I think RRSignal pretty much hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head.
I would add "liar" as well.
High Speed Trains In The USA?
- Thread starter TrainzAreTheBest12
- Start date
I think RRSignal pretty much hit the proverbial nail on the proverbial head.
I would add "liar" as well.
Lol, can you leave now? If you're really worried that a lack of HSR is your biggest problem, you're in for the biggest face-slap in history. Please, go, I beg you, and I'm 100% serious on that.
Sorry that we can't spend trillions on a 1:1 size playset for you but, as I've said before, anyone can put their money where their mouth is and get a job and donate 100% of their earnings to that incompetant stain called Amtrak. Maybe just buy a ton of tickets...oops, I mean, "reservations"
I'll find it funny, then, when Amtrak "loses" the reservation you paid for (esp., the phone services, 1-800-USA-RAIL is staffed with typical government-types), or when they reserved you for a train next week even though you told two separate CSRs 5 times the exact date of your travel.
Last edited:
Do they have electric trains in USA?
Five years ago I caught train from Frankfurt near Main to Cologne. It traveled at 150 mph most of the distance, reaching in some places 200 mph. But this was consist of several cars pulled and pushed by two electric locomotives. I haven't seen many electric locos in USA. Maybe this is why trains are slower there?
Five years ago I caught train from Frankfurt near Main to Cologne. It traveled at 150 mph most of the distance, reaching in some places 200 mph. But this was consist of several cars pulled and pushed by two electric locomotives. I haven't seen many electric locos in USA. Maybe this is why trains are slower there?
mezzoprezzo
Content appreciator
The French TGV does pretty well too.
It held the fastest average (start to stop) speed of 173.7 mph (279.4kph) until it was beaten by the Chinese, and regularly reaches 200mph.
In 2007 the test TGV train reached 357mph (574.8 kph).
We do have much shorter runs in Europe, so the intercity build costs will be much less than the USA.
The cost of security/safety barriers alone on US tracks would be enormous. It’s always puzzled me why US railroads don’t have fencing. I guess they’re just not as necessary with slow trains.
It held the fastest average (start to stop) speed of 173.7 mph (279.4kph) until it was beaten by the Chinese, and regularly reaches 200mph.
In 2007 the test TGV train reached 357mph (574.8 kph).
We do have much shorter runs in Europe, so the intercity build costs will be much less than the USA.
The cost of security/safety barriers alone on US tracks would be enormous. It’s always puzzled me why US railroads don’t have fencing. I guess they’re just not as necessary with slow trains.
I suppose that if the USA were exactly the same as Germany or France, HSR would just the same here. But we are not. We're geographically many times larger, our geography is different, our cities are sprinkled across the country with large distances between them, and we are not as regimented as a people as those countries are, yet. Comparisons of HSR in Japan, which runs pretty much in a straight line, or China where people can be forced on to HSR at gunpoint, or the relatively tiny countries of Europe with the USA is not a cogent line of argument. Not all that much in common.
Bernie
Bernie
simulatortrain
jointed freaking rails
I'll give you a lever and a place to stand...
Last edited:
jadebullet
might be back?
Somebody needs to read a history book. The progressive movement was started in the late 1890s, but would not gain political attention until the assassination of President McKinley, which put Republican Theodore Roosevelt into the presidency. T. Roosevelt was the first progressive movement president, and the president who got the US Government out of the political quagmire it had gotten stuck in post Civil War. It was this quagmire that actually brought about the Progressive movement.
With the closing of the civil war, the US government was divided between the liberal Republican party(liberal swapped definitions a couple decades later) and the Democrats. The main source of this division was over the question of how to treat the secessionist states after the war. The Republicans, for the most part, were interested in punishing the south, and using the funds from that for integration of the freed slaves into society. The Democrats, for the most part, wanted to admit the states back into the union without any punishment, and to focus on reconstruction. Due to this split, there was a need for a strong leader in the Presidency. Unfortunately, that strong leader was assassinated, placing Andrew Johnson into power. Johnson was not a strong leader in any regard, and was easily pushed around by both sides. Thus started a long procession of presidents who weren't very strong, and a government that was too divided to do much of anything.
During this time, the Industrial Revolution that started in the 1830s was in full swing. With the US government removed from the equation due to its weakness, business leaders filled in the gap. This was referred to as the Gilded Age because of the extravagance of the period. This was a time of industrial leaders such as J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, Gowen, and Rockafeller, and the economy was operating at a very high level. Unfortunately, it was also a time of very large disparity between the rich industrial leaders, and those who worked for them. Safety wasn't the largest of concerns, resulting in worker deaths, and wages tended to be quite low for the workers. Nowhere was this more apparent than in the coal fields, specifically the anthracite fields of Pennsylvania. During this time, accounting practices were not well established, and it was relatively easy to start a mine. As such, there was a huge mining boom which flooded the market with anthracite coal, which was used across the eastern seaboard in order to heat houses. Because of this, the price of coal dropped significantly, and most mines were operating in the red. This caused mine owners to cut corners in safety, and pay a very small wage to the miners themselves. Then, due to the concentrated nature of the fields, the railroads stepped in. In the northern and middle field, there was some competition between the Lehigh Valley, and other railroads, but the larger southern field was controlled almost entirely by the Philadelphia and Reading. At the head of this company was Franklin Gowen, a ruthless and despicable man. Under Gowen, the P&R bought up his own coal company and started the Philadelphia and Reading Coal and Iron Company. This company then began to purchase and close mines, driving up the price of coal. For the remaining mines Gowen drastically cut the price he was willing to give to the mines themselves for their coal. If the mine owner refused, then the P&R would bypass the mine with the trains. At this time, the P&R was pocketing about 80% of the profits from the sale of the coal. Because the mine owners weren't getting much money at all, the miners themselves were gouged as well. As such, they didn't have what is called a living wage, or enough money to actually live off of, forcing them to live off of the coal company. With no government regulations at the time, there was nothing that could be done in order to alleviate this problem except for striking. Unfortunately for the anthracite miners, they didn't even get the chance. Gowen, in order stave off a strike, turned a local bogeyman into a terrorist organization. These were the Molly Maguires. The Molly's were something brought over from Ireland, and were blamed whenever something bad would happen in a mine. Rotten timber broke? Must have been the Molly Maguires. Gowen turned that into a legitimate terrorist organization, and after going through two Pinkerton agents, brought the case to court, resulting in the execution of several prominent mine workers. Because of this, unionization in the anthracite fields would stagnate until 1902.
The spread out nature of the western PA bituminous fields allowed the mine owners to maintain control and competition to flourish. Eventually, the mine owners and mine workers teamed up, and the United Mine Workers of America gained strength after several strikes in the 1890s. Eventually, they gained enough power to orchestrate a strike in not only the Bituminous fields, but the Anthracite fields. This was the Great Anthracite strike of 1902.
In the fall of 1902, the coal miners in the Western PA fields, as well as the Anthracite fields unified and staged a strike. The timing was perfect, as winter was coming, and the plight of the mine worker was thus transformed from something that didn't affect most people in the cities, to a legitimate crisis. Anthracite was the main heating source for homes and businesses for the eastern seaboard. Without coal, there was fear of wide scale freezing. This forced the government's hand, causing them to step in. Specifically, Roosevelt.
Roosevelt reviewed both sides of the issue, and eventually sided with the miners, decreeing that all working citizens of the US had the right to a living wage. Of course, during this strike, the West Virginia fields decided not to strike. As a result, the bituminous mining focus switched to West Virginia, giving them a brief time of prosperity before the death of coal turned the region into one of the most depressed in the country, unlike the regions that decided to strike, and thus were more independent of the coal companies and thus were able to survive the decline better.
This is one of the bigger parts of the early Progressive movement, though it is part of the larger whole. During Roosevelt's presidency, he focused on helping to give rights to the now, for the most part, unionized labor force, and busting up the massive monopolies that had started up. This allowed the economy to continue to grow, and no longer be subject to the whims of the big companies. (It wasn't uncommon during the Gilded Age for companies to crash the economy by calling debts in order to crush rivals that couldn't whether the panic as well. The Panic of 1893 was the direct result of the PRR calling the debts of the P&R in order to stop a merger.) It also allowed prices to fluctuate properly again, no longer being controlled by price fixing schemes. Roosevelt also created lots of regulation in order to help the industries deal with the new strain of a higher paid workforce. Roosevelt also cut down on government corruption, specifically kickbacks from corporations.
The Progressive Movement, in a nutshell, was a movement to regulate business practices so that every company had a fair chance to succeed, prices were able to fluctuate properly via supply and demand rather than being controlled by the companies, and that the workers were provided a living wage and a working environment that wasn't unnecessarily dangerous. This is hardly the idea of socialism, except in the absolute broadest of terms.
The movement petered off a little and changed focus after Roosevelt, until Woodrow Wilson took office. Under Wilson's Presidency, the Progressive Movement started to get back on track and gain momentum again. Then the US entered WWI, and the movement died. Due to wartime needs, the focus on more independent industries in competition with each other was counter intuitive. During this time, most of the Progressive Movement gains were reversed. It was during this time that the US took control of corporations almost entirely, most famously the railroads with the formation of the USRA. Then the war ended, and the realization that if someone wanted to, they could take control of the entire production of the US for their own gains hit, and this consolidation was broken up similarly to the way it was during the start of the Progressive movement.
The wartime measures are closer to your quote of "We know what's good for you, so hand over the money and your civil liberties."
Unfortunately now a days, the Progressive movement is falsely associated with socialism, thanks to our ratings driven media, and people who take what the TV tells them at face value, rather than actually doing research of their own. It is also associated with fascism, which just goes to show how dumb people really can be when it comes to just repeating what they hear on TV or from word of mouth. Fascism and Socialism are the opposite ends of the political spectrum.
Sorry for the lengthy history lesson, but it really annoys me when people butcher history with their ignorance/greed.
Edit: I just feel like I should add this disclaimer:
I do not care what your political views an opinions are. That being said, should your political opinion on a certain subject be completely wrong, based on Historical evidence, I will correct you. Actually, that goes for non politcal stuff as well. Pretty much, if you get history wrong, I will mention something.
Last edited:
Werewolf13
New member
Simple answer and the correct answer.
Cars.
Americans love their cars and the freedom of travel it brings.
In addition the USA is just too darn big for mass transit solutions like rail. Instant gratification is not just two words in the USA. What people want they want now which is a big reason why air travel killed passenger rail service in the USA.
And there in lies a strange but true dichotomy about travel in the US. Folks will spend 2 or 3 days traveling by car to a destination but won't spend a day doing it in greater comfort by rail.
Wierd huh...
jadebullet
might be back?
Oh, and while I am on my Carlin-esqe soap box of demanding the proper view of words, I figured I would put this one out there. Stop referring "third world" as a synonym for poor. Hearing people talk about how the US is turning into a third world country is very annoying in how little sense it makes. First, second and third world have nothing to do with economic situation. A first world country is a country that supports democracy and sides with the US and its allies in the Cold War. Second world refers to a country that is communist and sides with Russian in the Cold War. A third world country is a country that is neither democratic or communist, and hasn't taken a side. Also, democratic is used very loosely here. It just means that they have fair, public elections that are not fixed, not that they are a pure democracy. The US itself isn't a true Democracy, or a true Republic, but a hybrid of both.
Anyway, this thread is about high speed rail networks in America. The really sad thing is that the US used to have a vast rail network that operated at a high rate of speed and we ended up tearing it up. Train speeds during the steam era were much higher than today's speeds, with some limits close to 90, or in excess of 100mph. It is no TGV, but it was a good system. Sadly, the vast lengths that the rails had to cover, as well as the postwar boom in the auto and airline industry killed the passenger rail industry.
Thankfully this trend is reversing now. Auto makers are currently concerned that auto sales are peaking, and that the US citizen is switching back to a focus on mass transportation in order to get around. Light rail is on the rise, and there is a huge push for commuter rail construction. The airlines have also become the new dying transport industry. Passenger comfort and thus appeal has dropped significantly in the airline industry, so people are less inclined to fly if they don't have to. Rail is probably the future, especially if they start up some sort of updated Auto-train where people can bring their cars with them for mobility after they get off the train.
Anyway, this thread is about high speed rail networks in America. The really sad thing is that the US used to have a vast rail network that operated at a high rate of speed and we ended up tearing it up. Train speeds during the steam era were much higher than today's speeds, with some limits close to 90, or in excess of 100mph. It is no TGV, but it was a good system. Sadly, the vast lengths that the rails had to cover, as well as the postwar boom in the auto and airline industry killed the passenger rail industry.
Thankfully this trend is reversing now. Auto makers are currently concerned that auto sales are peaking, and that the US citizen is switching back to a focus on mass transportation in order to get around. Light rail is on the rise, and there is a huge push for commuter rail construction. The airlines have also become the new dying transport industry. Passenger comfort and thus appeal has dropped significantly in the airline industry, so people are less inclined to fly if they don't have to. Rail is probably the future, especially if they start up some sort of updated Auto-train where people can bring their cars with them for mobility after they get off the train.
cascaderailroad
New member
What killed passenger trains:
They tore up almost all the trolley systems nationwide (almost very other street had a trolley line running on it in some cities).
Bus lines were streamlined, and a lot of routes were discontinued, and cities that were once linked with a train/trolley/bus lines, were now severed.
Fares went up, and schedules were trimmed back, making the trips unergonomic, and user unfriendly.
Factories used to be close to inner city locations, and most people worked within a couple miles of home.
Now the factories are vacant, or torn down, and people have to travel great distances to work.
Most factories are non-existent in some cities, and only high tech jobs remain.
Most work locations have no train/trolley/bus line within 15 miles, making train/trolley/bus commuting, completely out of the question.
Most schedules are not running train/trolley/bus routes at 4-5 AM, when a lot of people have to go to work.
When a person leaves their house in a rural neighborhood, it takes 2-4 different train/trolley/bus line, transfers, to get to the major rail station.
When the time you leave home at 4 AM, and transfer 2-3 times on various train/trolley/bus lines, and by the time you arrive at work it is 7-8 AM.
Trains leave at an ungodly hour in the morning, with only one train per day, each way.
Traveling long distance cross country takes days, and by the time you get there, you are oftentimes late, and you need to rent a car, or take another 2-3 train/trolley/bus lines to get within 15 miles of your destination.
Requiring an automobile !
================
The Auto Train is a failure. By the time you drive all the way to the loading point in Richmond VA, you could drive the rest of the way to Florida in another 8 hours or less.
The only way high speed rail will pan out, is if jitney rental cars (electric cars) are affordable, and are available, on a daily rental basis, at every rail station.
They tore up almost all the trolley systems nationwide (almost very other street had a trolley line running on it in some cities).
Bus lines were streamlined, and a lot of routes were discontinued, and cities that were once linked with a train/trolley/bus lines, were now severed.
Fares went up, and schedules were trimmed back, making the trips unergonomic, and user unfriendly.
Factories used to be close to inner city locations, and most people worked within a couple miles of home.
Now the factories are vacant, or torn down, and people have to travel great distances to work.
Most factories are non-existent in some cities, and only high tech jobs remain.
Most work locations have no train/trolley/bus line within 15 miles, making train/trolley/bus commuting, completely out of the question.
Most schedules are not running train/trolley/bus routes at 4-5 AM, when a lot of people have to go to work.
When a person leaves their house in a rural neighborhood, it takes 2-4 different train/trolley/bus line, transfers, to get to the major rail station.
When the time you leave home at 4 AM, and transfer 2-3 times on various train/trolley/bus lines, and by the time you arrive at work it is 7-8 AM.
Trains leave at an ungodly hour in the morning, with only one train per day, each way.
Traveling long distance cross country takes days, and by the time you get there, you are oftentimes late, and you need to rent a car, or take another 2-3 train/trolley/bus lines to get within 15 miles of your destination.
Requiring an automobile !
================
The Auto Train is a failure. By the time you drive all the way to the loading point in Richmond VA, you could drive the rest of the way to Florida in another 8 hours or less.
The only way high speed rail will pan out, is if jitney rental cars (electric cars) are affordable, and are available, on a daily rental basis, at every rail station.
Last edited:
jadebullet
might be back?
Like I said, my statement in no way was supposed to be political, but rather a statement of history. Feel free to point out what you believe as wrong.
norfolksouthern37
what's a normal map?
the Auto Train takes quite a bit of traffic off of the highway, doesn't require the travellers to drive at night, and is one of the few Amtrak services that is actually profitable. The terminal is not in Richmond btw, it is in Lorton, right outside of Washington. the south terminal is in Sanford near Orlando, FL. also i do not know of any highway that allows you to go 900 miles in under 8 hours and that is just between terminals. the trip by car would take at the least the same 17 hours the train takes, and you are not able to eat, sleep, or pee while driving.
it is a little off topic, but your comment about auto train was simply wrong.
amtrak2041864
High Speed Rail!!
If anyone has viewed the Amtrak NEC vision plan Amtrak plans by time 2025 that 65% of the lower half of the NEC will be 165mph.
Hi jadebullet,
I have no reason to doubt your view of history. I cannot say the same about your assesment of the present or the future.
Consider the likelyhood that the socailists, since the USSR meltdown, have hidden in and corupted the progresive and the green movements.
I have no reason to doubt your view of history. I cannot say the same about your assesment of the present or the future.
Consider the likelyhood that the socailists, since the USSR meltdown, have hidden in and corupted the progresive and the green movements.
jadebullet
might be back?
Hello Superfudd,
I wouldn't really view it as anything as sneaky as that. It is more of a shift towards some socialistic aspects to fill some of the financial and social gaps caused by the technology and price increase, rather than KGB agents infiltrating and corrupting various groups. Also, the USSR wasn't socialist, but rather communist, which, while based in socialism, is quite different. Once again, I say this not as a political debate argument or statement, but as a discussionary response to you.
In general, the US has had socialistic programs for a really long time, most of the time resulting from a need that arose from technology that couldn't be effectively solved with the private sector. The highway and road system, public utilities, shift of bridges from private ownership to public use, government grants and subsidies, and comparative advantage increasing regulations are some of the many programs in the country that are technically "socialist" by the very broad term that the political framework has become. Each of these things arose from a need that arose that would either be unprofitable to the private sector, draw too much capital from the private sector lowering comparative advantage, or required a price to the public be kept artificially low in order to facilitate use. A lot of the USA's passenger rail service is a good example of this. When the automobile boom, interstate highway act, and airlines made passenger rail unprofitable, most rail lines needed to divest their passenger interest in order to remain afloat. The ICC was reluctant to allow them to do so because a large amount of people, and more importantly businesses, relied on the commuter rail lines that were crippling the railroads. Also affecting the railroads at the time was an improper attitude towards them that was left over from the prewar era. (People refused to believe that the railroads were actually financially hurting because of how big they used to be, thus regulations designed for when they owned more than just the rail assets, but the industries served, weren't properly adjusted for the economic situation because there was "no way a railroad could fail.") Eventually though, it became apparent that the railroads weren't just crying wolf about their economic troubles, but were actually failing hard. To alleviate this, the ICC began to allow more and more passenger lines to be divested, with the exception of a core that they viewed as too important. Thus, the US government, as well as state governments, began to create their own entities in order to take over these passenger lines, floating the extremely unprofitable business with the tax capital. The US created Amtrak, and various state governments created their own commuter lines. NJT was formed by the New Jersey state government in order to keep Jersey City commuter trains of the Erie-Lackawanna and Central of New Jersey going, the PRR commuter equipment being taken by Amtrak.
Even the current high speed rail proposal is socialist in nature, as the private sector would in no way be able to provide the amount of capital needed to link the country together with entirely new rail line, and high speed trains. And even if they could, they would find better places to invest the money elsewhere due to the uncertainty about the profit that such a network would provide. New tracks would have to be laid, by the way, in order to isolate the passenger from the freight trains to facilitate uninterrupted high speed runs between stations.
I use the term socialism very closely in this discussion, by the way, because for the most part these policies aren't true socialism but instead are a sort of economic conveyor that directly benefits the private sector's profitability and production by the public taking the costs and loss of profit needed to keep individual citizen capital, and thus individual consumption higher. True socialism is the economic focus on allocating resources and production in such a way that all revenue goes into the social needs of the citizens and none of it into profit. This is opposed to what I described above, which is just diluting the cost of the social needs of the citizens over the population so that costs are artificially lower, people have more money to spend, and the price per share of company goes up. It also fixes a problem that would be far to expensive for an individual company to fix without its share prices going down, which would be bad. It is all very similar to a company amortizing the cost of a bond, or depreciating an asset. You spread out the expense of said asset or liability so that the expense isn't as big in each year. Finally, the private sector then gets a major boost from these social programs because it is normally the private sector that ends up doing the work and providing the equipment for the programs. Thus, the private sector benefits from the problem getting fixed, their customers being able to consume at the same level, if not more, and the added income from providing the service work itself. The private sector then obtains the money to pay for these programs with the various taxes in place, though this is the part where there is the most breakdown. Our tax code is very far from impartial and unbiased, adjusting taxes based on public opinion, corporate opinion, and economic incentives.
This all being said, care must be given not to go overboard with the policies. The government can only float so much of the costs, especially if they are unable to bring in more than they send out. Care must be given to which programs are most necessary, as well as to what degree the government provides the service, from tax incentives, to grants, all the way up to full on bail out, or a government run entity. Possible failures of the program should also be taken into account, such as the current issue with social security which arose from the unforeseen post war baby boom.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read my probably very boring explanations. I am enjoying this healthy discussion. As I have said before, I in no way intend for any of what I am posted to have any sort of political bias, and I in no way am trying to make any political statement, or intend any personal attacks against anyone. Oh, and I feel that this is still on the topic at hand as the current discussion is part of the gigantic logistical nightmare of creating a nationwide high speed rail network in an established country the size of the US.
I wouldn't really view it as anything as sneaky as that. It is more of a shift towards some socialistic aspects to fill some of the financial and social gaps caused by the technology and price increase, rather than KGB agents infiltrating and corrupting various groups. Also, the USSR wasn't socialist, but rather communist, which, while based in socialism, is quite different. Once again, I say this not as a political debate argument or statement, but as a discussionary response to you.
In general, the US has had socialistic programs for a really long time, most of the time resulting from a need that arose from technology that couldn't be effectively solved with the private sector. The highway and road system, public utilities, shift of bridges from private ownership to public use, government grants and subsidies, and comparative advantage increasing regulations are some of the many programs in the country that are technically "socialist" by the very broad term that the political framework has become. Each of these things arose from a need that arose that would either be unprofitable to the private sector, draw too much capital from the private sector lowering comparative advantage, or required a price to the public be kept artificially low in order to facilitate use. A lot of the USA's passenger rail service is a good example of this. When the automobile boom, interstate highway act, and airlines made passenger rail unprofitable, most rail lines needed to divest their passenger interest in order to remain afloat. The ICC was reluctant to allow them to do so because a large amount of people, and more importantly businesses, relied on the commuter rail lines that were crippling the railroads. Also affecting the railroads at the time was an improper attitude towards them that was left over from the prewar era. (People refused to believe that the railroads were actually financially hurting because of how big they used to be, thus regulations designed for when they owned more than just the rail assets, but the industries served, weren't properly adjusted for the economic situation because there was "no way a railroad could fail.") Eventually though, it became apparent that the railroads weren't just crying wolf about their economic troubles, but were actually failing hard. To alleviate this, the ICC began to allow more and more passenger lines to be divested, with the exception of a core that they viewed as too important. Thus, the US government, as well as state governments, began to create their own entities in order to take over these passenger lines, floating the extremely unprofitable business with the tax capital. The US created Amtrak, and various state governments created their own commuter lines. NJT was formed by the New Jersey state government in order to keep Jersey City commuter trains of the Erie-Lackawanna and Central of New Jersey going, the PRR commuter equipment being taken by Amtrak.
Even the current high speed rail proposal is socialist in nature, as the private sector would in no way be able to provide the amount of capital needed to link the country together with entirely new rail line, and high speed trains. And even if they could, they would find better places to invest the money elsewhere due to the uncertainty about the profit that such a network would provide. New tracks would have to be laid, by the way, in order to isolate the passenger from the freight trains to facilitate uninterrupted high speed runs between stations.
I use the term socialism very closely in this discussion, by the way, because for the most part these policies aren't true socialism but instead are a sort of economic conveyor that directly benefits the private sector's profitability and production by the public taking the costs and loss of profit needed to keep individual citizen capital, and thus individual consumption higher. True socialism is the economic focus on allocating resources and production in such a way that all revenue goes into the social needs of the citizens and none of it into profit. This is opposed to what I described above, which is just diluting the cost of the social needs of the citizens over the population so that costs are artificially lower, people have more money to spend, and the price per share of company goes up. It also fixes a problem that would be far to expensive for an individual company to fix without its share prices going down, which would be bad. It is all very similar to a company amortizing the cost of a bond, or depreciating an asset. You spread out the expense of said asset or liability so that the expense isn't as big in each year. Finally, the private sector then gets a major boost from these social programs because it is normally the private sector that ends up doing the work and providing the equipment for the programs. Thus, the private sector benefits from the problem getting fixed, their customers being able to consume at the same level, if not more, and the added income from providing the service work itself. The private sector then obtains the money to pay for these programs with the various taxes in place, though this is the part where there is the most breakdown. Our tax code is very far from impartial and unbiased, adjusting taxes based on public opinion, corporate opinion, and economic incentives.
This all being said, care must be given not to go overboard with the policies. The government can only float so much of the costs, especially if they are unable to bring in more than they send out. Care must be given to which programs are most necessary, as well as to what degree the government provides the service, from tax incentives, to grants, all the way up to full on bail out, or a government run entity. Possible failures of the program should also be taken into account, such as the current issue with social security which arose from the unforeseen post war baby boom.
Anyway, thank you for taking the time to read my probably very boring explanations. I am enjoying this healthy discussion. As I have said before, I in no way intend for any of what I am posted to have any sort of political bias, and I in no way am trying to make any political statement, or intend any personal attacks against anyone. Oh, and I feel that this is still on the topic at hand as the current discussion is part of the gigantic logistical nightmare of creating a nationwide high speed rail network in an established country the size of the US.
Last edited:
jadebullet
might be back?
Anyway, my last post got me thinking about the feasibility of High Speed Rail in the US, and I decided to figure out whether or not it would make sense to implement High Speed Rail in the USA. Below is what I came up with.
1)Is it a necessity?
-At this point in time, I would have to say no, it is not. We currently have a system in place, that while slower in some aspects, can still get the job done. There is also not much of a need for regular long distance transportation.
2) Would implementing the system reduce costs to individuals and businesses enough to provide benefit?
-This one depends on many factors. The longer the distance, the more economical it would be for a passenger, this is assuming that the ticket doesn't scale upwards with the milage too much. Below a certain distance, it is probably cheaper to take the car, or take a lower speed commuter train which already exists. Then you have to factor in the time factor. A very short amount of time is negligable in its value, as you would derive the same benefit from driving, or taking the commuter train, especially once you factor in the time in station. Once you exceed the minimum time threshold though the high speed train gains benefit above a car, despite ticket price being higher than fuel consumption price, as you waste less time and can thus get more done. This lasts until about the 2-3 hour mark of high speed travel. At this point, it is cheaper to take the car as the day is no longer going to provide much value for you. At about the distance equivalent of 12 hours of car travel, HSR becomes valuable again and stays that way until you reach the point where the amount of time it takes to go through an airport terminal routine, board a plane, and fly a certain distance is equal to the time it takes to travel the same distance by high speed rail.
So in short, there is a cost benefit constrained by several variables. Without knowing the actual cost of the tickets though, it is difficult to judge how much of a benefit to the economy as a whole it would create, though judging by #1 above, probably not too exceedingly much.
3)Can the private sector to build afford it?
-Absolutely not. The cost of building such a network alone would be a giant waste of capital for any private entity involved, which would be capital that would be better invested elsewhere, both for the entity, and the economy itself.
4) Will it turn a profit, allowing its cost to be offset by non tax capital?
-There is almost no chance. Amtrak has never turned a profit in its entire existance. There just isn't that much demand for it. As such, it will probably run in the red and require more tax in order to operate.
5) Will any industries be negetively affected by the program?
-The airline industry would be very negetively affected by competition with the HSR. The airline industry is already failing as it is, requiring massive government subsidies in order to say afloat and continue to perform adequate maintenance.
6) Will any industries benefit from the HSR directly?
-The manufacture of the equipment and locomotives will most likely be contracted out to a third party. That being said, the company chosen will most likely be from a country with an existing HSR system.
-The laying of the rail line and infrastructure will benefit many industries.
-Power to the catenary will require an increase in output, so the power companies will benefit from supplying that power.
7)What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Advantages
-Rapid intercity transportation
-benefit to the industries that provide the equipment to the rail line.
-It creates jobs, both in manufacture, and operation
-It would allow weekend trips to points across the country feasible depending on the ticket price.
Disadvantages
-High construction cost - 8 billion has already been proposed for the cost of construction, and that is probably not enough.
-Very low chance of profitability
-The maintenance costs will be extremely high to keep safety at proper level.
-The line itself will have to be laid new in order to isolate it from freight traffic, and road crossings.
-The topography of our country makes it very difficult to lay rail lines. As such, much of the existing passes through the harsher terrain have already been filled, making the laying of a new line more costly, and more difficult.
-High cost to airline industry which would require more government subsidies.
-The lack of profit would me that there would be a lack of luxury. Compare the airlines of the 1950s when they were profitable, to today.
-Purchasing land for the line would be a logistical nightmare. Sure, there is imminent domain, but there would be legal disputes.
-Maintaining isolation from other rail lines and roads will be very difficult, requiring bridges and underpasses which would necessitate grade changes.
Finally, we don't have the infrastructure in place to adequately support a high speed rail line. While some cities, like New York, Chicago and LA have commuter rail in place that would allow you to ride to the secondary locations on that line, but not every city has adequate commuter rail, and even then you are still restricted to the commuter stops.There is no current rail system to go from small towns to the bigger terminals and vice versa. This reduces the chance that someone will choose to use the train over some other transportation. Even the bus lines are almost non existant. As such, there is no network to integrate the HSR with to make the high speed rail easy and convenient to use. It would be like having an internet connection that could quickly connect to other computers and servers, but is unable to access any websites without using a second connection. Sure there is the Autotrain concept for allowing for transportation after you arrive, but that doesn't work with high speed rail where you would require as little weight as possible to allow for higher speeds and acceleration.
Anyway, after coming up with the above I have decided that I really don't think that a High Speed Rail program is feasible or even currently needed in the US. We don't currently have the necessary infrastructure to make it work properly, it would be exceedingly expensive and there isn't that much actual benefit to it from a business standpoint. Right now it just seems to be something the public wants because other countries have it, and we don't. It would be a logistical nightmare to build and pay for, and it would probably operate at a deficit. Even then, there would be not efficient network to integrate the high speed rail with. What makes other country's rail networks work so well isn't the high speed aspect of it, it is the networks that the high speed rail connects together. Instead of focusing on the high speed rail part of it, we should continue to focus on light rail, and intertown commuter rail networks to connect the nation to the high speed rail terminals. Of course, this won't happen because it doesn't have a cool sounding name like "high speed rail" and thus the public won't be demanding it, and will probably even oppose it as a waste of money. That being said, these smaller networks will probably also run in the red, but would at least serve a valid purpose and be a viable alternative to driving short to medium distances, the most common traveling distance for driving.
1)Is it a necessity?
-At this point in time, I would have to say no, it is not. We currently have a system in place, that while slower in some aspects, can still get the job done. There is also not much of a need for regular long distance transportation.
2) Would implementing the system reduce costs to individuals and businesses enough to provide benefit?
-This one depends on many factors. The longer the distance, the more economical it would be for a passenger, this is assuming that the ticket doesn't scale upwards with the milage too much. Below a certain distance, it is probably cheaper to take the car, or take a lower speed commuter train which already exists. Then you have to factor in the time factor. A very short amount of time is negligable in its value, as you would derive the same benefit from driving, or taking the commuter train, especially once you factor in the time in station. Once you exceed the minimum time threshold though the high speed train gains benefit above a car, despite ticket price being higher than fuel consumption price, as you waste less time and can thus get more done. This lasts until about the 2-3 hour mark of high speed travel. At this point, it is cheaper to take the car as the day is no longer going to provide much value for you. At about the distance equivalent of 12 hours of car travel, HSR becomes valuable again and stays that way until you reach the point where the amount of time it takes to go through an airport terminal routine, board a plane, and fly a certain distance is equal to the time it takes to travel the same distance by high speed rail.
So in short, there is a cost benefit constrained by several variables. Without knowing the actual cost of the tickets though, it is difficult to judge how much of a benefit to the economy as a whole it would create, though judging by #1 above, probably not too exceedingly much.
3)Can the private sector to build afford it?
-Absolutely not. The cost of building such a network alone would be a giant waste of capital for any private entity involved, which would be capital that would be better invested elsewhere, both for the entity, and the economy itself.
4) Will it turn a profit, allowing its cost to be offset by non tax capital?
-There is almost no chance. Amtrak has never turned a profit in its entire existance. There just isn't that much demand for it. As such, it will probably run in the red and require more tax in order to operate.
5) Will any industries be negetively affected by the program?
-The airline industry would be very negetively affected by competition with the HSR. The airline industry is already failing as it is, requiring massive government subsidies in order to say afloat and continue to perform adequate maintenance.
6) Will any industries benefit from the HSR directly?
-The manufacture of the equipment and locomotives will most likely be contracted out to a third party. That being said, the company chosen will most likely be from a country with an existing HSR system.
-The laying of the rail line and infrastructure will benefit many industries.
-Power to the catenary will require an increase in output, so the power companies will benefit from supplying that power.
7)What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Advantages
-Rapid intercity transportation
-benefit to the industries that provide the equipment to the rail line.
-It creates jobs, both in manufacture, and operation
-It would allow weekend trips to points across the country feasible depending on the ticket price.
Disadvantages
-High construction cost - 8 billion has already been proposed for the cost of construction, and that is probably not enough.
-Very low chance of profitability
-The maintenance costs will be extremely high to keep safety at proper level.
-The line itself will have to be laid new in order to isolate it from freight traffic, and road crossings.
-The topography of our country makes it very difficult to lay rail lines. As such, much of the existing passes through the harsher terrain have already been filled, making the laying of a new line more costly, and more difficult.
-High cost to airline industry which would require more government subsidies.
-The lack of profit would me that there would be a lack of luxury. Compare the airlines of the 1950s when they were profitable, to today.
-Purchasing land for the line would be a logistical nightmare. Sure, there is imminent domain, but there would be legal disputes.
-Maintaining isolation from other rail lines and roads will be very difficult, requiring bridges and underpasses which would necessitate grade changes.
Finally, we don't have the infrastructure in place to adequately support a high speed rail line. While some cities, like New York, Chicago and LA have commuter rail in place that would allow you to ride to the secondary locations on that line, but not every city has adequate commuter rail, and even then you are still restricted to the commuter stops.There is no current rail system to go from small towns to the bigger terminals and vice versa. This reduces the chance that someone will choose to use the train over some other transportation. Even the bus lines are almost non existant. As such, there is no network to integrate the HSR with to make the high speed rail easy and convenient to use. It would be like having an internet connection that could quickly connect to other computers and servers, but is unable to access any websites without using a second connection. Sure there is the Autotrain concept for allowing for transportation after you arrive, but that doesn't work with high speed rail where you would require as little weight as possible to allow for higher speeds and acceleration.
Anyway, after coming up with the above I have decided that I really don't think that a High Speed Rail program is feasible or even currently needed in the US. We don't currently have the necessary infrastructure to make it work properly, it would be exceedingly expensive and there isn't that much actual benefit to it from a business standpoint. Right now it just seems to be something the public wants because other countries have it, and we don't. It would be a logistical nightmare to build and pay for, and it would probably operate at a deficit. Even then, there would be not efficient network to integrate the high speed rail with. What makes other country's rail networks work so well isn't the high speed aspect of it, it is the networks that the high speed rail connects together. Instead of focusing on the high speed rail part of it, we should continue to focus on light rail, and intertown commuter rail networks to connect the nation to the high speed rail terminals. Of course, this won't happen because it doesn't have a cool sounding name like "high speed rail" and thus the public won't be demanding it, and will probably even oppose it as a waste of money. That being said, these smaller networks will probably also run in the red, but would at least serve a valid purpose and be a viable alternative to driving short to medium distances, the most common traveling distance for driving.
boomer_aus_00
New member
LOL all this talk about faster trains LOL no wonder the love for old steamers is falling give me a old steamer looking out the window & seeing all the senary over a 300+ kms speeding train if ya want speed catch a damn plane
amtrak2041864
High Speed Rail!!
You bring out some great points, like cross country travel by train but I feel that the Northeast Needs HSR, the Acela is great but it is not true HSR. But I love what Amtrak is doing to the NEC to make HSR closer then we think. As I said earlier by 2025 about 65% of the southern portion of the NEC will be able to substance 165mph that equals to 200mph with newer Trainsets. Link, this should explain. Since Amtrak tested the section of track in NJ at 165 it is considered class 9 track. HSR is closer then we think but True HSR different story.