As if another reason to cancel was really needed!

[sparky15]

Paul,
Non story. If we went by that newspapers would be ten pages and newscasts fifteen minutes long. Most of that dominated by sports and the weather. As far as bias I think most of that is in the viewer or reader. You're pro HSR so see that story as a way to stop it. I'm indifferent at this point and all I can think is there's one in every crowd. All subject to personal interpretation I guess. Not an insult towards anyone, just an observation.

For the sake of discussion, using this proposed HSR route, I see no benefit of the investment. Taking the mileage into account, what real gains in time would you get from say 70mph nonstop compared to 130mph. Both would be a far cry faster than 55mph on a congested highway. Would that extra few minutes gained be worth the investment in a whole new infrastructure, along with maintenance facilities and training new mechanics that go with it. Not to mention purchasing and grading new right of ways. That will still need to be done in some areas but existing lines pretty much have that laid out.

As far as building along existing lines. Railroads do it all the time. The key is preplanning with that host railroad. The majority of the track can be laid without affecting normal service. Where you have to tie in, trains can be routed onto the new sections as you repair the old. UP is doing the whole Sunset Corridor that way with minimal disruptions. The key is planning.

If it takes off there and other areas, then entertain dedicated HSR systems. Start looking at Chicago to St Louis type corridors. You'll never really compete with airlines on longer distances. The have been moving people for a long time at cheaper prices and still making a profit. I once looked at taking a train from Arizona to Chicago when I was going on leave. The price at the time was almost double what airfare would cost.

Dave.....

 

[paulzmay]

I did a little looking and the Morning Star doesn't seem too far off from any U.S. big-city daily, especially from self-described "progressive" papers like the Philadelphia Daily News. The only possible difference is that your source seems to be more labor/union-oriented, where as U.S. newspapers have a love-hate thing with labor: They love unions/labor if someone else is paying for them, but they strangely change their tune when they have to deal with their own unions.

Just wondering if the Morning Star is so consistent themselves...



No, it runs via Washington, D.C. I'm guessing at least partially over an ex-B&O mainline. I don't know how hilly that area is, but I believe it to be less so than much of PA. Thing is about HSR, is that (unless some professional engineers can attest otherwise) that it will require a lot of grading and drilling through mountains.



No difference here: the U.S. media is so far left-wing in part because what it chooses to carry. That's where the real bias is, never mind the wording of stories, the factual inaccuracies, the degree of coverage given to one side or the other, etc. The difference is, the SNCF issue is really a fluff piece - it only involves a few people with an issue - whereas our media will make a federal case out of a politician's kids* (*assuming they don't like said politician), openly falsify reports about "assault weapons" that lead to enactment of counter-productive laws, and so on.

It has always troubled me that so much of our coverage is controlled by so few organizations. You may not like Fox, but at least they have incentive to run against the propaganda outlets.

I just used the Morning Star as it's by reputation the furthest left of the British dailies. It's circulation is actually very low compared to more mainstream left of centre papers like The Mirror and The Guardian. Even so, it's clear that it's almost certainly impossible to even define what unbiased is - it's almost certainly relative to one's own point of view, and the norms of the society they live in.

Just had a look at ruling grades for HSR. Apparently for dedicated HSR 3.5-4% is quite normal - these are light trains with stacks of power (that don't even have the weight of fuel to worry about). Curves have to be fairly large (and/or massively superelevated). Some of the curves near Lille in France almost feel like an airliner banking.

Paul,
Non story. If we went by that newspapers would be ten pages and newscasts fifteen minutes long. Most of that dominated by sports and the weather. As far as bias I think most of that is in the viewer or reader. You're pro HSR so see that story as a way to stop it. I'm indifferent at this point and all I can think is there's one in every crowd. All subject to personal interpretation I guess. Not an insult towards anyone, just an observation.

For the sake of discussion, using this proposed HSR route, I see no benefit of the investment. Taking the mileage into account, what real gains in time would you get from say 70mph nonstop compared to 130mph. Both would be a far cry faster than 55mph on a congested highway. Would that extra few minutes gained be worth the investment in a whole new infrastructure, along with maintenance facilities and training new mechanics that go with it. Not to mention purchasing and grading new right of ways. That will still need to be done in some areas but existing lines pretty much have that laid out.

As far as building along existing lines. Railroads do it all the time. The key is preplanning with that host railroad. The majority of the track can be laid without affecting normal service. Where you have to tie in, trains can be routed onto the new sections as you repair the old. UP is doing the whole Sunset Corridor that way with minimal disruptions. The key is planning.

If it takes off there and other areas, then entertain dedicated HSR systems. Start looking at Chicago to St Louis type corridors. You'll never really compete with airlines on longer distances. The have been moving people for a long time at cheaper prices and still making a profit. I once looked at taking a train from Arizona to Chicago when I was going on leave. The price at the time was almost double what airfare would cost.

Dave.....

Hmm - not so sure about the idea of papers being empty without the non-stories. Some papers manage to carry more in-depth stories, and spread their geographic spread a bit wider, though ultimately papers carry what their proprietors think will sell...

It's true that full HSR may be more than is necessary when you're looking to provide an alternative to congested highways, but once you're into the short flight market, 200mph HSR is the only thing that will work as an alternative to air. Build cost of new line doesn't vary that much with speed, and in fact removing freight allows steeper gradients and less ventilated tunnels, and may well allow for smaller loading gauges. In addition, higher rail speed is needed to allow for the fact that rail is almost never door to door, and will involve connections or a drive to the station.

The upgrade thing I guess is from memories of the massive cost and disruption caused by the upgrade of the West Coast Main Line in the UK (the main line from London to Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool and Glasgow). There were years of engineering works, delays, diversions etc in order to deliver a slightly faster railway, and it cost almost as much as new HSR. I'm sure it has been done better elsewhere, but this example is well remembered in the UK. It's also a question of additional available land. The WCML upgrade was done without much additional land at all.

In terms of distance, the thinking seems to be that LA-SF is probably about the furthest where you would expect to take a majority market share. In Europe people do use HSR for 5+ hour trips (especially for skiing), but it's not the preferred option for most people at these distances. As you say, fares have to remain competitive - in Europe they generally are (except the UK). It's also worth noting that HSR fares shouldn't suffer from oil price shocks, which are only going to get more common as oil gets harder to find and more expensive to extract.

Paul

 

[Konni]

Hi,

If it comes to past misdeeds dont't forget Ford and General Motors, whose german plants built the trucks for the german army an the SS too....

But let's come backt to the point. Modern passenger Railways, local services as well as high speed services are filling a gap between automobiles and aviation. Clearly in thinly populated areas automobiles are superior. If, however, traffic increases congestion starts, which quickly reduces efficiency of road traffic. Here modern passenger trains provide a way out.

The same applies to aviation, large territories which are thinly populated are very well served by passenger aircraft, if you don't mind occasional delays because of bad weather. In densely populated areas, however, getting to the airport, getting through security and boarding, as well as getting from the airport after landing to the final destination takes much more time than the flight itself. Here high speed trains may provide a superior solution. The approach pioneered by SNCF was to use existing railway stations in the city centres and to build special high speed tracks, which are used exclusively by high speed trains, bypassing the old lines which continue to be used by fraight and local passenger trains.
The success of this system was first demonstrated on the Paris to Lyon line, where the french Air Inter airline lost business to SNCF. The same applies to the TGV trains run between Stuttgart via Karlsruhe, Strassbourg and a few other stops to Paris. Although the high speed tracks are not yet complete, forcing the use of old lines for some of the distance, the TGV trains are already beating aircraft, not to speak of automobiles. Once the missing links are completed by 2013, travel time between Karlsruhe in Germany and Paris will be around 2.5 hours.

Now, in the US most of the population are living not in small towns but in metropolitan areas roughly stretching along the east cost, the west coast and along the great lakes. I therefore believe, that there is great potential for modern high speed trains. That, however, requires either modernization of existing tracks, or building of new lines.

Here railway companies are running into a problem. Even in the US it is generally accepted, that road building by tax money is a government responsibility.
Taxes payed by professional haulers and bus companies do not cover expenses for building and maintenance of interstates and local roads. Railway companies, on the other hand, no matter whether they are goverment or privately owned are supposed to cover the expenses for the tracks from their income from train fares.

It is this inequality, which puts railways into a disadvantage against road traffic. In Germany and Europe we are therefore aiming at a system, where building and maintenance of tracks and signals are government responsibility, while train services themselves are provided by private enterprise.

Cheers,

Konni

 

[sparky15]

I think it's enough of the past misdeeds thing. There's been enough of holding people responsible for actions that occurred before they were even born. That has gone on far to long for way to many years.

Interesting discussion, especially when you dump the typical stereotypes and approach these problems with an eye toward solving problems. Once you realize what works in one country could have an adverse effect in other you get a better idea of the problems each face. Each have unique obstacles you may never realize until you actually see them.

I think HSR has a future here, but just not at this time. Due to the sheer size and scope, we need to concentrate on alleviating road traffic in the most populous areas first in the most economical way possible. Laying it at the governments feet to foot the bill impacts other areas that may loose needed funds. It's a domino effect.

London to Paris or Paris to Berlin are attractive as far as ridership. Chicago to St. Louis, how many really need that service, people wise, to make it economical? Freight in trucks, plenty. Start by getting the trucks off the interstates first. Eases congestion, saves fuel and cuts down on road maintenance costs. Those heavy trucks beat the highways to death. We'll still need the roads, but not eight lane interstates.

Once we do that we can start to expand local rail systems into the less populated areas with money saved from road maintenance. Light rail would suffice for most of that.

I do find it ironic. I live in a rural area and every town here grew up around a railroad. Once the railroads pulled out, those towns dried up and shrunk. My property abuts an old rail line and for close to 50 miles of that commute I mentioned the road I took stayed literally within sight of those tracks. The rails were in place up to two years ago when most were finally ripped up south of here.

The reason? They all served grain elevators. Once grain was loaded into trucks at a farm, it was cheaper to drive an extra 20 miles to a large elevator for rail shipment than maintain a rail line to several smaller elevators spread out. Passenger service died out long before then, it was impossible to serve that many smaller towns with any useable schedule.

Dave.....

 

[itareus]

I love a good controversy!

Light the blue touch paper and retire to a safe distance ....


( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/20488.stm )

 

[GS41995]

Are you kidding?

I notice that most all the posts against Florida HSR don't live in Florida. You need to visit Orlando & drive to Tampa on Interstate-4.

You need to see the area in person or at least on Google Earth...in the last ten years for example, the population grew by 3-million.

Every day, 500 families move down there on the average.

The retired population largely moved south from the northeastern states, that are very familiar with public transportation.

Only one year, 2008, did the population show no growth...but given a ten-year time-frame, it will be made up for.

The growth rate between 1990-2000 was 23%.

They're starting to plan perimeter routes outside the perimeter routes.

I lived in Lakeland from 1980 to 1992. I went back last year & it was hardly what I could remember, because of the massive growth of subdivisions, businesses, etc. When my family moved to Florida in 1965 the population was 4-million...now it's 18.5m.

Heck yes, Florida needs HSR, independent of freight-hauling railroads.

Yes exactly, I live in the Tampa Bay area. Rember those massive pile-ups on I-4 a couple years ago? Traffic on Various roadways through out the area are jammed. As a rail-loving Floridan, I say let's do it.