"high speed" rail

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: ZetaEpyon
I think there's probably some confusion going on there, that's not high-speed rail at all.
Normal Amtrak lines go 79mph, unless the track is really bad.

no, there is no "confusion" - just misdirection and/or lies to further certain interests.

 

[rudder]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus

Originally posted by: rudder
People from all over Chicago are talking about being able to finally visit Des Moines cheaply.

:laugh: I've been to Chicago a few times in my life but I've NEVER been to Des Moines...a "high-speed" rail line isn't going to change that either.

You wouldn't want to visit anyway. The Federal Government recently blew up the levees and flooded the whole area.

 

[Harvey]

Must resist... Can't resist... :Q

Repost of a relevant item from the old "Omni" Magazine:

When a cat is dropped, it always lands on its feet.

When toast is dropped, it always lands with the buttered side face down.

Therefore, it should be possible to strap buttered toast to the back of
a cat such that the two will hover, spinning inches above the ground.

Given a sufficiently large buttered cat array, a high-speed monorail
could easily be built to link New York with Chicago.

:laugh:

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: CPA

Originally posted by: Genx87
Is there a huge demand for commuting between Chicago and Des Moines? At 5 hour commute that is laughable. Take you under an hour by plane. Shit one could probably get on a plane, to their meeting, and be back in Des Moines by the time the train even arrives in Chicago.

Hell, you could get there faster by car.

YOU'RE KILLING THE ENVIRONMENT!!!111111111

 

[soccerballtux]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Who the fuck wants to go to Des Moines?

That isnt a concern when the govt is building something and spending money.

"A Rail to Nowhere"

 

[theeedude]

Better than spending money paying unemployment to those workers.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Better than spending money paying unemployment to those workers.

Not at all.

 

[Balt]

Google maps says it's about a 5 1/4 hour drive. So yeah, it's a pretty lame idea unless they can make the trains travel faster. 79mph is not impressive.

 

[evident]

Why can't they build a quick rail system like in japan? I thought that this was what the plan was going to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen 150 mph to 250mph! :Q

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Who the fuck wants to go to Des Moines?

That isnt a concern when the govt is building something and spending money.

"A Rail to Nowhere"

Nice analogy. :thumbsup:

 

[JS80]

Originally posted by: evident
Why can't they build a quick rail system like in japan? I thought that this was what the plan was going to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen 150 mph to 250mph! :Q

1) will lose billions
2) environmentalists/locals near the rail will not want a train that goes 250mph in their back yard

 

[her209]

I would not consider 79 MPH "high-speed" rail. Also, how easy would it be to replace the train with one that can go faster (100+ MPH)? Would it even be possible?

 

[JSt0rm]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...azlQvY&feature=related <-- this is what we need

uses about 5% of the energy per person as a plane

 

[frostedflakes]

I think there's some confusion. Whatever they're proposing technically isn't high speed rail, according to Wikipedia HSR is the US is above 90MPH. A true HSR project would probably require laying new track and would be very expensive. It sounds like they're just planning to retrofit existing track for "high speed" passenger rail, which is why the project is relatively inexpensive ($30 mil). True HSR like a mag lev would probably cost a lot more.

 

[her209]

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...azlQvY&feature=related <-- this is what we need

uses about 5% of the energy per person as a plane

267 miles per hour

:Q

 

[evident]

Originally posted by: JS80

Originally posted by: evident
Why can't they build a quick rail system like in japan? I thought that this was what the plan was going to be.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen 150 mph to 250mph! :Q

1) will lose billions
2) environmentalists/locals near the rail will not want a train that goes 250mph in their back yard

if the gov't is gonna spend billions already on the rail, why not just do it right the first time?

and isn't this what environmentalists want????

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

"A Rail to Nowhere"

i came in here to post that

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Who the fuck wants to go to Des Moines?

That isnt a concern when the govt is building something and spending money.

"A Rail to Nowhere"

Nice analogy. :thumbsup:

And where's the ridicule and outrage? Hypocrisy? Say it isn't so.

 

[GenHoth]

Hell yes! I would ride this!

Multiple stops probably means, Iowa city, Davenport and springfield or something.

 

[JSt0rm]

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: Doc Savage Fan

Originally posted by: soccerballtux

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Who the fuck wants to go to Des Moines?

That isnt a concern when the govt is building something and spending money.

"A Rail to Nowhere"

Nice analogy. :thumbsup:

And where's the ridicule and outrage? Hypocrisy? Say it isn't so.

is there no difference between a island with 50 people on it and chicago? stop with the absolutes life doesn't work that way and you do yourself a disservice to think like that.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: senseamp
Better than spending money paying unemployment to those workers.

Not at all.

In your opinion. The side that shares that opinion lost the election.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: her209

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...azlQvY&feature=related <-- this is what we need

uses about 5% of the energy per person as a plane

267 miles per hour

:Q

I've been on it, but I don't think it's practical as main rail system yet.
It basically goes from Shanghai airport to a subway station, about 20 miles or so.

 

[heyheybooboo]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: SammyJr
Small minded.....

It isn't tourism. Iowa is cheap. Trains can be used for freight. Build a factory in Iowa and move your goods to Chicago for export and distribution around the country.

That isnt what he said. He is specifically talking about business and personal travel. Not freight, which we already have tracks laid and a lot of the agribusiness probably travels down the Mississippi or Missouri depending on the side of the state.

Freight will be moved on the HSR - at least dat's duh plan in North Carolina.

We're double-tracking with additional sidings to give high priority trains the 'right-of-way' ...

Originally posted by: ZetaEpyon
I think there's probably some confusion going on there, that's not high-speed rail at all.
Normal Amtrak lines go 79mph, unless the track is really bad.

That's top speed due to current track design standards - avg speed is something like 48mph.

Originally posted by: her209
I would not consider 79 MPH "high-speed" rail. Also, how easy would it be to replace the train with one that can go faster (100+ MPH)? Would it even be possible?

I don't know anything about this specific HSR but 79mph is the current top speed and average speed of 46-48 mph.

The projected average speed for the Southeast HSR is 87mph with a top speed of over 110mph.

That includes all stops.



The goals for the Southeast HSR are a ticket cost of $.22 per mile and to keep trip times at least 10-15% faster than driving (with stops). It's roughly half the cost of driving and a quarter to half the cost of flying ...

As I understand it there are some design problems (read: serious costs) associated with going more than 120mph. The design of the rail is different, arcs of 'curves' certainly need to be greater and if I'm not mistaken (never!) there are limits on just how fast a diesel electric engine can run (I think the world record is like 145 mph).

At least until those NASCAR boys start tuning them up

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I think there's some confusion. Whatever they're proposing technically isn't high speed rail, according to Wikipedia HSR is the US is above 90MPH. A true HSR project would probably require laying new track and would be very expensive. It sounds like they're just planning to retrofit existing track for "high speed" passenger rail, which is why the project is relatively inexpensive ($30 mil). True HSR like a mag lev would probably cost a lot more.

No, there is no "confusion", that is why I put "high speed" in quotes because BHO and co are pushing this as "high speed" and it's anything but high speed especially with multiple stops.

 

[theeedude]

Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY

Originally posted by: frostedflakes
I think there's some confusion. Whatever they're proposing technically isn't high speed rail, according to Wikipedia HSR is the US is above 90MPH. A true HSR project would probably require laying new track and would be very expensive. It sounds like they're just planning to retrofit existing track for "high speed" passenger rail, which is why the project is relatively inexpensive ($30 mil). True HSR like a mag lev would probably cost a lot more.

No, there is no "confusion", that is why I put "high speed" in quotes because BHO and co are pushing this as "high speed" and it's anything but high speed especially with multiple stops.

When perpetually confused right wingers say there is no "confusion" all I can do is chuckle.
It's high speed compared to what's there now.
If you want Japan or Europe style high speed rail, need to build new lines, very expensive. But can also upgrade existing rail lines to handle higher speed rail for a small sum, in comparison.