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.
not sure what effect/affect frog angles will have with HSR...but I do understand that anything with HIGH SPEED will have to be within much tighter tolerances...I do understand that track maintenance is costly, and in general not being done well enough...its one thing for a CSX slow moving freight train to ru n over a loose track or some bad ties...it would be totally another thing for a HIGH SPEED train to end up derailing because of loose rail or bad/rotten ties
at least you understand what a frog is...some poeple dont even know the term
Used to design tracks works inside mills, learned from an old school engineer.
Frog angle and radii calculations seem to be important in any redesign of existing r-o-w to HSR. Configuration of mainline in relation to spurs is critical. What I'm asking is how higher speed would affect exist layout. And not being up on high speed sesign I was asking you if you knew the differences in design criteria.
As for hiway costs vs rail costs it was my understanding that rail win all categories, right of way costs (less area needed), construction costs (less mainline/lanes required), maintenance costs, fuel costs, "social and envirnmental" costs. Maintenance costs for rails might seem high but they are nothing like roadway costs. 30% of are roadway bridges need to be replaced and current funding levels are 1/3 third of what is needed just to stay even.
I feel like I'm beating a dead horse, but why is passenger rail the only transportation system held to this standard?
All forms of transportation should be funded by the users of those services including roads, rails and airports.
Government funding hides the true cost and leads to bad decisions. It's always easier to spend other people's money on your favorite government project. But if the people who use the facility have to pay the full cost, some projects would not be built and that is a good thing.
And unfortunately, we have such an amalgamation of transportation tax revenues that it is difficult to determine who is subsidizing what. For example, only 60% of gas taxes go to fund roads. The rest goes to a variety of things such as mass transit, parks, etc.
Thanks for the info. It makes sense that HSR would have much smaller tolerance for error, of course - higher speed, greater stress on track/roadbed, and many lives at stake.
If standard track isn't being properly maintained at present because owners refuse and the regulatory agency is underfunded, this is a serious problem but not insurmountable, I'd have thought. After all, railroads have been in operation for quite a long time now. The French TGV has been operating for more than 30 years during which it "has not recorded a single fatality due to accident while running at high speed". So it must be possible to safely operate and maintain an HSR line in the United States: if the French can do, we surely can too.
Railroad feet-dragging and obstruction in maintaining their own lines is probably the easiest problem to fix: I'm sure the regulatory power to insist is there, it's just a question of applying it. If by some chance the rail biz lobbyists have managed to defang the regulatory authority, then perhaps this needs to change: hefty daily fines for sub-par track might convince the freight companies to speed up their maintenance schedule. No one would think it's acceptable for a trucking company to operate its semis on bald tires - why should railroad be allowed to skip maintenance on their lines?
Increasing the gov't budget might be the more difficult political problem, but we are very clearly going to need to spend more money on our transportation infrastructure in any case, and there's no clear reason why track maintenance should get any less money than, say, air-traffic or harbor improvements.
Apparaently, we do have a couple of participants here who know a thing or two about trackwork, or dispatching, or a little of both. That is a refreshing change from too many forums where either the NIMBYs, dreamers, or what rail buffs refer to as "foamers" try to dominate.
It hasn't been brought out here (as yet) that the ability of freight and passengers to share track capacity is not what it once was, that much freight equipment has been redesigned (the articulated double-stack replacing the 85-foot piggyback flatcar), and that it cost a whole lotta money to install the welded rail and stronger anchors that have made derailments a lot less common -- where the investment made sense.
..., and there's no clear reason why track maintenance should get any less money than, say, air-traffic or harbor improvements.
That's the beauty of having the users pay all the costs. The market will determine the cost of each mode of transportation and the investment needed so you don't have to fight over funding.
Airline tickets should include a provision to cover the cost of building and operating the airports. Likewise, rail tickets should include the cost to build and operate the rails including the cost to acquire land.
All forms of transportation should be funded by the users of those services including roads, rails and airports.
Government funding hides the true cost and leads to bad decisions. It's always easier to spend other people's money on your favorite government project. But if the people who use the facility have to pay the full cost, some projects would not be built and that is a good thing.
And unfortunately, we have such an amalgamation of transportation tax revenues that it is difficult to determine who is subsidizing what. For example, only 60% of gas taxes go to fund roads. The rest goes to a variety of things such as mass transit, parks, etc.
I don't disagree. If we went back to a mostly private system, rail travel, and public transportation in general, would probably become a lot more popular.
I don't disagree. If we went back to a mostly private system, rail travel, and public transportation in general, would probably become a lot more popular.
That's true under current economic conditi9ons, but only so long as the current energy squeeze persits, and if there is any way to maintain the auto-centric lifestyle, at least for short local trips, the natural human desire for autonomy will keep it at the forefront.
Smaller, boxier cars, and the high fuel cost of anything better will continue to inveigh against long-distance personal auto use. And at the same time liquified natural gas (LNG) and the nature of consumer demand and the distribution network's need to adapt to it, seem likely to keep the 60-foot, 40-ton monster on the road -- often driven by people who speak English as a second language.
We may yet see a confict on these issue move closer to "center stage" in the theater of public opinion.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 12-10-2012 at 04:33 PM..
You have an interesting definition of success. (or is this a tongue in cheek post?)
Anybody could have the "best dam military in the world" if they had $600 billion to spend every year.
FYI, a government agency is a non profit, by nature. So trying to gauge success based on profits isn't appropriate.
The cost of services delivered is big, the accuracy rate of those services is another. Without question the post office delivers for much less than the private sector competitors. Fact is Big Brown, UPS, uses the postal service for end delivery of many of it parcels... Why would a major competitor use the post office to deliver their packages??? COST, the post office is much more cost effective. Don't believe me, call up a package shipping comparison tool and see who has the best rates. Sending papers or books, "media rate" is even less.
I'm guessing but I think the delivery of benefits from Medicare and SS rival the service any mega sized insurance company does. I know it took me three years to resolve a $117 billing issue with Aetna a few years ago. insurance horror stories - Google Search
On a sidenote any idea how many ppl are b*tching about Wells Fargo, it is stunning how customer unfriendly they are and how many errors they make?
From this poll, which is on a forum proven to be more right than left, I think we should go ahead with HSR
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.
