Quite a difference - GB and US

johnwhelan · May 29, 2013

wholbr said:
Hi John,rjhowie, Paul and everybody

John, there is a simple reason why the British are turning to rail for their transport, that being punctuality and productivity. We are a nation of over 60 million people which may not sound that many to the larger geographic nations of the world. However, those 60 million people are somewhat crowded onto these comparatively small islands, which makes much of Britain rank among the most densely populated places in the world.

Bill

I was born in the UK and spent my first thiry odd years there until Maggie decided to cut my job at Aston University. I recall getting stuck in a traffic jamb twelve miles outside London nothing unusual about that but it was on my back route and at 3:30 am on a thursday morning, no where near a bank holiday etc, so yes I am familiar with UK traffic and Virgin 1st class London / Southport with its free banana coffee and other snacks. It's not a bad price either at 11 am. In Canada the airlines won't let Via Rail charge different prices according to seat availability. The government supports Air Canada for some reason.

Rush hour here is getting worse, it used to be between 8 and 8:15 and the traffic would slow to 80 kms per hour, now it goes from 7:30 to 8:15 and the traffic slows to 55 kms per hour. We still have a way to go.

Cheerio John

kws4000 · May 30, 2013

Paulsw2 said:
I'll stand corrected if I've got the numbers wrong, but doesn't the north east of the US have population densities and distances that compare with Europe or Japan? If so, why should it be any more problematic technically to develop mass and high speed passenger rail there than it was in the latter two places? The difference is surely political rather than anything to do with demographics or geography?

Paul

EDIT: just done a little bit of checking. High speed rail is the preferred mass transport option for sub-400 mile distances in Europe and Japan. Approx. 80 million people live within 400 miles radius of New York City and the major conurbations of Washington, Boston, Philadelphia, Montreal and (almost) Toronto are all within that distance. So there's no railway related reason why high speed passenger rail is not the preferred transport option for these cities.

There is a reason why we are only starting to push 160mph on test. The original route follows the land (rivers/hills) and property (farms/towns). Back in the 19th century, that really meant an extra stop and easy grades. Now, that means extra curves and noise levels. The curves keep us from accelerating much faster, and noise levels keep us from operating at certain speeds at certain times. I have no idea how old the catenary is, but that must be a problem as well, and the tracks are partly used for freight, which undoubtedly damages the road bed and keeps yellow lights on all the time. But yes, there are political issues (sadly), none of which I am party to nor currently aware of; doesn't mean I don't keep my ears peeled (ouch).

Quite a difference - GB and US

johnwhelan

Well-known member

kws4000

Local Knucklehead

Similar threads