Matt Johnson wrote:When I took the TGV from Paris to Milan, it was anything but a quick, high speed journey. We cruised at 186 mph between Paris and Lyon, and then diverged from the high speed line and crawled through the mountains on the way to Italy. I think the trip is like 10 hours.
Matt Johnson wrote:If they're considering non-electric options, they could always get these cheap! (Sorry, had to say it!)
What everyone's missing here is that these casinos are not idiots
Nasadowsk wrote:Matt Johnson wrote:If they're considering non-electric options, they could always get these cheap! (Sorry, had to say it!)
Realistically, they'll likely go electric - lower long term costs, higher growth potential. What everyone's missing here is that these casinos are NOT idiots, they're NOT new to huge budget projects, and they're NOT gamblers. If they're proposing this, you can bet the house that they've worked the numbers and are sure it'll work.
george matthews wrote:That's assuming they are really investing their own money.
Would they actually lose money if the service fails to attract enough paying customers?
I suspect the overall capital cost for equipping an electrified line for this distance is much larger than they think.
Big corporations have a habit of shifting the risk on to others - which is part of the reason for the current financial catastrophe
Matt Johnson wrote:If they're only shooting for 150 mph, why not order Acela Express equipment? If they're planning on non-FRA compliant trains, then I think they will be prohibited from having any shared use tracks even in terminal areas.
They've stated that they're going to connect to the cali HSR system. FRA compliance means squat, if that's the case. And if FRA compliance isn't an issue, there's far better choices out there than the Acela. FAR better choices....
decisivemoment wrote: What's questionable is whether they can get fuel consumption under control.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest