Japan want to bring bullet trains to the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/busin ... =tnt&tntem
What! A Nonpolitical Post?
Re: What! A Nonpolitical Post?
For myself - I'd love to see these because I'm a tech junkie.Jccarlton wrote:Japan want to bring bullet trains to the US:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/12/busin ... =tnt&tntem
But practical? I'm... doubtful.
Where you have a dense population - maybe. (Dense as in numbers, not intelligence...
) But aside from the Bos-Wash corridor, the cost of building the line (about $14.7 million/mile) and then the costs of running the train don't seem to be supported by potential ridership. (Oddly enough, that's about the only area that AmTrak's making expenses. Everywhere else, they're losing money hand over fist.)And how long will it be before some ass decides it'd be funny to see what happens if a couple of concrete blocks are stacked on the track? Or dropped from an overpass?
Like I said - I like the concept, but I just don't think it's practical here in the US.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
Re: What! A Nonpolitical Post?
Maybe a Polywell-powered tunnel-melter would be of value, to frustrate the hooligans on the surface.JLawson wrote:And how long will it be before some ass decides it'd be funny to see what happens if a couple of concrete blocks are stacked on the track? Or dropped from an overpass?
Like I said - I like the concept, but I just don't think it's practical here in the US.
The only reason I see why the USA have not developed a high speed train infrastructure is the federal nature of the country which makes it difficult to agree on such large interstate initiatives. Population density indeed is an important factor, but remind that the density of the South-Eastern states or that of California are similar to that of Spain or France, while that of the Bos-Wash corridor is ways higher. So why not a high speed train from Montreal to Miami via Boston, NYC, Washington, Atlanta? Then you may easily connect the Great Lakes to the coast in the North, and in the South start thinking that Atlanta is not so far from Houston, and so on. Average operational speeds (not records) of 170 mph are commonly achieved. Atlanta to Washington in less than 4 hours. Something US engineers could develop and be proud of. Think of it!JLawson wrote: I like the concept, but I just don't think it's practical here in the US.
Construction + running costs per mile.passenger is not at all sufficient to compare the economy of rail vs. air. There is a huge difference between the two: you do not waste your time on a train.
I am a frequent commuter, I spend 400 hours per year on board trains. I do not need to wait hours for security or baggage, and what is more, I can sit confortably and work with unexpensive Internet access. This would be impossible with air travel. Millions of working hours could be saved using trains.
And I did not mention oil, because we all know this is never going to be a problem...
Personally, I'd rather see an Inductrak II system go in. It should be much simpler and cheaper.
Unfortunately, Inductrak is now in the hands of General Atomics, part of the "Military-Industrial Complex" (read trough-feeder), so if the FedGov doesn't fork over the $, nothing will happen.
I do hereby predict! I'd love to be wrong on this but I won't be. Oh well!
Unfortunately, Inductrak is now in the hands of General Atomics, part of the "Military-Industrial Complex" (read trough-feeder), so if the FedGov doesn't fork over the $, nothing will happen.
I do hereby predict! I'd love to be wrong on this but I won't be. Oh well!
olivier wrote:The only reason I see why the USA have not developed a high speed train infrastructure is the federal nature of the country which makes it difficult to agree on such large interstate initiatives. Population density indeed is an important factor, but remind that the density of the South-Eastern states or that of California are similar to that of Spain or France, while that of the Bos-Wash corridor is ways higher. So why not a high speed train from Montreal to Miami via Boston, NYC, Washington, Atlanta? Then you may easily connect the Great Lakes to the coast in the North, and in the South start thinking that Atlanta is not so far from Houston, and so on. Average operational speeds (not records) of 170 mph are commonly achieved. Atlanta to Washington in less than 4 hours. Something US engineers could develop and be proud of. Think of it!JLawson wrote: I like the concept, but I just don't think it's practical here in the US.
Oh, I have - as I said, I LIKE the idea, but the cost is too high, not to mention the rigidity of a rail system when it comes to responding to traffic patterns. The proposed line is from Tampa to Orlando. How much traffic can realistically be expected on that line? Will they even be able to break even on the operational costs? It's about 90 miles - how much can they charge for a ticket before people go "Heck with it, we're driving!"? How often will they have trains running - every half-hour? Once a day?
The devil is in the details. The more often they run, the more utility will be seen in the service, and the more likely people will choose to go by train - but there has to be a profit at the end of the day, and the pricing for tickets and the scheduling must reflect that. The more frequent the trains, the more trains you'll need, and you'll need a customer base large enough and willing to pay the cost.
Trains do not go everywhere. Go to the AmTrak site, look at the current route map. That's a built-out infrastructure, heavily subsidized by the government. We live in Atlanta, and have taken the train to New Orleans a couple of times. It WAS a relaxing trip - but we probably wouldn't have done it if we didn't live right on the line. So you've got to add in transit time to GET to a point where you can get on the train in the first place, and transit time from where you can get OFF the train to your destination.Construction + running costs per mile.passenger is not at all sufficient to compare the economy of rail vs. air. There is a huge difference between the two: you do not waste your time on a train.
I am a frequent commuter, I spend 400 hours per year on board trains. I do not need to wait hours for security or baggage, and what is more, I can sit confortably and work with unexpensive Internet access. This would be impossible with air travel. Millions of working hours could be saved using trains.
Air travel, for all the resemblance to being stuffed on a Greyhound bus any more, has the flexibility to get you pretty close to where you're going, pretty much when you're going, at a not terribly ruinous price. (Damning with faint praise, aren't I?) At present, I can fly direct to Orlando today with a walkup price of about $300. (One way.) Return would be $195. It'd take about an hour and a half.
To get there via rail would cost $368, one way. It'd take 38 hours, since I'd have to go up to Washington (14 hours) and wait 5 hours until the train to Orlando departs, then it's 20 hours to Orlando.
(Plus there's the cost of meals over 2 days, a not inconsequential expense while travelling.)
An hour and a half stuffed in a tube, or two days in a train seat. Hmm. Tough choice there. A Roomette would add about another $850 to the trip cost.
And I did not mention oil, because we all know this is never going to be a problem...
So what's the electricity going to come from to power the train? Solar? Wind? Those things suck a lot of power.
As I said - I LIKE the idea, but I'm a long way from being persuaded it's economical and efficient.
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
Yeah, in any situation where we're getting high-speed rail, the government's going to have to fork over the money.KitemanSA wrote:Personally, I'd rather see an Inductrak II system go in. It should be much simpler and cheaper.
Unfortunately, Inductrak is now in the hands of General Atomics, part of the "Military-Industrial Complex" (read trough-feeder), so if the FedGov doesn't fork over the $, nothing will happen.
I do hereby predict! I'd love to be wrong on this but I won't be. Oh well!
And the money's just not there...
When opinion and reality conflict - guess which one is going to win in the long run.
Changing a transportation infrastructure is a long strategic move. I do not think you can actually demonstrate its economic viability prior to the move because so many interdependent parameters are affected. A typical system problem. The USA has invested in air travel so much and for such a long time that it makes it difficult to change anything. Like the heathcare system (Shut up Olivier, what have you said here! Well... that was just supposed to be harmless provocation 
).
A Tampa-Orlando line alone clearly makes no sense (a good moped rental service will do the job
), but consider it as a proof of concept, then get connected to Miami, Atlanta and beyond, and who knows?
The European interconnection is far from accomplished. It started a few years ago with the progressive deployment of high speed lines between France, UK, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. This is a slow process but a good indication that it could end up very successful is that, each time a new high speed line opens, it literally drains the traffic from the airlines. With London-Paris (300mi, 2h from city center to city center), Paris-Brussels (200mi, 1h20), Paris-Marseilles (500 mi - 3h), why take the plane anymore?
Once again, a major factor is that you save precious working time onboard a train. I do not know if economists have measured that but travelers know. And I am quite sure the East and West Coast public would appreciate too. Less practicable in the Midwest, I agree.
).A Tampa-Orlando line alone clearly makes no sense (a good moped rental service will do the job
), but consider it as a proof of concept, then get connected to Miami, Atlanta and beyond, and who knows?The European interconnection is far from accomplished. It started a few years ago with the progressive deployment of high speed lines between France, UK, Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands. This is a slow process but a good indication that it could end up very successful is that, each time a new high speed line opens, it literally drains the traffic from the airlines. With London-Paris (300mi, 2h from city center to city center), Paris-Brussels (200mi, 1h20), Paris-Marseilles (500 mi - 3h), why take the plane anymore?
Once again, a major factor is that you save precious working time onboard a train. I do not know if economists have measured that but travelers know. And I am quite sure the East and West Coast public would appreciate too. Less practicable in the Midwest, I agree.
Personally, I'd rather see an Inductrak II system go in. It should be much simpler and cheaper.
Me too. Except...
It requires an awful lot of aluminum per mile for the track. Which is not cheap.
I don't see any immediate use for the technology except as a slingshot for rockets.
And don't forget the patents will eventually run out.
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/6758146.html
Filed in 2002 issued 2004. So about 2021 or so...
And http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7096794.html
Filed in 2003.
More:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inductrack
Engineering is the art of making what you want from what you can get at a profit.
One thing to remember is that in Europe, the last-mile problem is not as onerous. For them, it is actually more like a mile, not the 5 or 10 here in the states. And since they have less of a distance to cover, they can do so more easily with other non-private transit options. Heck, they even have serveeses (sp).