Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As far as i know high speed rail requires special seamless rails and concrete ties and banked hi-speed corners.,speeds up around 200mph+ just wont work on current RR infrastructure.
That is why they are selling us hi speed rail but we will be getting medium speed rail unless of course they replace all the lines which would cost much more. Problem is nobody really even know what they are gonna do they just want the money and then will figure it all out later. Kinda like the healthcare vote. You just vote for it folks and will figure all the details later.
Too bad America's wealth isn't growing like the population is. Too bad our government has already borrowed so much money that interest rates must stay at zero, condemning entire generations to working until they die instead of someday retiring. Too bad that increasing taxes won't increase overall tax revenue, since professional people will only keep working (and feeding the income tax monster) as long as they have something left over after taxes and cost of living. And too bad simply printing fiat currency won't "create" wealth--all it does is remove buying power from barely-surviving earners and savers and handing it to Big Government.
While population may continue to explode, the economy (and people traveling to do business) continues to decline. More and more business is done over the internet, by phone, and by videoconferencing. There is absolutely no need for the incredibly expensive hi-speed rail and other mass transport systems that exist in places with extremely high densities, extremely high-taxes, and very low personal property ownership.
As for expensive pie-in-the-sky ideas, this one falls almost at the bottom of the list in terms of benefit versus cost.
Sadly you are correct. I would actually like to be able to jump on a train and shoot down to KC in an hour or to Chicago from where I live or Minneapolis. It is a nice dream but in the financial shape this country is in like you say this is the last thing we need to be worried about. Now if private money wants to come in and build it go for it. They aren't and we know why.
Sadly you are correct. I would actually like to be able to jump on a train and shoot down to KC in an hour or to Chicago from where I live or Minneapolis. It is a nice dream but in the financial shape this country is in like you say this is the last thing we need to be worried about. Now if private money wants to come in and build it go for it. They aren't and we know why.
because they know without the feds to subsidize that rail line, all they will do is lose money.
no business is in business to only lose money.
As far as i know high speed rail requires special seamless rails and concrete ties and banked hi-speed corners.,speeds up around 200mph+ just wont work on current RR infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KUchief25
That is why they are selling us hi speed rail but we will be getting medium speed rail unless of course they replace all the lines which would cost much more. Problem is nobody really even know what they are gonna do they just want the money and then will figure it all out later. Kinda like the healthcare vote. You just vote for it folks and will figure all the details later.
You're both correct.
People often point to Amtrak's recently refurbished line between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan as an example of where we're headed in the realm of high speed rail, but keep in mind Amtrak has owned that particular line since 1976 and has been working on upgrading it for the past 30 years! Now they're talking of doing the same with the rest of the route all the way to Detroit. How long is that going to take? And once its done, we still won't have a TRUE high-speed system, like they do in Europe, Japan and China. These trains use conventional, diesel-powered equipment.
Chicago-St. Louis is an even better example. This particular line should have been one of Amtrak's showcase services; its a medium-distance route between two large cities, serving a state capital and a major college town and with connecting services at either end reaching many other destinations. Way back in 1973, Amtrak thought highly enough of this line for it to host a race between a car, an airplane and one of Amtrak's then-brand-new Turboliner trains. Even though the train came in third, the message was clear - this was intended to be a racetrack. The trains of the future, so to speak.
It proved not to be. Rail mergers moved almost all the freight traffic off the Chicago-St. Louis route, and the railroad companies that owned the line were often indifferent to the needs of the tenant Amtrak. A bankruptcy in 1989 almost led to the trains being replaced by busses due to deteriorating track conditions. Even today, the line is a hodgepodge of many different ownership and dispatching territories, an antiquated signal system and insufficient places for trains to meet and pass one another. However, work has proceeded ever so slowly over the past two decades towards building this into another high-speed showpiece. Yet, like the line in Michigan, when its done it still won't be a TRUE high-speed system.
See the issue? Actually there's nothing wrong with upgrading existing services; this is something that should be happening already on an ongoing basis. Generally, most of Amtrak's other routes outside of the Northeast Corridor are located on busy freight mainlines which regardless of their physical condition today are not necessarily suitable for hosting passenger trains at 200+ MPH. Keep in mind that many freight mainlines are already operating at capacity or over capacity. Is, for example, Union Pacific, BNSF or Norfolk Southern going to pay for the necessary upgrades to their mainlines to allow a mix of 200 MPH trains with 40 MPH coal trains? I'm quite certain they won't.
People often point to Amtrak's recently refurbished line between Porter, Indiana and Kalamazoo, Michigan as an example of where we're headed in the realm of high speed rail, but keep in mind Amtrak has owned that particular line since 1976 and has been working on upgrading it for the past 30 years! Now they're talking of doing the same with the rest of the route all the way to Detroit. How long is that going to take? And once its done, we still won't have a TRUE high-speed system, like they do in Europe, Japan and China. These trains use conventional, diesel-powered equipment.
Chicago-St. Louis is an even better example. This particular line should have been one of Amtrak's showcase services; its a medium-distance route between two large cities, serving a state capital and a major college town and with connecting services at either end reaching many other destinations. Way back in 1973, Amtrak thought highly enough of this line for it to host a race between a car, an airplane and one of Amtrak's then-brand-new Turboliner trains. Even though the train came in third, the message was clear - this was intended to be a racetrack. The trains of the future, so to speak.
It proved not to be. Rail mergers moved almost all the freight traffic off the Chicago-St. Louis route, and the railroad companies that owned the line were often indifferent to the needs of the tenant Amtrak. A bankruptcy in 1989 almost led to the trains being replaced by busses due to deteriorating track conditions. Even today, the line is a hodgepodge of many different ownership and dispatching territories, an antiquated signal system and insufficient places for trains to meet and pass one another. However, work has proceeded ever so slowly over the past two decades towards building this into another high-speed showpiece. Yet, like the line in Michigan, when its done it still won't be a TRUE high-speed system.
See the issue? Actually there's nothing wrong with upgrading existing services; this is something that should be happening already on an ongoing basis. Generally, most of Amtrak's other routes outside of the Northeast Corridor are located on busy freight mainlines which regardless of their physical condition today are not necessarily suitable for hosting passenger trains at 200+ MPH. Keep in mind that many freight mainlines are already operating at capacity or over capacity. Is, for example, Union Pacific, BNSF or Norfolk Southern going to pay for the necessary upgrades to their mainlines to allow a mix of 200 MPH trains with 40 MPH coal trains? I'm quite certain they won't.
But HSR tracks wouldn't share those tracks , they would be built next to the Freight line or Highway which is why the Midwestern plan is cheap. Only lines up to 125mph can share with Freight. As for why Private hasn't touched the Midwest , the Freight companies haven't allowed them to use some the ROW for a reduced rate or they insisted that the Private company pay hundreds of millions in Rail taxes....
Any enterprise that is run by the gov't is going to be inherently inefficient, because decisions are made on the basis of politics rather than cost and profit.
Just wait until we get ObamaCare and you will see the mother of all government enterprise fiascoes.
The Northeast is 931.3 people per square mile....more then Japan or China...
It appears to me that you people really do want the rest of the nation to pay for your HSR and then pay for upkeep. You do, of course, know that the area you are talking about isn't a whole lot more than the countries involved. You still want us to pay taxes to build and take care of the line for you. When will you left leaners realize that we don't like the UN, their Agenda 21 or anything like that that takes so much money and does nothing at all for us?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
