357 MPH Train

[Fadingpain]

Watch at 1:24 as this sucker zips under the overpass.  

 

God forbid we would have something like this in America.

 

 

[Gray Beard]

I’ve ridden on the TGV from Paris to Nice. You don’t realize how fast you are going. It’s very smooth and quiet for a train. 

[Mr Info]

That’s great to see. I have ridden the maglev train in Shanghai which gets to 268 mph but maglev trains can get much faster. Hope faster trains can be deployed to compete with planes for domestic travel someday.

[jr1]

it's hard to get the government to go along with this when there's so many discount airlines 

[Marv's Neighbor]

The French normally contract their trains out to the Germans to operate, to keep them on time.

[sherpa]

14 minutes ago, jr1 said:

it's hard to get the government to go along with this when there's so many discount airlines 

 

That isn't the hard part.

The hard part is that the gov makes a fortune off of airline taxes.

Airlines are taxed higher than alcohol or tobacco.

3.7 billion in 1990--->23 billion in 2016.

 

Tax these trains at the same level and watch what happens.

[row_33]

31 minutes ago, Marv's Neighbor said:

The French normally contract their trains out to the Germans to operate, to keep them on time.

 

Trains, cattle cars, whatever....

 

[Doc]

The wreckage of a crash of one of those things would have the density of a neutron star. 

[DC Tom]

1 hour ago, sherpa said:

 

That isn't the hard part.

The hard part is that the gov makes a fortune off of airline taxes.

Airlines are taxed higher than alcohol or tobacco.

3.7 billion in 1990--->23 billion in 2016.

 

Tax these trains at the same level and watch what happens.

 

No, the hard part is geography.  TGV serves the entirety of a relatively compact country, and barely makes back its operating costs, and can leverage TER for regional commutes.  

 

How do you scale that up to the United States?  You're going to implement it nation-wide, at significant cost for limited use (who's going to take high-speed rail from Chicago to Seattle, or Atlanta to Denver, when it's both slower and more expensive than air travel, and once you get to your destination you're still pretty much stuck at the station?  Where's the economic sense in that?  How much are you going to have to charge to recoup the cost of laying a high-speed electric rail line from Atlanta to Denver? 

[{::'KayCeeS::}]

4 minutes ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, the hard part is geography.  TGV serves the entirety of a relatively compact country, and barely makes back its operating costs, and can leverage TER for regional commutes.  

 

How do you scale that up to the United States?  You're going to implement it nation-wide, at significant cost for limited use (who's going to take high-speed rail from Chicago to Seattle, or Atlanta to Denver, when it's both slower and more expensive than air travel, and once you get to your destination you're still pretty much stuck at the station?  Where's the economic sense in that?  How much are you going to have to charge to recoup the cost of laying a high-speed electric rail line from Atlanta to Denver? 

 

Yes, this, well said.  Ironically, our vast geography is vastly limiting in a lot of ways.  Think about the cost!  We can't pay for **** anyway!  I get the dream, though.... 

[mead107]

Democrats have not been given enough bribes to ok it ????????

[Rob's House]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, the hard part is geography.  TGV serves the entirety of a relatively compact country, and barely makes back its operating costs, and can leverage TER for regional commutes.  

 

How do you scale that up to the United States?  You're going to implement it nation-wide, at significant cost for limited use (who's going to take high-speed rail from Chicago to Seattle, or Atlanta to Denver, when it's both slower and more expensive than air travel, and once you get to your destination you're still pretty much stuck at the station?  Where's the economic sense in that?  How much are you going to have to charge to recoup the cost of laying a high-speed electric rail line from Atlanta to Denver? 

I assume if it were economically viable it would exist, but I'd think a high-speed rail that runs from Fredricksburg to Boston through DC, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and New York could make sense, and it might clear up the traffic on 95.

[Fadingpain]

1 hour ago, DC Tom said:

 

No, the hard part is geography.  TGV serves the entirety of a relatively compact country, and barely makes back its operating costs, and can leverage TER for regional commutes.  

 

How do you scale that up to the United States?  You're going to implement it nation-wide, at significant cost for limited use (who's going to take high-speed rail from Chicago to Seattle, or Atlanta to Denver, when it's both slower and more expensive than air travel, and once you get to your destination you're still pretty much stuck at the station?  Where's the economic sense in that?  How much are you going to have to charge to recoup the cost of laying a high-speed electric rail line from Atlanta to Denver? 

The application for the USA is not to go nationwide, but regional.

 

The Atlantic corridor from DC to Boston with stops in Philly and NYC is the obvious location.

 

The problem is coming up with the money to buy the land that the tracks go on, if you can't adapt the train to existing runs.

 

 

 

 

[Mr. WEO]

The Northeast Corridor route is the only real profitable run on Amtrak.  Making it a faster will not increase ridership.  

 

In general, there fewer huge wastes of taxpayer money than high speed rail (such as this train) in the US.  Just think of the massive amount of money proposed to get people fromLA to SF on such a train.  It's silly, when you think about it.  couple hundred people a day?  Maybe a few thousand?  It's a sad joke.

 

 

[4merper4mer]

7 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said:

The Northeast Corridor route is the only real profitable run on Amtrak.  Making it a faster will not increase ridership.  

 

In general, there fewer huge wastes of taxpayer money than high speed rail (such as this train) in the US.  Just think of the massive amount of money proposed to get people fromLA to SF on such a train.  It's silly, when you think about it.  couple hundred people a day?  Maybe a few thousand?  It's a sad joke.

 

 

It might be a sad joke to you but if a couple of trillion dollars make a few thousand people feel like they are slightly curbing climate change, isn't it worth it?  Who can put a dollar figure on human emotion?

[ExiledInIllinois]

5 hours ago, Fadingpain said:

Watch at 1:24 as this sucker zips under the overpass.  

 

God forbid we would have something like this in America.

 

 

Until a terrorist sticks a penny on the track.

[Marv's Neighbor]

I remember in the 70's when Disney World was new.  The Auto Train started from N Virginia to Sanford Florida.  You ride the train and take your car along, on the train.  The intent at that time was to extend the route into the NE US; Philadelphia, NYC, Boston etc.  So now almost 50 years later, the route has not been "extended" by  even 1 foot.  The cost to modify the curves and underpasses has always been too high to accomplish.   The Auto Train cars are too long/high to use on the routes.    Amtrack is always a money loser, so not a lot of interest here for high speed rail projects.

 

 

[BeginnersMind]

The Amtrak NE corridor line makes money because they charge so much. I’d love to take the train from Philly to Boston and have, but it is always cheaper to fly. Always. 

[Patrick Duffy]

that's one fast !@#$ing train.

[The Poojer]

the regular speed train couldn't even make it around the curves in NE Philly, no way a high speed could make it on the curvy tracks we have in place and re-laying tracks would make the cost astronomical