businessinsider.com:
"There are those who say high-speed rail is a fantasy -- but its success around the world says otherwise," Obama proclaimed on the day he announced the plan. Indeed, there are many high-speed trains around the world.
We've put together a sampling of 10 high-speed trains from around the world to let you see what we might get and how much it'll cost.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Man if I were promoting trains I'd sure avoid mentioning that 5-3/4 hours for 500 miles route in Spain ... because that's *exactly* why we fly in America, the distances involved.
Explain your logic. Hint: add in time going to and from airport, check in, security etc. etc. etc.
I've hidden high-speed rail in Japan and Europe. It's great. But people who say that their model translates directly to the U.S. are not being realistic. There are basically 2 markets where there is enough population in a small enough geographic area: Boston-to-D.C. and Southern California .... that's it.
Take the beautiful Paris-to-Amsterdam Thalys ride ... man it's awesome. The problem for that in U.S. terms is that leaving Seattle, that gets me to ..... Spokane. Tokyo-Osaka is about the same distance. Trust me, there are nowhere NEAR as many people living between Seattle and Spokane as there are between Tokyo and Osaka.
So, what kind of high-speed rail run would you want from Seattle? Seattle to L.A.? That's similar to Paris-to-MOSCOW, and lemme tell you, most business people going from Paris to Moscow do the same thing as business people going from Seattle to L.A. -- they fly.
I've ridden the Shanghai maglev too ... great technology demonstrator and a fun amusement park ride, but a HUGE money loser and environmental question mark for locals.
I'm not arguing against putting high-speed rail in the limited markets where it makes sense in the U.S., but *only* where it makes economic sense.
We need transit solutions in this country, but they have to make sense for our geography and our market, and now more than ever they have to be cost effective.
Most Americans don't understand high speed rail so it's important to explain what it is and how it functions.
- It's not 200mph from point to point. Most modern HSR slows down and uses conventional rails inside major cities. Operationally, it's more similar to interstates but at a much faster and safer speed between and at a more conventional speed within cities.
- Intermediate populations are less important than reasons to stop (universities, industrial and research centers, and regional capitals are common stops). The first true European HSR route--Paris-Lyon--is between a cities of 2 million (Paris) and 470,000 (Lyon) but passes through cities that total only about 380,000 (based on the old Paris-Lyon route). Intermediates often aren't critical (if high speed rail made every intermediate stop, it wouldn't be high speed)
- Tokyo-Osaka is obviously a very densely populated and has service several times every hour. European High Speed Rail operate in less densely populated corridors but, in many areas, attracts enough traffic to support at least 12 trains a day (in either direction) carrying up to a thousand passengers at a time.
- Barcelona-Melaga does not appear to be a direct route but is two routes that pass through Madrid. Barcelona-Melaga is also Barcelona-Tarragona-Valencia-Madrid and Madrid-Cordoba-Melaga. Barcelona-Melaga is probably not significant but Barcelona-Madrid, Madrid-Cordoba, and Barcelona-Valencia are more reasonable. All more closely resemble potential city pairs in U.S. corridors.
It makes more sense when cities are within 300 miles or so:
Detroit-Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati-Louisville
Chicago-Indianapolis-Columbus-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia
Dallas-Austin-San Antonio-Houston
Memphis-Birmingham-Atlanta-Charlotte
Yes, there are big sparsely populated areas in the middle of the country that probably wouldn't work.
Being the last ones to the game we sure better have the coolest trains around!
Check out this alternative. I think it's pretty neat, and comparatively cheap.
Peruse the entire site. I think you'll be impressed.
http://www.tubularrail.com/video.htm
That is cool, I like it. I don't see it as much as high speed rail. That is a lot of towers to build and that can be pricey over difficult terrain, and we have rail in place, that rail just needs to be updated to fit faster cars. But I could it see it being great for commuters. The only thing I am curious about, it how to make it turn, it looks like it would need a wider turning radius, and that could be difficult in a city environment.
Here is the answer they give. [ http://www.tubularrail.com/questions_answers.htm ]
It's a little technical in its verbiage, but I think you'll get the idea. Plus they have that roundhouse set-up that could work within a city situation, for more acute directional variances. What it comes down to is that almost anything can be designed within it's operational parameters, if designed with forethought.
I think this application would be great transport within the upper mid-west, where most cities are within 100-300 miles of one another. Not having to use existing rail-beds is a big plus, considering how much upgrading would be necessary. Building along, or within, existing highway rights-of-way would be prime.
I think this is a concept created by graphic designers rather than engineers. Aligning those "stanchions" and keeping them aligned would be very difficult and, given the settling that occurs in any elevated or concrete structure (think potholes and how the height of bridges change during, immediately after, and years after they are built), entire stretches would be unusable as the routes would be continuously under repair. Not to mention what happens when a long, metal vehicle supported at a limited number of locations warps due to weather and fatigue. Interesting concept but likely not practical.
Loading comments…
| 04/30/09 07:45 AM