On 4/21/2015 5:09 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
That's about the same speed it used to run when I rode it every weekend during the summer of 1974. Maybe even a bit
slower now than then. I remember being stopped for hours in Philadelphia because the fire department was fighting a
large building fire and had their fire hoses strung all over the tracks. The problem then as now was crumbling
railway infrastructure that would be inadequate now even if it was repaired. How are you going to run a high speed
train at street level through Philadelphia? Who will provide the rights of way and power, etc for something like
Maglev trackage. Even if you did, who would ride it at the price required to pay for the infrastructure development?
We got where we are because cars and truck are cheaper and more efficient with our time. The major infrastructure
investment (100s of thousands of secondary and tertiary roads are already there and still required whether trains are
used or not.
And we people like to fantasize that what's exciting, romantic, etc. in some places is right everywhere.
Distance/density factors make high speed rail economically impractical in most of the US. Europe is small and densely
populated, by comparison, even to most of the US NE. It'll be interesting to see how the SF-LA HST system works out, if
it's ever built. You've got the population on each end and the corridor passenger density. The distance seems good, too,
too long a drive, too short a time in the air what with airport time in and out.
I can just see it getting up and running, a terrorist threat, and an hour of extra time required after TSA is called in
... which drives away passengers and kills it.
On 4/21/2015 10:02 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
In the meantime, the American Acella HST crawls along the Washington/Boston corridor as a disgusting average of 65
MPH.
It seems to me unfair to excoriate US RRs for economic efficiency in running the business they are in. If I drove a
Ferrari, I suppose I could find the average speeds of our highways 'disgusting', but I would be wrong. Upgrading old
roadbed and track beyond what's needed for freight is probably a waste of money in all but a very few places. In some
places, freight traffic demand is so great that allowing passenger rail just lowers profits and slows commerce.
Central city stations aren't all that attractive in a country with most of its urban population actually in suburbs. We
picked up relatives from that train in Boston. What an incredibly long and annoying drive that was. Next time, I'll pay
for their taxi out of central Boston.
Every time we look at a possible Amtrak trip, I am amazed at how unappealing the time and cost are. If being on the
train, in itself, is entertaining, I can see the attraction. Otherwise, on long US distances, air means hours to days
longer at my destination.
Short haul here isn't appealing, either. When we were heading to Old Sacramento, and the railroad museum there, Amtrak
was much more expensive than the all in cost of driving, and took much longer than the freeway. So we took the rambling
way through the Delta and up the Sacramento River levees. Took little longer and I guarantee the scenery was way more
appealing and driving in a convertible more enjoyable.
I suppose another question to be asked is whether any appreciable proportion of
the US population actually want HSTs.
Chris
--
What if the Hokey Pokey *IS* what it's all about?
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|