Why don't we have High Speed Trains?

[Locut0s]

maglev is a losing proposition. Velaro RUS (604 seat config) can sustain 330kph with an upgrade.

Until we get abundant power supply, maglev is not feasible.

Yeah I know. I just wanted to let people know if they are ever in Shanghai ride the maglev!! Seriously it's cool. I almost shit myself when we passed another maglev going the other direction, 800mph difference!! China will probably build a line going from Beijing to Shanghai.

 

[sdifox]

Yeah I know. I just wanted to let people know if they are ever in Shanghai ride the maglev!! Seriously it's cool. I almost shit myself when we passed another maglev going the other direction, 800mph difference!! China will probably build a line going from Beijing to Shanghai.

It's fucking ridiculous that Russia is getting into high speed trains and nothing in North America. Frigging Taiwan has a high speed train.

Beigjing - Tienjing is kind of retarded too. 117km???? But I guess they were just doing showboat for Olympics. Wait, the MagLev is also a showboat.

 

[0roo0roo]

It's fucking ridiculous that Russia is getting into high speed trains and nothing in North America. Frigging Taiwan has a high speed train.

Beigjing - Tienjing is kind of retarded too. 117km???? But I guess they were just doing showboat for Olympics. Wait, the MagLev is also a showboat.

well russia is nuts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chūō_Shinkansen
japans got some crazy spending,82 billion for that one cuz of crazy tunnels.

 

[sdifox]

well russia is nuts

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chūō_Shinkansen
japans got some crazy spending,82 billion for that one cuz of crazy tunnels.

not to mention being on the active volcanic belt.

 

[Fritzo]

Pie in the sky nonsense. A few billion dollars distributed over numerous states will accomplish NOTHING. We need to focus on a very small number of densely populated areas where rail has shown that it makes sense, starting with the Northeast Corridor. I guarantee you there will never be a high speed rail network in Ohio.

Is that a money back guarantee? Otherwise, I'm not sure what your guarantee is worth:

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100127/NEWS01/301270098/Ohio+getting++400M+for+rail+service

They've already started taking bids from local contractors for construction work here.

 

[ichy]

$400 million is peanuts when you're talking about a real high-speed line. I suggest looking at how much the French spent on the LGVs (the high-speed lines that the TGV runs on.) The initial line between Paris and Lyon cost something like $6 billion in today's dollars.

Edit: The article says these are upgrades to allow trains to reach a top speed of 110 mph. That is not high speed rail.

 

[sdifox]

$400 million is peanuts when you're talking about a real high-speed line. I suggest looking at how much the French spent on the LGVs (the high-speed lines that the TGV runs on.) The initial line between Paris and Lyon cost something like $6 billion in today's dollars.

I would imagine part of that cost is the R&D?

 

[Fritzo]

$400 million is peanuts when you're talking about a real high-speed line. I suggest looking at how much the French spent on the LGVs (the high-speed lines that the TGV runs on.) The initial line between Paris and Lyon cost something like $6 billion in today's dollars.

Edit: The article says these are upgrades to allow trains to reach a top speed of 110 mph. That is not high speed rail.

OK, I'm done with you.

 

[ichy]

I would imagine part of that cost is the R&D?

Nope, those were just the construction costs (and those don't include the costs of the trains themselves.)

 

[ichy]

OK, I'm done with you.

Trains like the TGV, ICE and Shinkansen regularly achieve average speeds (not top speed, average for the whole trip) significantly higher than 110mph. It's great to hear that train service in Ohio is being improved, but what they're building is not comparable to fast trains in France, Germany or Japan.

 

[LookingGlass]

My family and I went home to Michigan for Thanksgiving. It would of cost $1600.00, roughly for 3 people, to fly. That was over 500.00 per ticket. NO. We thought of driving. From Dallas to michigan, a good days worth of driving. We looked into Amtrak, $750.00 round trip for all 3 of us. I'd do it again, no worry about driving, and being totally wiped out. You could get to the train 10 minutes before we had to leave, you board the train, and go. No baggage check, they used to have it, but, it took too long. Like I said, I'd do it again.

 

[DT4K]

Has the Concord come back into service? Try almost 8 hours from NYC to LAX. Time difference doesn't mean shit. You're still stuck on that plane for nearly 8 hours.

You're both off quite a bit.

Avg flight time from NYC to LA is about 6.3 hours.
Avg flight time from LA to NYC is about 5.25 hours.

 

[zephyrprime]

Except it couldn't have been well spent, since all such systems seem to be money losers.

If it was profitable, a private company would be doing it somewhere, imo. Without subsidies.

Yeah but the public road system is definitely a money loser since it brings in no income! It's hard to calculate the cost of a rail because it competes with public roads which are completely subsidized by government.

 

[Fritzo]

To everyone complaining about the US not having high speed rail, please consider this:

Japan, Russia, and France have all had their countries decimated during WWII. They were able to rebuild their country over the next 40 years using mid 20th century technology.

The US has not had a devestating war on it's own soil since the 1860's. We're building on and upgrading technology that is over 100 years old in many areas, which makes the cost requirements astronomical. This is the problem we're having with many things- broadband expansion, transporation, bridge building, and even living space.

 

[AMCRambler]

Pie in the sky nonsense. A few billion dollars distributed over numerous states will accomplish NOTHING. We need to focus on a very small number of densely populated areas where rail has shown that it makes sense, starting with the Northeast Corridor. I guarantee you there will never be a high speed rail network in Ohio.

If they can make it a less expensive alternative to air travel then it would be economically viable. It will take you a little longer via high speed train, however less expensive and less hassle then airports would be on the plus side. Also if it's inexpensive enough it will expand people's ability to commute longer distances.

 

[sdifox]

If they can make it a less expensive alternative to air travel then it would be economically viable. It will take you a little longer via high speed train, however less expensive and less hassle then airports would be on the plus side. Also if it's inexpensive enough it will expand people's ability to commute longer distances.

I don't fly well so if I can avoid flying I would.

 

[syrillus]

To everyone complaining about the US not having high speed rail, please consider this:

Japan, Russia, and France have all had their countries decimated during WWII. They were able to rebuild their country over the next 40 years using mid 20th century technology.

The US has not had a devestating war on it's own soil since the 1860's. We're building on and upgrading technology that is over 100 years old in many areas, which makes the cost requirements astronomical. This is the problem we're having with many things- broadband expansion, transporation, bridge building, and even living space.

So you're saying because our country wasn't decimated, we weren't (aren't?) able to rebuild infrastructure using current technology? That doesn't really make sense (although I'll agree most companies are much more quick to "upgrade" current technology than rebuild from scratch, so I get your point).

The main reason I'd think we haven't upgraded is lack of government push to do so (you'll notice in all those countries you mentioned there was funding from the gov't to develop those technologies), and probably more importantly, geography. We simply have a vast amount of land that isn't densely populated enough to make it feasible to develop high speed rail on.

It would be nice to see at least high speed rail going up and down the coasts (Boston <-> D.C or Miami if it's viable) (Seattle <-> San Diego), and perhaps a cross-country line or two, if those are deemed feasible.

 

[ElFenix]

OK, I'm done with you.

i drive an economy car and it'll do a buck ten. the US .gov may claim that's high speed rail but it simple isn't. steam locomotives were driving trains faster than 100 back in the 30s (official record is a bit over 125 mph).

it's like how the .gov states that 128k dsl is broadband internet service. great.

 

[her209]

My grandmother worked for Rio Grande, my mother worked for Rio, Southern Pacific and Union Pacific and my second stepdad worked for Amtrash. I heard plenty of stories of derailments, things on the tracks that they hit, bridges being washed out cars racing the train and crazy passengers. So don't try the safe card trans vs planes here sonny.

It'd be crazy to think that the engineers would allow for cars to cross HSR tracks, no?

 

[LTC8K6]

Yeah but the public road system is definitely a money loser since it brings in no income! It's hard to calculate the cost of a rail because it competes with public roads which are completely subsidized by government.

The public road system is a necessity, and is paid for in various taxes and sometimes with tolls. I would guess that when fuel and other taxes are taken into account, the highway system is solvent.

You pay between 26 and 65 cents a gallon in taxes on gas, 32 - 71 on diesel, depending on your state.

You pay to use the roads.

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/hwytaxes/2008/index.cfm

 

[Fear No Evil]

My family and I went home to Michigan for Thanksgiving. It would of cost $1600.00, roughly for 3 people, to fly. That was over 500.00 per ticket. NO. We thought of driving. From Dallas to michigan, a good days worth of driving. We looked into Amtrak, $750.00 round trip for all 3 of us. I'd do it again, no worry about driving, and being totally wiped out. You could get to the train 10 minutes before we had to leave, you board the train, and go. No baggage check, they used to have it, but, it took too long. Like I said, I'd do it again.

I bet the Amtrak took damn near as long as it would have to drive. And what did you do once you got there? Take a bus to where you were staying?

 

[her209]

The reason rail isn't realistic in the US (or Canada for that matter) is because too many people are accustomed to the status quo of using cars to get everywhere and they refuse to even explore the possibility of a rail network.

Poor fatty American has to walk because the train doesn't drop them in front of where they want to go.

 

[StageLeft]

They may make sense within cities but not between them. US distances are too great.

 

[JoeBleed]

Here is my pipe dream of national high speed rail system.

National subway. Yea, it would cost a shit load and take a while to build, but it would avoid all the hassles of dealing with road intersections and weather. Could be problematic in earthquake and or high water table places.

But hey, we are pissing away lots of money in other countries, might as well spend a lot here and it would create jobs for a few decades probably. Naturally start in the more densely populated areas and connecting them.

But for it to really be used, like said before, the stops would need some kind of decent mas transit system. But hey, enterprise and herzts wouldn't mind having more locations to rent cars.

 

[sdifox]

They may make sense within cities but not between them. US distances are too great.

whut? why would you need a high speed train WITHIN the city?