If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(SeattlePI)   California teams with Amtrak to design trains that travel up to 220 mph. Amtrak officials admits trains already go that fast but they are hitting that speed right around the time the wheels are coming off the tracks   (seattlepi.com) divider line 18
    More: Interesting, Amtrak, California, high-speed trains, trains  
•       •       •

1258 clicks; posted to Geek » on 19 Jan 2013 at 7:48 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



18 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-01-19 08:53:05 AM
Haha. Funny.
 
2013-01-19 09:02:48 AM
that will operate at up to 220 miles per hour along both coasts

Improssible on the East Coast except maybe that few mile stretch in RI that the Acela does 150mph. The rest of the NEC is a curvy, antique canetary  system mess.  The Metroliner hit 160mph @ Princeton junction  ages ago. It's the only stretch of track that could sustain high speed other than in RI.

That is unless they build an entirely new dedicated rail line
 
2013-01-19 09:06:52 AM

styckx: that will operate at up to 220 miles per hour along both coasts

Improssible on the East Coast except maybe that few mile stretch in RI that the Acela does 150mph. The rest of the NEC is a curvy, antique canetary  system mess.  The Metroliner hit 160mph @ Princeton junction  ages ago. It's the only stretch of track that could sustain high speed other than in RI.

That is unless they build an entirely new dedicated rail line


They'll build that new dedicated rail line as soon as the new Trans-Hudson tunnel is built.
 
2013-01-19 09:14:19 AM

BunkyBrewman: styckx: that will operate at up to 220 miles per hour along both coasts

Improssible on the East Coast except maybe that few mile stretch in RI that the Acela does 150mph. The rest of the NEC is a curvy, antique canetary  system mess.  The Metroliner hit 160mph @ Princeton junction  ages ago. It's the only stretch of track that could sustain high speed other than in RI.

That is unless they build an entirely new dedicated rail line

They'll build that new dedicated rail line as soon as the new Trans-Hudson tunnel is built.


Oh yeah. The Gateway project that is going to end up rivaling The Big Dig in terms of politics, shiatty labor and overruns.
 
2013-01-19 09:31:50 AM
Meh, I'll be impressed when their trans-continental lines are allowed to break 75 mph. That's where Amtrak REALLY needs to improve their system.
 
2013-01-19 10:07:21 AM
Wow- that will knock at least 20 minutes off that popular Merced to Fresno route. Hope they put out a press release so that someone notices.

Meanwhile, ever try Amtrak from Portland to Seattle? The train literally travels at 3mph through parts of Tacoma. Old ladies pushing shopping carts move faster.
 
2013-01-19 10:34:23 AM

styckx: that will operate at up to 220 miles per hour along both coasts

Improssible on the East Coast except maybe that few mile stretch in RI that the Acela does 150mph. The rest of the NEC is a curvy, antique canetary  system mess.  The Metroliner hit 160mph @ Princeton junction  ages ago. It's the only stretch of track that could sustain high speed other than in RI.

That is unless they build an entirely new dedicated rail line


I took the regular train from Boston to NYC and the Acela on the way back. Time difference wasn't that much, certainly in comparison to the price I paid.
 
2013-01-19 11:09:27 AM
Who the hell can chop the firewood that fast?
 
2013-01-19 11:30:23 AM

styckx: that will operate at up to 220 miles per hour along both coasts

Improssible on the East Coast except maybe that few mile stretch in RI that the Acela does 150mph. The rest of the NEC is a curvy, antique canetary  system mess.  The Metroliner hit 160mph @ Princeton junction  ages ago. It's the only stretch of track that could sustain high speed other than in RI.

That is unless they build an entirely new dedicated rail line


On the one hand, they should. There's no reason why we can't have infrastructure on par with France, Spain, Germany, Japan and even China, even if it's only available in some (not all) of the parts of the country that have the population density of Japan and western Europe.

On the other hand, any attempt to build dedicated high-speed rail lines will be hamstrung by American politics. Republicans in Congress will block it as much as they can, to benefit Big Oil by preventing a decrease in gasoline sales and/or to piss off liberals; and nearly every one-horse town that gives Amtrak right-of-way will do so only on the condition that at least one "high-speed" train in each direction makes a stop there every day, thus causing the trains capable of reaching 250 mph to not spend a moment traveling faster than 65 mph due to having to make a stop every 3 miles (and completely and utterly defeating the purpose of high-speed rail in the first place)
 
2013-01-19 11:59:36 AM
Can we just buy locomotives and carriages from Japan or France?

Please???
 
2013-01-19 12:06:57 PM
King Something:
On the other hand, any attempt to build dedicated high-speed rail lines will be hamstrung by American politics. Republicans in Congress will block it as much as they can, to benefit Big Oil by preventing a decrease in gasoline sales

Oh - I didn't realize you were posting from 1970. Let me help you a little bit.

You see, the oil companies don't care if gasoline sales decrease. When that happens, they increase prices to maintain profits. This is basic economics. For that matter, the oil companies would LOVE to cut overall consumption - that way, they can stretch out known resources, make the same amount of money, and spend less on exploration and shipping.

Of course, trains aren't going to make any difference in overall sales in the first place - generally, people will spend the same amount of money on gasoline no matter what. For example, when someone buys a higher-mileage car, they tend to drive more miles each month to make up the difference. The amount of US train track construction it would take to make a real difference in gasoline consumption would be astronomical.
 
2013-01-19 02:17:18 PM
maybe amtrak should split itself, one half as an operator and one half as a standardization organization to assist municipalities in setting up various types of rail.
 
2013-01-19 03:07:27 PM
FTA: The high-speed rail efforts in California have come under increased scrutiny by members of Congress who say it has become too expensive to build and operate.

To expensive -- compared to WHAT? The word "expensive" doesn't mean anything without a comparison. In this case, the status quo is very far away from free.
 
2013-01-19 03:08:52 PM

MrEricSir: FTA: The high-speed rail efforts in California have come under increased scrutiny by members of Congress who say it has become too expensive to build and operate.

To expensive -- compared to WHAT? The word "expensive" doesn't mean anything without a comparison. In this case, the status quo is very far away from free.


compared to walking would be my guess as to what they're comparing it to
 
2013-01-19 03:38:48 PM

King Something: styckx: that will operate at up to 220 miles per hour along both coasts

Improssible on the East Coast except maybe that few mile stretch in RI that the Acela does 150mph. The rest of the NEC is a curvy, antique canetary  system mess.  The Metroliner hit 160mph @ Princeton junction  ages ago. It's the only stretch of track that could sustain high speed other than in RI.

That is unless they build an entirely new dedicated rail line

On the one hand, they should. There's no reason why we can't have infrastructure on par with France, Spain, Germany, Japan and even China, even if it's only available in some (not all) of the parts of the country that have the population density of Japan and western Europe.

On the other hand, any attempt to build dedicated high-speed rail lines will be hamstrung by American politics. Republicans in Congress will block it as much as they can, to benefit Big Oil by preventing a decrease in gasoline sales and/or to piss off liberals; and nearly every one-horse town that gives Amtrak right-of-way will do so only on the condition that at least one "high-speed" train in each direction makes a stop there every day, thus causing the trains capable of reaching 250 mph to not spend a moment traveling faster than 65 mph due to having to make a stop every 3 miles (and completely and utterly defeating the purpose of high-speed rail in the first place)


Not really, they do this now in most places. They have a few trains that stop frequently and a few express trains that don't. As long as your tracks split at the stations to allow this it works well, and you can get on a local train to a main station and then get on an express if you have a long travel.
 
2013-01-19 06:29:13 PM
kyleaugustus

Can we just buy locomotives and carriages from Japan or France?

FRA buff-strength regulations.

Oh, and "stealin' our jerbs" is likely in there somewhere.

Probably "Socialism!" as well.
 
2013-01-19 06:48:41 PM

styckx: Improssible on the East Coast except maybe that few mile stretch in RI that the Acela does 150mph. The rest of the NEC is a curvy, antique canetary system mess. The Metroliner hit 160mph @ Princeton junction ages ago. It's the only stretch of track that could sustain high speed other than in RI.

That is unless they build an entirely new dedicated rail line


That's basically what they're planning on doing. And it's not just that the track is curvy, it's also that Amtrak shares the NE corridor with local commuter trains and CSX.
 
2013-01-20 10:56:52 AM

cirby: King Something:
On the other hand, any attempt to build dedicated high-speed rail lines will be hamstrung by American politics. Republicans in Congress will block it as much as they can, to benefit Big Oil by preventing a decrease in gasoline sales

Oh - I didn't realize you were posting from 1970. Let me help you a little bit.

You see, the oil companies don't care if gasoline sales decrease. When that happens, they increase prices to maintain profits. This is basic economics. For that matter, the oil companies would LOVE to cut overall consumption - that way, they can stretch out known resources, make the same amount of money, and spend less on exploration and shipping.

Of course, trains aren't going to make any difference in overall sales in the first place - generally, people will spend the same amount of money on gasoline no matter what. For example, when someone buys a higher-mileage car, they tend to drive more miles each month to make up the difference. The amount of US train track construction it would take to make a real difference in gasoline consumption would be astronomical.


And to respond to the poster from the 1990s, US consumption no longer controls prices. American exceptionalism fail.

US trains are used as heavily as Euro trains, only they just deliver coal and other ore. Freight trains go slow and get incredible efficiency (only beaten by sea transport). High speed trains get both full air resistance (unlike planes at 30,000') and rolling resistance (as subby alluded to). The correct solution is to dissolve the TSA and fly, not confiscate enough room for tracks directly through a city.
 
Displayed 18 of 18 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report