere and you can't possibly move them fast enough.

 

In the end I think comfort will win over the sardine can.

 

At one time, air travel was regarded as the pinnacle of travel.  Fast, comfortable, you could smoke on the plane and they gave you drinks too.  Over time, we have gone from that to what we have today.  What objectively defensible reason is there to believe that train travel won't follow a similar progression?

 

Also, what will the airlines do if there are no more fossil fuels allotted to them?  We need the oil much more for power than we need it for luxury items like flying a couple of hundred miles.

 

What says this is going to actually happen?  The oil & gas industry is working on synthesizing crude oil, making it an endlessly renewable resource.

 

(FYI, in the US at least, oil as a electricity generating source is effectively dead.  The EPA and environmental lobby effectively killed it.)