Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

[Bubba1235]

Not interested in the politics so please don't go there.

There is a big push to put in a "high speed" passenger rail line across the mid west and at first I thought, good we can join the rest of the world and a high speed train to say Chicago would sure get my business over flying if the price was close to being competitive. The local newspaper had quite an extensive article on it and I was deeply disappointed so did a little checking and the paper was right. What is planned is littel more (if that) than a reworked version of AmTrack.

What I found is the plan is to use the existing and new "Superliners" passenger cars that Amtrack uses and wil be pulled by existing locomotives. On top of that the new track will only be rated for 75 MPH speeds and then only in rural areas.

I do not understand the logic or engineering behind it at all. The Superliners weigh in at 148,000 lbs. They have a capacity of 96 passengers so if the average weight per passenger is 175 lbs we are looking at a cargo weight of not quite 17,000 lbs. It takes almost 9 times as much vehicle weight to move passengers? Thats NUTS! Consider that an enclosed 53' semi-truck trailer weighs something around 13,000 lbs and can easily haul 20,000 lbs of freight and will operate on MUCH tougher and rougher surfaces than a rail car will. On top of that, a Superliner has an absolute top speed rating of 100 MPH. The bogies (wheels and carriage) won't handle any more speed.

I just refuse to believe that with all our technology advancements we can't design and build a passenger rail car at 1/3 of the current weight and allow it to travel much faster. I also think building a rail bed with a top speed of 75 MPH and calling it high speed is beyond silly. Heck I can easily match that in my car without even trying. I'd be all for a true high speed rail system and would use it regularly but to me that means 250+ MPH. Othewise I'll just drive or fly.

 

[JB]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Our rail systems are a major embarrassment when compared to Europe, Japan or China. Passenger travel is not even as good as it was 65-70 years ago when I rode the "Palmland" back and forth from and to Newark from central NC.

I don't think I would like to see those overhead grids stretched across the rest of the country (they are hideous enough in our NE) but there are ways to put the power contacts where they don't threaten wild(and child)life.

 

[GMC2003]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Good joke here was the Capital Metro Metro-Rail. I've seen a whole 4 people on it at a time I believe that building a new commuter railroad is a waste as was Amtrak.

 

[mscher]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Without "going there", my guess it has a lot to do with who is buying what, from who, more so than designing a system from scratch.

If we were smart, we would just "borrow', the great technology Europe, China and Japan, already has in place, verses developing our own, especially since it is no longer 1968.

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

I do not understand the logic or engineering behind it at all.

That is very obvious...and finally something on which we can agree.
Let's just say that if those rail cars "packaged their passengers properly" and palletised them as efficiently as the trucking companies do with their freight, the numbers would be right in line.

Passenger comfort might suffer somewhat, however. :facepalm:

 

[drrpm]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Comparing the US with Europe or Japan in terms of rail practicality doesn't make sense outside of the North East or California. The population density is far too low to make it worthwhile.

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Did some more reading and found this. Interesting...

The Acela Fiasco

Amtrak's botched attempt .......

That appears to have been written by a blogger on the website of some organisation called the East Bay Bicycle Coalition and is more than a bit slanted.

For a more balanced view => http://www.northeastbizalliance.org/2011/07/the-acela-story-part-1-success.html

 

[dlngr]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Actually a fair amount of weight in a dry van semi trailer is 40,000,so you will have to double the number of passengers on that train.
Maybe you could sedate the passengers before palletizing them?

 

[JB]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

OH, OH!!! Please stop me from making a POLITICAL comment about petty bureaucratic barriers to progress.

 

[bassman284]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

They say pretty much the same thing.

In 2005, for example, all Acela cars were taken out of service for several months for emergency repairs. The issue was largely one of weight. In order to comply with federal regulations that require that rail cars be able to withstand a full-speed crash with a freight train, the Acela cars are approximately double the weight of the European cars that their design is based upon. This extra weight caused problems for the Acela's suspension system and its braking mechanisms, which had to be replaced after they unexpectedly developed large, dangerous cracks.

Again my point was not the politics, I wondered why our passenger cars had to weigh almost 75 tons each to haul 20,000 lbs of freight (passengers). From what I am finding, only in the US is that the case.

It's really a question of priorities and/or assumptions.

For example, I worked for 22 years for a company that made instrument panels for cars and pickups. On some of these IP's we made a BUX, or European, version. The main difference was in the knee impact area where the BUX version used screwed on plastic components and the US version used welded steel brackets. I once asked a crash test engineer why the difference. He told me that the BUX standard assumes everyone is wearing seatbelts where the US version assumes they are not. Both standards make sense given the assumptions.

In railcar example, the US version assumes there will be high speed collisions between freight trains and passenger trains, the European version assumes there will not. Again, both standards make sense in their context.

 

[JRJ]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Apparently some are concerned about the effect high speed rail will have on freight.

http://www.economist.com/node/16636101

While others are more optimistic.

http://www.usa.siemens.com/entry/en/highspeedrail.htm?stc=usccc021819

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

They say pretty much the same thing.
...........
Again my point was not the politics....
.

I guess it depends what you mean by "pretty much the same thing".

One article calls it a "fiasco" and the first adjective in the story is "botched" and focuses only on negatives.
The article that I described as "more balanced" describes the wins and losses and rates the overall performance to date as "a success".

That is inherently and vastly different, IMO.

Again my point was not the politics....
.

The problem is that the point of the author of the article that you cited is clearly the politics involved... that doesn't make them (or you) right or wrong, just not particularly balanced or impartial.

I love trains, and wish point-to-point travel was far more widely available; but unfortunately it seems that (at least in Canada) we are removing more rail than is being repaired....and freight is King. Not really conducive to encouraging high-speed train enhancements.

 

[mscher]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

The big question is "who will use them?"

East coast, West coast are a given, as they are heavily populated, so there are probably enough riders, for a Boston- Washington D.C.route, that the high speed rail is feasible.

What about the rest of the country?

One of the proposed routes, was Chicago, through Gary, IN and split routes, to Cleveland and Columbus OH.


How many people would be riding these routes, on even a slightly regular basis?

 

[DJ]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Our rail systems are a major embarrassment when compared to Europe, Japan or China. Passenger travel is not even as good as it was 65-70 years ago when I rode the "Palmland" back and forth from and to Newark from central NC.

I don't think I would like to see those overhead grids stretched across the rest of the country (they are hideous enough in our NE) but there are ways to put the power contacts where they don't threaten wild(and child)life.

We spent $B,XXX removing tracks from rural America. We turned them into Bike trails.

Now, we want to put them back?????

Not that I disagree. There are few mediums, available, that transport goods more cheaply than rail.

We have three to four times the land mass of Europe. We are NOT Europe, depending on some despot's mood.

Quit trying to compare us to them.

 

[mscher]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

We spent $B,XXX removing tracks from rural America. We turned them into Bike trails.

Now, we want to put them back?????

Not that I disagree. There are few mediums, available, that transport goods more cheaply than rail.

We have three to four times the land mass of Europe. We are NOT Europe, depending on some despot's mood.

Quit trying to compare us to them.

Have to agree.

America was only a "railroad country", druing the reailroad heydays, in the 1800's.

When the automobile came along, Americans wholeheartedly dropped rail travel, built and continued to use, an automobile-based infrastructure, unequaled anywhere else on earth.

We love our automobiles. We only care about the history of our trains, in American folklore.

 

[greenbush future]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Any form of mass transit in Michigan, and I'm talking 1900's forward was removed through efforts of the "Big Three" and their goal of putting a car in every driveway across the US, and they did it! Here in Michigan we have no mass transit systems that work, none. No infrastructure or rails, they were all ripped out way back when. I think it would take a huge change in the daily life and habits of people, before this kind of change would be called a success.

 

[waterinthefuel]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Comparing the US with Europe or Japan in terms of rail practicality doesn't make sense outside of the North East or California. The population density is far too low to make it worthwhile.

Quoted for truth.

I wish more people like JB would realize this. The landscape of the two countries is totally different. In Europe, large cities are very close together, in America, large cities can be hundreds of miles apart. We are a very large land mass without many people on it. It's the same reason why scooters are popular in Europe, not so much in America. In Europe, people use scooters because they are efficient short-range transportation. In America, you might have to ride 20 miles on a scooter to ride into work. (in fact I have to do just that). A high speed railway would have to link two large population centers together to make sense. The cost would be astronomical to do so in this country. It's just too far of a distance.

High speed rail will never be feasible in this country so people need to stop pushing it. Just because things are done in Europe doesn't mean we should do them here. You wanna drive on the wrong side of the road everywhere you go?

 

[Tim Frank]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

Quoted for truth.

Just because things are done in Europe doesn't mean we should do them here. You wanna drive on the wrong side of the road everywhere you go?

Just about all of Europe drives on the same side of the road as in North America.
Other than demonstrating your actual "knowledge" of Europe, did you have a point? :facepalm:

Europe is ~ the same size as the US, and coincidentally has ~ 50 states....depending on what skirmish or 1200 year-old feud changes a border here or there at any given moment.
There are many geographical parallels as well...but it is as much a socioeconomic phenomenon that sees train travel so ingrained in the culture. Their "landscape" is as diverse as ours in North America, and high speed trains don't work well to service many regions over there, for the same reasons. Paris-London is fine, Kiev-Moscow, not so much.

The way that I read JB's comments is simply that your (US) passenger train service is inferior to much of the rest of the world....he was not debating where in the US service actually makes sense....or even "if". Just suggesting that given the quality of planes you produce...road vehicles....ships....etc. he finds it distressing that trains are such an exception....due to politics....bureaucracy....and other idiocy.
(That is just my spin, and JB may differ and correct me.)

Our (Canadian) passenger rail service is almost a mirror image of yours....but without even a semi-high speed option. But we'll have it all fixed by the time the Leafs win the Stanley Cup.

 

[rbh]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


^^^^^^


^^

^


HAHAHA, the leafs win


Dreamer!!!!


OH Ya passenger trains?????? Via don't come round here no more. GRRRRRR

 

[mscher]

Re: Speaking of trains, this makes no sense to me.

The main reason America does not have a huge passenger rail system, is because Americans do not want one. We never have, since the invention of the automobile.

We want to walk out our door, climb into our vehicle, (anything bewteen a super compact and gas guzzing land-yacht), go exactly where we want to go and then return home, when we want to (more or less). We don't want to drive to a rail station, find a place to park, ride a train somewhere, then walk or ride a bus the rest of the way, to a final destination. The do the opposite at teh end of the day.

America is not like Europe anyway. Most Europeans still live in or near the cities. Americans have abondoned the cities long ago and live in the suburbs, or in the country.

No way could I ride a train to work. No way do I even want to.