Hi-speed Rail Article

gisa ,

Personally I would not take a train that went that fast !
But I am older than your average traveler .
70 miles per hour is fast enough for me on land , to many variables ?

But an interesting link ---DLR
 
Well we have nothing like that in the UK but we do have a fairly good rail system unlike the US which has been left with a rather skimpy inter-city passenger system. It is even more so when you consider what it once had. It is really a freight railway the US has with essentially a tiny national passenger organisation. Here it totally the reverse. Even with the great cutbacks of the 1960;s rail is still a mass moving transport infrastructure. In fact passenger traffic in the various private companies are now at their ghest they have been since the post-war years. The only state run railway we have is the N.I.R. in Ulster.

I do feel a bit sorry for out cousins across the pond and many are surprised at the extent of rail services when they come here. My home city Glasgow must be unique in Gt Britain and indeed Eurpope. We will shortly have 4 seperate passenger tracks via different places between our two Scots major cities, Glasgow and Edinburgh. We have the following.

(1) Fast shuttle every 15 minutes (30 in the evening from Glasgow (Queen St) - Edinburgh. In fact with a loop in the middle going throught 2 parts of falirk even more choice.
(2) Glasgow (Queen St) - Edinburgh every hour and a half and is a slow line stopping at various small towns via Shotts.
(3) Glasgow (Central - Edinburgh via Carstairs - infrequent as part of a longer national srvice.
(4) The gap between Airdrie and Bathgate (lifted decades ago) is now being put back.

The long defunct Larkhall branch was relaid as part of the Glasgow Sububurban elecgrics and has been so successful consultation is being made so cosnider taking the track right out to Stonehouse as the bed is still there. The aryhill-Anniesland lines has been re-instated, Alloa Line brought back the Galashiels line to be rlaid in the next hyear and other projects being looked at in Scotland.

Yep,I feel sorry for Americans!
 
Virgin did come over to Florida to help start a high speed service that was set for next year. Unfortunately Gov. Jeb Bush-R used education, crime, and medical care against it. Pathetic little swine will still do anything to make sure that rail doesnt win in Florida. Despite the fact that he's out of office. He works behind the scenes with CSX, hence the collapsing of the CFRTA System.

Isaac
 
Amtrak is the right train for you then. Quaint little heritage line.
I have ridden the Shinkansen, and it was the best ride I've ever been on. Ultra smooth and whisper quiet. And wonderfully fast. I hope America can get enough vision to make something like this so I can afford to travel again.

:cool: Claude
 
I've had the pleasure to be on a few trains in my life so far.

- GO transit commuter trains
- VIA intercity trains (from Toronto to Montreal and back). I've read about several *proposed* high speed rail links between these two cities, but it never seems to happen. Just studies, studies and more studies. It's rather insulting to have such a slow (and up until recently) dilapidated system running between two of the biggest cities in a G8 country.
- Japanese shuttle train from Osaka airport to Downtown Osaka. Neat design...
- Some *local* intercity type trains in Korea.
- My favourite so far? The KTX (TGV set purchased for use in Korea). Quiet, fast and reliable. Not scary at all and quite clean. ^^

One must remember that the size of sheer distances makes state of the art passenger railroading unfeasible in North America. Our governments further subsidize airport and highway modes of transport much more than they do railroads so it's no surprise people shy away from them. It's a mentality people will eventually have to change once oil becomes unfeasible.

Deelare, high speed rail is fairly safe...it has to be in terms of public relations =) and with all the stuff I've read about Qantas and other airlines safety records plus the stresses of the Air Traffic Controllers working at airports it makes me think I'd much rather be on the ground at those speeds. :hehe:

:wave:

Gisa ^^
 
I think a private company could make high speed trains work in America. I would begin with short to medium lines between major hubs, 100-300 miles so the times would be competitive with airlines. LA to Las Vegas, as an example.
When enough lines are built in an area, I would connect them to form a network.

:cool: Claude
 
It is doable...and that's why the Northeast corridor for Amtrak can compete as there is a relatively short distance with a high population.

Again, it requires a lot of capital investment and maintenance but done properly, it can be profitable and use less energy than other sources.

In Canada, I could see a link between Toronto and Montreal being done someday but the distance is too far and there are many alternatives...they'd be better off trying to increase the average speed on express trains and minimizing curves/upgrading the track to accomodate faster trains.

In the States, I could see a link being built in California (lots of people big cities) and in Texas (big cities there too) but I guess the distance would have to be short and relatively flat. We'll see...

:wave:

Gisa ^^
 
Passenger railways in the US?

I can say with certainty that no one on this planet is more in love with railroads, and passenger trains, than me. But the reality, in my opinion, makes the idea of modern day passenger service on almost any but intracity light rail service, in the US impracticable.

Even in the days when rail was the only feasible form of long distance transport, passenger service never paid its own way. While trains like the Daylight or the Twentieth Century Limited generated a lot of revenue, that revenue was purchased at the expense of profits from government mail contracts and highly regulated and expensive freight tariffs. No one was paying attention to this while the railroads were awash with dollars. With the DC3, mail contracts started to disappear, as people did not wish to wait for a week for transcontinental mail to be delivered, although we often still do for even intracity mail:hehe: .

With the interstate highway system, there was at last a freight competitor to rail. That meant that the railroads had to become lean and efficient. That also meant what was left of this source of money could no longer be pumped into passenger service. By 1980, and almost overnight, single car loadings became a thing of the past. That kind of traffic moved to trucks or to intermodal service.

To the proponents of "high speed rail" and other such concepts, I issue a challenge, and if it is met, I will forever hold my peace and be embarassed.:o The challenge is as follows:

1. List ten independent high speed passenger lines in the US or anywhere in the world that can operate without massive direct or indirect government subsidies.

2. If you can't do that, say where the subsidy comes from. If you say "the government," tell us where the government gets it, and be sure to tell us where the "big corporations" get the money to kick in. I'll help you on this, it's the people who don't use the rail line.

3. Propose a high speed train line that can pay for construction and operation from traditional financing and the fare box and I'll suport it and buy stock in it. Then you can build it and make a fortune.

It seems to me that propping up outmoded operations, companies, and methods just diminishes wealth and slows innovation.

Ok, all you fellow railfans, tear me apart. :eek: I think I have to get a load of Hydrogen Peroxide, gauze, and adhesive tape.

Bernie
 
I wont tear you apart. Debating and discussing is more productive anyhow...

You definitely raise some good points and the capital required to get it going is intensive. I sadly agree with you for the most part. Do consider though the initial investment that airports and highways received and continue to receive. Railways might have a chance to fight back if they received those subsidies now. ;)

Just my 2c

:wave:

Gisa ^^
 
bl4882 said:
1. List ten independent high speed passenger lines in the US or anywhere in the world that can operate without massive direct or indirect government subsidies.
Click to expand...

The Shinkansen isn't subsidized AFAIK, though JR is run by the Japanese government. (granted, it still comes out in the black every year.)

However, the only part of the US which is vaguely like Japan is the East coast, where we already have a high speed rail system, the Acela. The Acela is one of the very few profitable Amtrak routes. (the others being the Auto Train and a few NYC-Florida trains.)
So high speed rail is viable, but only in a very few specific locations. (I could see NYC-Chicago working out, but certainly not NYC-LA.)
 
I can't find any smilies with gnashing teeth and rabid foam. Consider yourself chewed at.
I will admit that I can't name any passenger lines that operate at a profit from fares in this country. That's because they're all government operated and run as a public service rather than a business, usually with great inefficiency. The tax revenue from the increased economic development growing up around rail stops is considered to exceed the subsidies, but it doesn't actually appear in the farebox, so it's rarely counted.
The trucking industry gets its roadways free from fuel taxes and property taxes paid from many sources, including the railroads. None of that money goes back to the railroads, of course. They're in the bizarre position of being forced by law to pay for their chief competitors.
A model of how a railroad could be run at a profit would be the Tokyo Express Electric Railway (Tokyo Kyuko Denki Tedsodo). Tokyu lines usually terminate at large department stores, built into the stations for the passenger's convenience. Tokyu department stores are clean, well stocked and very convenient for shoppers. And owned by the train company.
Tokyu gets money when people shop and when they go to the store to shop. It's a perfect symbiosis. The trains attract customers to the stores, and the stores attract passengers to the trains.
My idea would be to make the major stations into shopping and residential centers in the larger cities, with outpost stores and entertainment at the smaller stations and convenience stores at the smallest branch stops. All stations would cover their own expenses and even make a profit. The train fare would only have to cover the cost of operating the train itself.

:cool: Claude
 
RooRocz said:
The Shinkansen isn't subsidized AFAIK, though JR is run by the Japanese government. (granted, it still comes out in the black every year.)

However, the only part of the US which is vaguely like Japan is the East coast, where we already have a high speed rail system, the Acela. The Acela is one of the very few profitable Amtrak routes. (the others being the Auto Train and a few NYC-Florida trains.)
So high speed rail is viable, but only in a very few specific locations. (I could see NYC-Chicago working out, but certainly not NYC-LA.)
Click to expand...

As far as I know, many high speed railways in Japan are privately owned. Some turn a profit (mind you I bet they bought low like any smart buyer would do). Even more interesting is that some people choose to commit suicide on these tracks, which causes delays and a serious loss of income. As a preventitive measure, the railways often bill the family of the suicidee? for the cost incurred should they choose to end their life in such a way. Personally, I think it's a good idea. I don't want to go off topic or raise cause any ruckus, but my opinion is that if you wish to commit suicide, do it painlessly and selflessly.

I agree with tokkyu40, even on a smaller scale, these could have potential and we are forgetting to account for all the hidden positive benefits railways bring.

:wave:

Gisa ^^
 
To TOKKYU40, thank you for your post. That is the sort of response I'd hoped for. My stash of H2O2 is still untapped.:hehe:

To everyone, thank you as well. There are good arguments for high speed rail service, even if subsidized, that I hope will continue to come forward here as this thread develops. But we should be careful that we are not just propping up an arguably obsolescent industry (passenger rail), as opposed to promoting the arguable general good. Not an easy decision.

Bernie
 
bl4882 said:
I can say with certainty that no one on this planet is more in love with railroads, and passenger trains, than me. But the reality, in my opinion, makes the idea of modern day passenger service on almost any but intracity light rail service, in the US impracticable.

Even in the days when rail was the only feasible form of long distance transport, passenger service never paid its own way. While trains like the Daylight or the Twentieth Century Limited generated a lot of revenue, that revenue was purchased at the expense of profits from government mail contracts and highly regulated and expensive freight tariffs. No one was paying attention to this while the railroads were awash with dollars. With the DC3, mail contracts started to disappear, as people did not wish to wait for a week for transcontinental mail to be delivered, although we often still do for even intracity mail:hehe: .

With the interstate highway system, there was at last a freight competitor to rail. That meant that the railroads had to become lean and efficient. That also meant what was left of this source of money could no longer be pumped into passenger service. By 1980, and almost overnight, single car loadings became a thing of the past. That kind of traffic moved to trucks or to intermodal service.

To the proponents of "high speed rail" and other such concepts, I issue a challenge, and if it is met, I will forever hold my peace and be embarassed.:o The challenge is as follows:

1. List ten independent high speed passenger lines in the US or anywhere in the world that can operate without massive direct or indirect government subsidies.

2. If you can't do that, say where the subsidy comes from. If you say "the government," tell us where the government gets it, and be sure to tell us where the "big corporations" get the money to kick in. I'll help you on this, it's the people who don't use the rail line.

3. Propose a high speed train line that can pay for construction and operation from traditional financing and the fare box and I'll suport it and buy stock in it. Then you can build it and make a fortune.

It seems to me that propping up outmoded operations, companies, and methods just diminishes wealth and slows innovation.

Ok, all you fellow railfans, tear me apart. :eek: I think I have to get a load of Hydrogen Peroxide, gauze, and adhesive tape.

Bernie
Click to expand...

I think you may be missing the point. Many high speed networks can pay their operating costs, and why shouldn't infrastructure costs be paid for out of general taxation, the same as highways and most airports? So long as high speed trains are well used, have a lower environmental impact than air or road, and don't turn out to be a money-pit, then they are the best option for medium distance journeys.

The problem with some of the proposed US schemes is that they were (IIRC) intended as being entirely privately funded operations, which is always going to be problematic when capital costs are so high and payback periods are so long (and not guaranteed). This is why government needs to make the investment, even if private companies might eventually run the services.

So, I don't see a major re-birth of transcontinental passenger railroads, but we can't afford to ignore the advantages of high-speed rail for journeys of around 500 miles (800km) or so.

Paul
 
bl4882 said:
To everyone, thank you as well. There are good arguments for high speed rail service, even if subsidized, that I hope will continue to come forward here as this thread develops. But we should be careful that we are not just propping up an arguably obsolescent industry (passenger rail), as opposed to promoting the arguable general good. Not an easy decision.

Bernie
Click to expand...

Please allow me an attempt at refuting your last statement. :)

I think passenger rail could still be a useful industry and can still break even or could even be considered profitable (as tokkyu said, with other industries and what not). Why do I think this? I have several reasons...first, when it comes to land travel, there is one vehicle which reigns supreme in one specific area? Which one? A train of course! In which area? Movement of goods in bulk. Trucks are great for small specialized loads but not en masse. Aside from the obvious increase in traffic congestion, energy input (I could be wrong but I think having more trucks on the road would waste more energy compared to one train although we'd have to factor in teh costs of building and maintaining a rail line/road) labour input (have to factor both into account as well). Ships can do well on water but yeah, on land.

The key for passenger services is to obviously have your goods travel en masse. I'm sure that rush hour trains of any kind are more profitable than any other and when factoring in traffic, pollution, work output (commuting by car = stress = less energy/output in terms of what a person can achieve). For rural areas, areas that have a population that's spread out, or areas that are hardly populated, I don't think rail travel would ever be feasible but for short intercity runs or rush hour trains, they must be able to break something close to even no?

And again, railways have not had the subsidies that highways/airports have so it's not a level playing field.

That brings my grand total up to 4c today :hehe:

Great input all!

:wave:

Gisa ^^
 
Hi Paulzmay,

This was a well reasoned post. But it was hypothetical. Where is all the capital for these lines going to come from? The government. Where will it go? To the place most likely to generate re-election votes. Where will it be administered? Visit any USA department of motor vehicles.

Do we need that?

Bernie
 
Hi Nozoming and others, and please keep in mind that not all places on earth are created equal and my comments are directed at the US:

I guess my question is: If high speed rail is such a time and money saving desirable alternative to other modes of transportation, why has not some greedy capitalist built one and made a bizzilion dollars of off of it? The market generally will make answers to questions. The government generally makes answers in search of questions. Is high speed rail, in most instances in the US, an answer in search of a question? Do we really need to send out sheriffs with guns to put people on trains if the people do not want to go there? That's what governments do. They enlist force to impose decisions on their populace. This is not always bad, but it should, I think, be done with great restraint.

In my own little corner of the world we had the Key System until about 1960. It died and gave way to the decision of 2 or so million commuters to patronize other forms of transportation, e.g., cars. Then BARTD was created, mostly on the same right of way, to do what Key System did, but with massive government subsidies.

So, are we really moving to the future? or are we clinging to the past?

Best wishes,

Bernie
 
There has been some fairly serious talk of running a high speed rail link between Edmonton and Calgary Canada, they have even gone so far as to give prices per person and times. The trip normally takes 3.2 hrs from city center to city center by car (300km) by high speed rail it would be 1.5 hrs traveling at 250km per hour and would make a stop in Red Dear (about half way) and would cost about $65 per person. Now thats not bad considering gas prices and the time you save.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

J
The abandoned and existing lines in my area a bit of RR Tycoon in the early days!
Replies
19
Views
4K
JCitron
J
C
The US and China Just Made a Deal To Build High-Speed Rail Between LA and Vegas
Replies
1
Views
1K
MeowRailroad
M
C
Why can't America have high-speed trains?
2 3 4
Replies
60
Views
18K
cressjl
C
B
High Speed Rail America Club KickStarter
Replies
0
Views
1K
brickbuilder711
B
R
FDL Fond du Lac release 100006:0
Replies
0
Views
2K
RHKluckhohn
R
Back
Top