Is all this fake high-speed rail driving anyone else nuts?

Jeff Smith wrote: I would respond to one point in your post: while I see your point about a train being on the ground, where there is some chance of survivial from a terrorist attack, versus in the air, where there is an infinitesimal chance of survival, you might want to consider what a well-placed bomb did in Madrid, and the terror sowed by the London Tube bombings. Combine that with the Maglev technology you discuss, that type of attack at hundreds of MPH would likely be VERY devastating.

It doesn't have to be Maglev. The rail is the weak point. If you blew up a rail ahead of an 79 mph Amtrak train as it approached a bridge and sent the train into a river or a ravine the results would be devastating. Now picture it with a 200mph train. No seat belts either. Luckily the Euro terrorists did not choose to go for a high body count.
Steve

Compared to casualties on Airliners, trains are very poor target.
sending a train down a cliff or into water does not guarantee massive casualties, not like Airliners anyway.
Yes they killed a lot of people in spain a few years back , but still not even close to what a airline bomb would have done.
even big rail disasters like Chase Maryland or others did not produce numbers that terrorist want.

Maglev makes no sense for two reasons. The first is that it costs a lot more than regular trains, and the second is that high-speed trains that are standard gauge can switch back onto regular shared tracks at <125mph to get into and out of urban terminals, whereas Maglevs cannot do that.

I think that urban stations, with all their slownesses, will likely mostly be bypassed, other than in mega cities that are typically terminals for a lot of passengers (NY, BOS, WAS, PHL, CHI, etc), and for mid-sized cities, high-speed trains will have metro transit centers away from the downtown that will link to the downtown with a rapid transit type of system, as well as have rental car facilities, bus connections, large parking lots, etc. Even the big cities would likely have these, but also have a terminal farther in that is the terminus for high-speed runs.

sjkijak wrote:

Jeff Smith wrote: I would respond to one point in your post: while I see your point about a train being on the ground, where there is some chance of survivial from a terrorist attack, versus in the air, where there is an infinitesimal chance of survival, you might want to consider what a well-placed bomb did in Madrid, and the terror sowed by the London Tube bombings. Combine that with the Maglev technology you discuss, that type of attack at hundreds of MPH would likely be VERY devastating.

It doesn't have to be Maglev. The rail is the weak point. If you blew up a rail ahead of an 79 mph Amtrak train as it approached a bridge and sent the train into a river or a ravine the results would be devastating. Now picture it with a 200mph train. No seat belts either. Luckily the Euro terrorists did not choose to go for a high body count.
Steve

Last I looked high explosives here are tightly controlled.

GP40 6694 wrote:I think that urban stations, with all their slownesses, will likely mostly be bypassed, other than in mega cities that are typically terminals for a lot of passengers (NY, BOS, WAS, PHL, CHI, etc), and for mid-sized cities, high-speed trains will have metro transit centers away from the downtown that will link to the downtown with a rapid transit type of system, as well as have rental car facilities, bus connections, large parking lots, etc. Even the big cities would likely have these, but also have a terminal farther in that is the terminus for high-speed runs.

For example, Miami is building a transit center just east of the airport to serve a number of existing systems - airport peoplemover, rapid transit, commuter rail, intercity rail, intercity bus, and rental cars - as well as future high-speed rail: http://www.micdot.com/ This is 4 or so miles west of downtown in a light industrial area.

NE2 wrote:

GP40 6694 wrote:I think that urban stations, with all their slownesses, will likely mostly be bypassed, other than in mega cities that are typically terminals for a lot of passengers (NY, BOS, WAS, PHL, CHI, etc), and for mid-sized cities, high-speed trains will have metro transit centers away from the downtown that will link to the downtown with a rapid transit type of system, as well as have rental car facilities, bus connections, large parking lots, etc. Even the big cities would likely have these, but also have a terminal farther in that is the terminus for high-speed runs.

For example, Miami is building a transit center just east of the airport to serve a number of existing systems - airport peoplemover, rapid transit, commuter rail, intercity rail, intercity bus, and rental cars - as well as future high-speed rail: http://www.micdot.com/ This is 4 or so miles west of downtown in a light industrial area.

Great link! That's exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of, just with high-speed rail. It wouldn't be a bad idea at all to combine them with airports where possible, as even though its unlikely to transfer from a long-distance high-speed train to an airplane, airports and high-speed trains would benefit each other to share commuter rail, urban rapid transit, car rental, and bus connections that go local within that metropolitan area.

zoom314 wrote:I think 220Mph is much better than 110Mph, You aim high, Not low, Amtrak is already capable of 79Mph now,

I'd like to see more of that 79 MPH in practice. That DC-Chicago train I noted? 17 hr, 40 min for 780 miles. 45 MPH? Building true 90 MPH or "110 MPH" lines would get that train moving. Or how about the closer 234 mile Chicago to Toledo part of that trip? ~4 hours scheduled makes that part 58.5 MPH average speed. It is a 2hr plane flight - so there would have to be a lot of ground time or a faster train to make Amtrak fully competitive on the Chicago-Toledo part of the run.

Shooting for 220 MPH is too high. Get the network of 90-110 MPH trains up and running. Prove to the general public that trains are competitive ... then reinvest the profits in further improvements to reach 220 MPH on the longer runs.

Amtrak takes 1 Day and 19 hours to go from Los Angeles to Chicago according to Google Maps right now and that's at around 79Mph,

43 hr, 30 min per Amtrak. 2265 rail miles. 52 MPH average. Going back to my previous post, I'll ask the question again. How many miles of HSR would one get for the cost of "higher speed rail"? How much would it take to bring Chi-LA up to an average speed of 79 MPH (28hr 40min)? or 90 MPH (25hr 10min)? A system where trains would be pegged at max speed (110 MPH?) where they could to bring the average trip time up. Then take that cost and spend it on 220 MPH or 500 MPH rail and see if you can make it out of Illinois!

"Higher speed rail" of 90-110 MPH provides a competing service to airlines on shorter trips. I mentioned Chicago to Toledo above, how about Chicago to Detroit in currently 5hr 30min vs 1hr 20min flight time? Add the two hour airport time and one is still spending longer on the train. So lets fix that. Do what the government is doing and upgrade that line to nearly full Amtrak ownership and "Higher Speed Rail". Cut a couple hours off of that trip and make it fully competitive.

"Higher speed rail" is obtainable and competitive. I'd rather support the obtainable than some pie in the sky fantasy rail.

DutchRailnut wrote:Yes they killed a lot of people in spain a few years back , but still not even close to what a airline bomb would have done.
even big rail disasters like Chase Maryland or others did not produce numbers that terrorist want.

Another time where terrorists prove that they are STUPID. If they were smart the goal would be the level of terror that they incite, not the body count. Take something that Americans consider safe and make it less safe for them. Do something that makes Americans live in fear.

At the moment terrorism is only an inconvenience for most Americans. There is more fear that one will be touched inappropriately at an airport or have one's XRay 'nude' photo shared on the Internet than the plane blowing up. Millions riding trains and commuter rail systems consider it safe it wouldn't take much of an attack to change that feeling and invoke some terror. People do not need a high body count to be afraid.

But fortunately most terrorists are pretty stupid and either talk to undercover law enforcement or lack the skill to complete their acts. I'm really happy that they are generally stupid ... their stupidity has saved lives ... but their stupidity is an odd thing to be relying on.

justalurker66 wrote:

zoom314 wrote:I think 220Mph is much better than 110Mph, You aim high, Not low, Amtrak is already capable of 79Mph now,

"Higher speed rail" is obtainable and competitive. I'd rather support the obtainable than some pie in the sky fantasy rail.

I think the problem is that we are looking at 220mph HSR as pie-in-the-sky. We should build a national network of 220mph trains. China's doing it, France and Japan already have. That's not to say there won't be places for 125mph refurbishments of existing lines or 110mph diesel lines as feeders, and even existing Amtrak-type service for some other unserviced rural communities, but we need a core that is fast enough to compete with air travel and increase mobility in general.

This site offers a good overview of what we should aim to accomplish:

http://www.ushsr.com/hsrnetwork.html

justalurker66 wrote:

DutchRailnut wrote:Yes they killed a lot of people in spain a few years back , but still not even close to what a airline bomb would have done.
even big rail disasters like Chase Maryland or others did not produce numbers that terrorist want.

Another time where terrorists prove that they are STUPID. If they were smart the goal would be the level of terror that they incite, not the body count. Take something that Americans consider safe and make it less safe for them. Do something that makes Americans live in fear.

At the moment terrorism is only an inconvenience for most Americans. There is more fear that one will be touched inappropriately at an airport or have one's XRay 'nude' photo shared on the Internet than the plane blowing up. Millions riding trains and commuter rail systems consider it safe it wouldn't take much of an attack to change that feeling and invoke some terror. People do not need a high body count to be afraid.

But fortunately most terrorists are pretty stupid and either talk to undercover law enforcement or lack the skill to complete their acts. I'm really happy that they are generally stupid ... their stupidity has saved lives ... but their stupidity is an odd thing to be relying on.

I think the IRA were masters at that . they didnt actually kill that many people , but northern Irleand was probably the most "uncomfortable " place i ever visted . Certainly the one place i felt at unease even on a train . Even in London , they managed to invoke alot of fear , even though again the body count was pretty low .

I think the IRA were masters at that . they didnt actually kill that many people , but northern Irleand was probably the most "uncomfortable " place i ever visted . Certainly the one place i felt at unease even on a train . Even in London , they managed to invoke alot of fear , even though again the body count was pretty low .

They made the cross-border Enterprise (Eurostar-like train, with 90 mph segments) rather unreliable. Even nine years ago when I was working in Belfast I was turfed off the train and transferred to a bus at the first station in NI. I was coming from the Dublin ferry and was nearly late for my first class. The IRA didn't even need a bomb to do that.

The Enterprise is an example of incremental improvement. The track has been relaid and signalling improved and a modern type of train used to cut down times between Dublin and Belfast. I don't think people will use the bus much (except that it's cheaper).

GP40 6694 wrote:I think the problem is that we are looking at 220mph HSR as pie-in-the-sky.

Nearly $68 Billion just for the Midwest network (per the SNCF document on the MidwestHSR.org website).
Not exactly a check that the US can write (especially as other areas also want Billions for their region's system).
Can we afford it? (And no, "can we afford not to" rhetoric is not an appropriate response. Where's the money?)

Maybe France, China and Japan can bankroll the system and make their investment back over time.
They can read the "Buy American" slogan and drop the 'n'.

justalurker66 wrote:

GP40 6694 wrote:I think the problem is that we are looking at 220mph HSR as pie-in-the-sky.

Nearly $68 Billion just for the Midwest network (per the SNCF document on the MidwestHSR.org website).
Not exactly a check that the US can write (especially as other areas also want Billions for their region's system).
Can we afford it? (And no, "can we afford not to" rhetoric is not an appropriate response. Where's the money?)

Maybe France, China and Japan can bankroll the system and make their investment back over time.
They can read the "Buy American" slogan and drop the 'n'.

What if we privately finance it? Also, if we add rail capacity, we can avoid having to upgrade capacity at airports and on highways, due to decongesting commuter rail systems, and building systems that have both commuter rail and high-speed rail where appropriate.

do make it financially viable to private enterprise , i think you need to add high speed freight to the eqaution . and in the USA , i think high speed freight would work .

David Benton wrote:do make it financially viable to private enterprise , i think you need to add high speed freight to the eqaution . and in the USA , i think high speed freight would work .

The California HSR system already proposed running FedEx and UPS package trains at night if that's what you mean by high-speed freight. Regular merchandise has no reason to go more than 60 or 80, but UPS and FedEx would benefit hugely by such a system.