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.
I have been to China twice and I think their high speed trains are great. A high speed train connection between Asia and North America would be great. But I would prefer a high speed train network within the USA first.
I've never understood the idea of taking the train just for fun and to 'see the scenery' along the way. You see the inside of a train (which would be fun for about the first hour), maybe some farms and/or bad neighborhoods, and in this case probably just a dizzying blur. If I want to see the land I take a much shorter trip by car and stop as often as possible. If I want to ride a train I take a tourist rail or perhaps a commuter line. But if I want to go someplace 1000+ miles away, I fly there and then travel around on land once I'm there. The only advantage to the train is that you maybe don't have to go through airport security and stuff to get on it, but that would certainly change for something like a train to China if not for all trains by then. Cars have very many advantages, but they still only make sense for me when the destination is less than a full day or so away and of course when no oceans are involved.
If they ever get trains down to where they are very cheap to ride for long distances and still go relatively fast, I would start taking them. I would also take them if there were no roads, but with the freeways system we have, even $10+/gallon gas would not offset the time, hassle and $$ it takes to move a family of 4 around any distance.
I'd LOVE to see how this train would deal with massive snow and 40 below temps 6 months months of the year, being that they will have to travel through Siberia! Not to mention traversing some of the most remote barren lands in the entire world!!
I've never understood the idea of taking the train just for fun and to 'see the scenery' along the way. You see the inside of a train (which would be fun for about the first hour), maybe some farms and/or bad neighborhoods, and in this case probably just a dizzying blur. If I want to see the land I take a much shorter trip by car and stop as often as possible. If I want to ride a train I take a tourist rail or perhaps a commuter line.
You have obviously never taken the train up/down California where the scenery changes often and sections of the train tracks are close enough to the shore that if the train stopped, one could jump into the Pacific Ocean.
this is ridiculous... the Bering sea is one of the most inhospitable regions on earth, building a bridge across it has been debated for tens of years but the cost of overcoming challenges just does not make any economic sense. And, after spending billions on such a project would there be any demand? I guess not. I would think the 60 miles of water could be covered better by a tunnel.
However, the distance between Beijing and the Bering strait is 3300 miles, on a 200 mph train that itself would take 16+ hours, then you are deposited in a ridiculously remote part of Alaska so from there to Seattle is another 2200 miles so 11 hours, so Beijing - Seattle would be a 30 hours trip, make any sense?? To recoup the costs of maintaining such a railway line the tickets would have to be something like $5000 a pop, I am guessing.
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.
