I don't know. The fastest trains in my country go 80mph.

In Japan, it's fast, efficient, convenient, and abit expensive

>>235156
>80MPH

Is that top speeds or average speed? Because the only commuter train in my area goes an average speed of around 35MPH from station to station

>>235189
How fast? How efficient? How is it so convenient? How much are tickets?

Wow that is some slow train speeds, glad Ima eurofag

>>235210
I'm talkin average speed; as in, how fast--on average--it takes to go from one end of the line to the other end.

The commuter rail I use takes around 2 hours to go the full 70.9 miles, so that's an average speed of 35MPH. It can go around 79MPH for top speed, though.

):

>>235210
Also, are those supposed to be top speeds or average speeds?

>>235192
>How fast
check this graph
>How efficient
A 600 mile trip can be done in 3 hours, shorter distances in still less time: Paris to Lyons is 245 miles and the trip is an hour and 57 minutes - Boston to NYC is 231 miles and the trip is three and a half hours
This is because the TGV trains operate on dedicated purpose-built High-Speed Railways; while the Acela must use state passenger & private freight railways, they give it a lower priority, have grades and curves, highly variable track conditions, old infrastructure, level crossings, etc - the French invested in theirs and now reap a return
>How is it convenient
With a good Regional/Commuter/Metro Train network already in place (which is not necessarily the case in much of the USA) you can catch a normal train to the terminal, interchange to another platform and voila there is the High-Speed Inter-City Train which then takes you to the city or terminal of your choice where you have either arrived at your destination or continue on your way with that locations Regional/Commuter/Metro Trains
>How much are tickets
check www.raileurope.com for prices

>>235216
>>235217
These are my posts btw.

To add: In the USA, we have an Amtrak-operated "high speed" rail called Acela Express, which goes from Boston to DC. It takes 7 hours to go 456 miles. That means the average speed of our country's fastest train is 57MPH (~92 km/h)

>>235218
Thanks for this

>>235219
In Japan, regular express trains drive up to 130km/h

High-speed rail goes 260~320 km/s

see hyperdia.com for prices, times, etc.

lol 'murikkka

bumping this here thread o' mine

The only train I've ever been on in this country is the THSR which tops out at 299/300kph (license restriction).

It's like riding a plane, with bigger windows, less noise and no turbulance. Except when the train going the other direction passes by you and when shooting into the tunnel, the pressure is so great it makes a BOOM sound.

>>235253
that sounds magickal

macgic with a 'ck' yes

>>235155
US has the highest amount of freight shipped by train globally. eurofags cant even comprehend

>>235384
Ah, well that's some consolation.

but then, if spending on rail capital cuts down transport time for freight, why not the same for intercity passenger travel?

>>235421
>if spending on rail capital cuts down transport time for freight
Some time freight needs it own railways, some times passengers need their own railways, some times they can share
The guy your responding to and you make the surreal presumption that you can not build new railways when and where required, its the same blinkered thinking that sees Americas efforts at High-Speed Rail being put to work on existing freight railway - the very idea of building new infrastructure for it is some sort of cognitive black hole

>>235421
Switzerland just built a new railway through the Alps for freight
UNDER A MOUNTAIN

>>235192

Top speed I think. Most stations are 20-30 miles apart anyway.

>>235384
Yes, they can. That's why they are building another entire rail network to handle freight. This includes some tracks in that tunnel they just punched through the Swiss mountain.

Unlike the rail-haters in the USA, they seperate freight and Passenger so passenger trains don't have to be built like fucking tank trains just to commute into downtown Boston.

Going to take a trip on one of these tommorrow.

It's based on the 700 Series Shinkansen and called the 700T

Sports bigger better windshield that the passengers will never see out of, more powerful motors for constant 300km/h operations, better brakes

12car configuration instead of the standard 8/16 car configuration in japan.

>>235482
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isnt Taiwan's high speed rail insanely cheap?

Compared to Japan, I'm told it costs next to nothing.

>>235528
It's 49.0696USD (1,490 NTD)
For Zuoying to Taipei which is currently the longest operating distance. No idea about tickets in japan for similar distances.

It's something all japanese tourists that head to Taiwan must ride on because it's the first time a Shinkansen was built and sent outside of Japan. The japanese themselves can't use the 700T on their own infrastucture because they don't use European system track and tunnel.

European tunnel diameters are larger than japanese ones so the 700T train nose is shorter without the increase in aerodynamic pressure pulse (that BOOM when entering tunnels or passing by other trains).

>>235544
The distance is about the same as Tokyo to Nagoya, which costs ¥10,580 or about $125 USD

>>235547
The locals wouldn't take that too well, since jet tickets for 2,110 TWD or 69.4879 USD

The THSR has yet to undermine the bus infrasturcture.
Tickets for Kaohsiung on the bus is 550~710TWD which is 18.113~23.3822USD

I hate the buses, the soft springy shocks, stop go traffic on rush hours and the 4.5~6hr road trips compared to the 1.5~2hr on the THSR

I haven't taken a bus since the THSR came into operation. I value my time.

Fat people and cheapskates like to take the bus because of the xbox hueg seats and onboard movie/entertaiment systems.

its kinda like public school. you don't get to ride you're a dumb-ass.

>>235222
>260~320 km/s
>km/s

>>235577
i'd be that dog except jerkin it to how fast i could get from my home to a workplace a hundred miles away or something. Seriously, I'd rather spend a one-hour commute by transit than the same amount of time driving with the assholes in my part of the USA

>>235222
>260~320 km/s

>>235222

>260~320 km/s

>>235222
>260~320 km/s

>>235612

>260~320 km/s
>km/s
Original poster here. I lol'd.

>>235471
>seperate freight and Passenger so passenger trains

not really, no

>>235703
That's the PLAN. I.E. not the status quo.

>>235703
High-Speed Trains do operate on their own High-Speed Railways, see the graph that was posted
Regular trains operate on regular railways some of which will be shared with freight

>>235544
>>Except when the train going the other direction passes by you and when shooting into the tunnel, the pressure is so great it makes a BOOM sound.

Can someone post a youtube link to this "boom" sound

>>235742
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tunnel_boom
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cosIGUN6lDA - start at 3:08

>>235222
>260~320 km/s

>>235155
I got to use it once, the spanish AVE line between Madrid and Barcelona. Funnily I first went by sleeper, and returned by HSR, since I only happened to get the return HSR ticket at almost the same price, but in what's basically the equivalent of "business class".

It's awesome. you see huge mountains pass by as if they were nothing but a small hill right next to the tracks. The distance is constantly moving along, so you get less bored when watching out the window. It doesn't really feel different from any other train though, you don't really "feel" the speed. When the train starts moving it barely shakes, it's like riding a cloud. It only starts to rattle a bit when you're above 200 km/h, at 300 it felt like going 80 in my commuter train. A bit less noise. There was a display in the car that indicated the speed at which you're travelling, it got to 301 at the very fastest, though a large part of the stretch was limited to 280. In any case it did make the (rather enjoyable) sleeper trip look like shit, by being 3 times faster.

I'd take it over the sleeper if it were not more than 25% more expensive. But since usually it costs more than double, at full price I'd take the sleeper train. The cars were old, but I wasn't uncomfortable, and the leaving at night / arriving in the morning thing is very practical.

My two(hundred) cents.

>260~320 km/s

It's pretty cool, I used one in China once. Not really much to say, it just goes way fast. Probably so you can't catch a glimpse of the poor neighborhood it's going through-

>>235482
but does it blend?

But hey guys, I have the capability to go fast! Can't I get a tiny bit of credit?
>240 km/h in two spots south of New York

I'm a frequent passenger of the TGV between Paris and Nancy.
It travels at 320 km/h all the way.
It cut the time of the previous train service (200 km/h, I think) from 2h45 to 1h30.
By car, it takes a bit less than 4 hours (we're talking of 130 km/h or 80mph speed limits here). And if you plan ahead, it's about the same price, too.
That's really great. A roundtrip time between Nancy and Paris (same distance as NYC-Washington DC) of 3 hours means that you can take an 8am train, have your meeting in the other city and be back for 1pm.

>>235471

Aww, I like our tank-trains.

>>235948
Huh, those locomotives are exactly what my commuter trains are

>>235778
Enjoy the Costa Brava night train when you can, it'll cease to run when the Figueras - Perpignan HSL will open... if it does some day, they're already 640 days late and counting.

Chinese high speed rail for Americans.

>>236057
would beat American "high speed" rail for sure

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU1_L5ww3og

>>236056
I hope they don't do that... poor people need a means of transport too, and the HSR costs more than double. But I get this bad feeling that you may be right......

wait whats hapening now?

Fuck you, you fucking communist train-loving fascist faggot. I don't want to take no train to work! My car lets me ride by myself, in comfort, and go anywhere I want to go. If I have to share my ride somewhere with other people, it's fucking socialism. Don't you understand? First we get trains, then we're all marching in goose-step under the beck and call of Barrack HUSSEIN Obumma. Is that what you want? Nigger train drivers ordering us into cars? Don't you know how Hitler sent people to Concentration Camps? That's right: BY TRAIN! If you support trains, you support HITLER and his Nigger Son Barrack HUSSEIN Obumma.

>>236536
Nice troll-try. :)

>>236536
i laugh'd a little

ugh, FLorida's "high speed" rail will have an average speed of only 78.75MPH (approx 126.73 km/h) when it opens in 2014

>>236545
lol this is only barely faster than this 1934 passenger service between Kansas City and Lincoln, Nebraska.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_Zephyr

hahah..hha ):

>>236536
bad troll and if u really beleive it then your a lost case


BTW i frequently use HSR trains to go througt france and switzerland(especially lille and Zurich) and i really enjoy it

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/trip_planner.aspx

L.A. to San Francisco = Average speed of 164MPH (263.93 km/h) across 432 miles. 2hours 38 minutes travel time.

Well, that qualifies as HSR in Europe at least

>>236191
RENFE usually suppresses cheap services once there's a HSL running. They did on the Madrid - Seville and they already announced service suspension on the Madrid - Valencia line thru Cuenca. And they aren't closing the Barcelona - Portbou line only because is the busiest regional line, however they're already discussing to close the Figueres - Portbou section once the Figueres - Le Soler HSL starts operation.

RENFE is not interested in cheap travellers, despite being state-owned and the country ruled by the socialist party.

>>236191
>>236685
why would poor people be doing inter-city train rides in the first place?
but if so wouldn't they prefer to get there fast
and they can always hop a cargo train like in the 1930s

I

LIKE

TRAINS

Any Californians know when your HSR's gonna be built?

>>236996

From a HSR press release:

>Construction is slated to begin late 2012 with the state’s high-speed rail network providing passenger service from the San Francisco Bay Area to the Los Angeles metropolitan area by 2020.

ITT: Pretentious eurofags make themselves feel better about their shitty countries by comparing trains which nobody gives a shit about

>>236998
>2020

Damn, that's a long time off. Are they gonna open segments of the line as it gets completed, or will you have to wait 10 years before anyone sets foot on a train?

>Francisco gartince

just discovered this: http://www.idtgv.com/fr/decouvrir Pretty awesome

>>237011
Is there an english version?

there is no english version ):

>>237011
>printing tickets at home
nothing new here...
also:
>hueg colored images on the ticket

>>235155

It's nice bro. I used to travel a bit on the Paris-Lyon TGV line. It takes 1h50 to travel some 450 km (280 miles). Average speed is higher than Formula 1 race cars, which are pretty damn fast. Inside it's nice, cozy, quiet(ish). You have really nice leg room, electric outlets and now Wifi. You can get drunk at the bar. When it goes parallel to a highway, you can really see the speed, as it leaves behind the cars that are going 140+ kmph.

It costs some 30-80 euros per trip, depending when you buy it. Some people living 200 km from Paris commute by TGV, it takes them some 40 minutes to get to Paris.

Also, TGV is old as shit, they're bringing on the next generation, which is gonna be way faster and so awesome it's gonna suck your dick for free.

Fuck the retardation of those politicians downvoting train programs, get them out of the office and get with the program. SF - LA would take less by train than it takes now by plane with the stupid TSA faggotry.

Amerifag here. I'm jealous of eurofags and asiafags. Your governments actually work for you.

>>237475
>your government works for you

lol i wouldn't go that far, but it seems like they prioritized things better than the US federal government

>>237444
The SF LA line is retard expensive, and in case you haven't heard, we're broke as fuck. California doesn't have the money for that kind of shit so just so we can hurr durr as we go past 85 mile an hour traffic on I-5.

>>237491
no, it does - dealwithit.jpg
>>237493
got money for tax cuts for the rich, and roads, and vast military expenditure, and etc

trains go fast

I'd say it's not all it's cracked up to be. It's comfortable and all, but still not as comfortable as driving your own car. Of course it's much faster than anything except flight, but riding a train for longer than an hour will still be kind of a pest.

>>237772
1hour in a train > 1 hour in car driving on a highway full of idiots imo

>>237772
but it is much more comfortable
also no driving, sit back and relax

Have you ever ridden on a passenger train?
The only form of transportation more comfortable is probably a cruise ship.
Bring your own booze, cars for socializing with other passengers, cars for observing scenery, and plenty of room in isles to just wander around and creep out young hot girls. Plugs for your techy stuff to charge, and motherfucking WiFi, you got WiFi in your car?

>>237772
and you can play your gameboy instead of watching the road.

The difference between traveling on high-speed rail (And I know my shit, here in britland we get 200km/h erry day) and traveling on crappy 100km/h trains like you usafags have is like comparing washing your ass in the shower to using toilet paper.

>>237772

I don't think you even have a driver's license. Ever tried driving at 3 am after Thanksgiving?

This train is fucking fast, the moment it enters a tunnel you can feel the air pressure change.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korea_Train_Express

>>239036
u mad as fuck

I often travel with the german ICE. It’s nice, but not a big revelation or anything. You enter a high-quality train with nice interior, then some time later you leave again. Just like normal trains, only quieter, less vibration, and faster (which you don’t notice while inside). Modern high-speed rail lines are horribly boring, looking the same everywhere and with lots of tunnels, so I usually work on my laptop or read a book.

German high-speed trains are protected against huge pressure variations, so you don’t notice any boom or air pressure change when going into a tunnel. The boom still happens, of course, you just don‘t hear or feel it.

>>238617
>GEC-Alsthom, today Alstom, one of the builders of France's TGV trains; Siemens, one of the builders of Germany's ICE trains; and Mitsubishi, one of the builders of Japan's Shinkansen trains.[6] In 1994, the alliance of Alstom and its Korean subsidiary Eukorail were chosen as winner.

> In 1994, the alliance of Alstom and its Korean subsidiary Eukorail were chosen as winner.
>The technology was almost identical to that found on the high-speed lines of France's TGV system.

It's good to read before writing "lol they copy, we original"

>>239094
still, the KTX-II presented as Korean technology is just facelifted TGV. it has most of the systems still pretty much interchangeble with the TGV/RGV etc.

KTX-III on the other hand, might be a step forward, with modern concept of multiple powered cars and under-floor equipment

>>239036
>implying this isn't how every industry everywhere at every point in history has operated

USfag here, I have never ridden a train. Never even taken the subway or anything.

It's hardcore retarded how we do public transport here (read: not at all). Every place I go to has enormous parking lots surrounding every building, and even as large as they are the lots are filled with cars.

Nobody rideshares. Nobody takes the bus. There are no trains and no subways. Everyone - every. single. person. - drives their own seperate vehicle everywhere. And that vehicle is more than likely a massive dually that they'll never, ever truly need.

HURRDURR TEXAS YEEHAW

>>239361
I always wonder, in the older cities (like downtown Dallas) what did all those parking lots replace?

>>239361
>>239372
well supposedly you cant dig underground in Houston and thats supposed to be the argument against
so instead of building a subway build an elevated
they can build a fantastic quantity of freeways & highways but not railways

>>239372
Paradise.

>>239385

You'd be risking trouble digging up all dem Indian burial grounds.

>>235528
I've been to both Taiwan and Japan and yes, rail is insanely cheap in Taiwan. As the other guy said, it's less than 2000 TWD (their largest bill) to get from one side of the country to the other (about an hour and a half iirc), and getting a local metro/subway ticket is likely to cost US CENTS.

Also, the metros seem to use Siemens trains which are much quieter than their Japanese equivalents, and as well, there are no doors to go from car to car -- there's a wide open space that's fully enclosed and safe to pass through (at least on the subway I took).

Lastly, the ticketing system in Taiwan is great, but not Japan great, IMO. Japan's remains BLAZING fast.

> never ridden a eurotrain

>>239936

I thought they used magenetic cards, or am I mistaken?

only for the areas around Taipei. you need to buy separate tickets to go south.

you also need to consider population density om relation to landmass, Europe, Japan and China all have high population densities spread out over their landmass, whereas in US, there is a huge landmass, with population clumped in a few ceneters - which makes high speed rail not as efficient as it would be in a place like Japan

>>240096

Nobody said you have to build high speed rail in Wyoming. Certain parts of the US (especially the Northeast Corridor) have population densities comparable to Europe, and if you built high speed rail in those areas that would be all you need. Boston to DC in two hours would be fucking awesome.

>>240096
explained time and time again
but you are a mouth breathing brain dead moron
it is not coast to coast
it is between the cities in the major regions
North East
Mid West
Texas
California
etc
Boston to NYC is 230 miles, Paris to Lyons is 245 miles, Acela takes three and a half hours, TGV takes an hour and 57 minutes
Still going to say spread out low density hmm?

>>240118

Problem is that those are wall-to-wall urban areas. Any HSR you'd run would have to be on existing rail lines, unless you want to face the financial and legal nightmare of building new tracks through an urban center.

Furthermore, the fact that those are existing tracks severely limits the speed of HSR. Your 700-ton HSR is going to be running right behind 10000+ ton intermodel, and that's going to be limited to 55mph in most places (Just less than 100kmh for you eurofags) by law. Until you can convince congress to raise the limits for freight (unlikely, considering the trucking industry lobby), that means that passenger rail won't be reliably faster than it is now, regardless of how your system is.

>>240139
oh so first you cant do it because of too low density
now you cant do it because its TOO HIGH DENSITY
there is just no satisfying you, you will argue against it from whatever angle and contradict yourself to do it

And its not dense around Paris and Lyons? Japan? Chinese cities? etc
What new argument will you make up now?

>>240139
>Any HSR you'd run would have to be on existing rail lines
High Speed Train can not run on existing railways, or it wont be high speed
build new high speed railways - tunnel, elevated, acquire land
>and that's going to be limited to 55mph in most places (Just less than 100kmh for you eurofags) by law. Until you can convince congress to raise the limits for freight (unlikely, considering the trucking industry lobby)
freight trains being diesel locomotives do not and should not and can not go fast

you're just grasping at straws for any excuse not to do it, determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

>>240144
>High Speed Train can not run on existing railways, or it wont be high speed

No shit sherlock. That's what that whole fucking post was about.

>build new high speed railways - tunnel, elevated, acquire land

Good fucking luck. Are you even aware of the eminent domain nightmare that would ensue? The environmental impact statements that MUST be done? The massive amount of engineering needed for just a single intersection?

You'd be talking about million-dollars a mile at the OPTIMISTIC end of things - something no private industry will tackle, and nobody in their right mind would trust the government with it, especially after the massive cockup that is Amtrak.

>freight trains being diesel locomotives do not and should not and can not go fast

Bull-fucking-shit. There's plenty of room for them to go faster than they do now. Hell, back before regulation, freight was at 70 mph on discontinuous, unsignaled rail. Passenger lines where breaking 100 mph.

>you're just grasping at straws for any excuse not to do it, determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory

And you desperately want this fantasy of successful high-speed rail to take place, despite all of the reasoned, logical arguments for why it's a bad idea that have come about after careful study by people much more knowledgeable than you.

>>240143

Well duh.

Unlike Europe, where the government basically has absolute authority over private property rights, and the expected usage volume is great enough to justify hugely expensive infrastructure projects, the U.S. has to do things based entirely upon legal and economic justifications.

And quite frankly, neither of those are present.

HSR doesn't work in the Midwest because the ridership density is to low to make it viable, especially considering the high-maintenance track that would be required.

It doesn't work in urban areas because it's too expensive to create that track in the first place, and because ridership numbers are not high enough to make it economically viable on anything approaching a reasonable timescale.

The only way HSR IS viable, is if it can share track with existing rail, which everybody agrees is not going to happen anytime soon.

>>240145
>You'd be talking about million-dollars a mile at the OPTIMISTIC end of things - something no private industry will tackle
SNCF the French government owned rail operator invested billions in their High Speed Rail developing it and building routes making it the masterpiece it is today and with how well it works now they make a billion a year from it
there is a moral to this anecdote
>Bull-fucking-shit. There's plenty of room for them to go faster than they do now.
being diesel locomotives it will be and dirty and add greater wear to the motors going that fast
passenger trains doing the speeds you are talking about will be Diesel Multiple Units or Electric for the greater torque, acceleration, deceleration, etc - efficiency
>despite all of the reasoned, logical arguments for why it's a bad idea
first the country is too low density for it, then it is too high density for it

>>240146
>The only way HSR IS viable, is if it can share track with existing rail
It does that nowhere in the world, you claim to be a reasoned expert arguing from logic and economics and then you spout utter nonsense
it can not do that for safety, it can not do that for the curves and grades of normal railways
>It doesn't work in urban areas
city to city in 60-120 minutes, what doesn't work
>because it's too expensive to create that track in the first place
dont get something for nothing? no!
>and because ridership numbers are not high enough to make it economically viable on anything approaching a reasonable timescale.
things sometimes take longer than the next financial quarter to show a return
>especially considering the high-maintenance track that would be required.
once built railways are good for ages, unlike roads being worn down by regular traffic
>HSR doesn't work in the Midwest because the ridership density is to low to make it viable
there are population centres close enough to make it viable
but if you insist on being cautious first up upgrade existing regional/inter-urban/inter-city passenger railways to test the waters: modernize track & signal, new track where appropriate to eliminate curves and grades, DMU capable of 90-110mph, etc

>>240148

1st, Billions of dollars of investment, for a revenue measured as a billion a year. 2nd, government owned. I'm quite confident they got all kinds of special priveledges and exemptions, all in the name of how good it was going to make france look.

None of that will happen in the U.S.

>being diesel locomotives it will be and dirty and add greater wear to the motors going that fast

You have no idea how american diesel-electric locomotives work, do you?

The diesel motor is in no way coupled to the drive wheels. It drives a generator, which in turn provides power to motors driving the wheels.

Those wheel-mounted motors can be run in reverse, obviously, turning them into (gasp!) generators.

Effectively, it's the same system as those HST's you like bragging about so much.

Those diesel motors also have a couple of advantages: They get to run at very particular speeds, optimized for efficiency, since they're not coupled to the drive motors. They also get to benefit from massive emissions hardware: I'm willing to bet that the typical American locomotive produces fewer emissions per ton of cargo than your typical European passenger car. It does this, remember, with no infrastructure investment other than the rails upon which it runs. They're also very, very efficient, typically in the range of 400+ miles-per-gallon-per-ton.

>first the country is too low density for it, then it is too high density for it

And you apparently can't grasp that it might be both at once? Really?

Do you even read what the hell I post, or does it all go in one ear then out the other?

>>240150

Apparently you're under the mistaken impression that I speak for the entire world. I'm talking purely about the United States. Europe and Asia, obviously, operate under very different legal, social, and economic climates, and those must be taken into account.

>spout utter nonsense
Show me where I've done that. Really.

>city to city in 60-120 minutes, what doesn't work

Because that's assuming you've already completed this hugely expensive dedicated infrastructure. Furthermore, it assumes that the system you use for this is already capable of drawing passengers based on timely, efficient, and economical service, which no national-level lines have demonstrated within the past decade.

>things sometimes take longer than the next financial quarter to show a return

If something takes more than a decade to break even, I'm not going to invest in it, period. I'd much rather part my money somewhere else, where I don't have to worry about the legal climate justifying my business case breaking down overnight.

Second, ridership numbers are not high enough to justify it. Period. They are not now, and they won't be in the future. Quite frankly, airfare is cheaper, faster, and more reliable. You might be able to create a convincing argument that the latest provocations by the TSA will drive people to the trains, but given the interest expressed by our wonderful federal overlords in expanding that little delight to other forms of transport, I wouldn't bet on it.

>once built railways are good for ages, unlike roads being worn down by regular traffic

HAHAHA. Oh, wait. You're serious. Let me laugh even harder.

You seriously think that electrified, high-speed track is EASY or even CHEAP to maintain? Especially in a climate like the northeast, and especially when it has to cover thousands of miles?
Especially in a legal climate where people can and will sue over anything and everything, and where you must absolutely safegaurd your track from anybody who might cross it? In a country where most railcrossings are lucky enough to get lit signals?

>but if you insist on being cautious first up upgrade existing regional/inter-urban/inter-city passenger railways to test the waters: modernize track & signal, new track where appropriate to eliminate curves and grades, DMU capable of 90-110mph, etc

Again, that's what we're doing now. And it's not working. As soon as the positive press disappears on any new inter-city passenger rail project, it's found to be a massive waste of investment dollars. It's simply not viable in the U.S. End of story.

We already have some of the most modern track in the world. The difference is is that our track is used to haul freight, not people, over distances that make all of Europe's trackage look like a hobbies t playing around on a 4'x8'.

>>240151
>1st, Billions of dollars of investment, for a revenue measured as a billion a year.
long-term low-yield investment, just like any large piece of infrastrucure - the people who invested in the Golden Gate Bridge didn't see their money again until the 1970s, do we use that alone to judge its success or failure?
You are determined to expect this makes a profit by the next financial quarter aren't you?
>The diesel motor is in no way coupled to the drive wheels. It drives a generator, which in turn provides power to motors driving the wheels.
Thats how every locomotive works.
>Effectively, it's the same system as those HST's you like bragging about so much.
No, its not. They are 25kV AC electric locomotives. You really do not know how electric trains work?
Now you're just getting very silly.
>operate under very different legal, social, and economic climates, and those must be taken into account.
Yes they didn't introduce regulations in the 1950s designed to impede rail transportation
>Show me where I've done that. Really.
everywhere
>Second, ridership numbers are not high enough to justify it. Period.
Look at the ridership of the Acela.
>Quite frankly, airfare is cheaper, faster, and more reliable.
All kinds of subsidies and tax breaks at the local, state, and federal level account for this.
For a minor example: Amtrak pays for its own security out of its annual operating budget while airports have theirs paid for by Uncle Sam
>In a country where most railcrossings are lucky enough to get lit signals?
High Speed Railways do not use level crossings, they must be grade-separated for best operation and safety. They also use in-cab signaling because the train is going too fast to see signals along the track.
>We already have some of the most modern track in the world.
No, you don't.

>The difference is is that our track is used to haul freight, not people, over distances that make all of Europe's trackage look like a hobbies t playing around on a 4'x8'.
Rolling Highways through Italy-Austria-Switzerland-Germany say otherwise (notice its an electric locomotive, thanks to most of their network being electrified they can use them for freight allowing greater and heavier loads to be hauled)
Gotthard Base Tunnel says otherwise.

diesel hydraulic - diesel electric - DMU - electric locomotive - EMU

the rail hater in this thread should read this
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSSIB27628520080612

>>240228
>long-term low-yield investment, just like any large piece of infrastrucure

Except that this is not infrastructure; This is a company in the business of moving people. If an airline couldn't expect to show a profit for 70 years, would anybody invest in it?

>Thats how every locomotive works.
>No, its not. They are 25kV AC electric locomotives. You really do not know how electric trains work?

I know exactly how electric trains work. I don't think you know how diesels work. You keep throwing around numbers, but I don't think you know what they actually mean.

>Yes they didn't introduce regulations in the 1950s designed to impede rail transportation

Legal, Social, and Economic. None of which are favorable to HSR.

>Everywhere.
Big words. Back them up, buddy.
>Acela.
Impressive numbers for a railway in the U.S. Which means that it's absolutely pathetic when compared to private car traffic and the airlines.
Don't forget, Acela takes three times as long to get between Boston and New York as the airlines, and costs to the consumer are comparable. Saving 1/3 of the expesne to get there in three times the amount of time is not what I would call a good deal.

>Subsidies nonsense

Really? You seriously think that passenger rail in the United states is less regulated than the airlines?

>No HSR level crossings.

Another point against them. Again, think of how much money you're throwing around to get this done on any kind of meaningful scale.

>>240229

"Rolling highways"

Yeah. Compare that to this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YahMPLS9iTs
and you start to understand what I'm talking about.

>>240254

I'm far from a 'Rail Hater'. I'm just realistic about these kinds of things.

Something which that article, by the way, is not.

a) Based in 2008, at the height of the 'Fuel Crisis', back when everybody thought we'd be seeing $200 barrel oil at this point. Note how those numbers didn't actually come true.
b) It's an interview of the head of Amtrak, the greatest insult to passenger rail ever devised by the U.S. Congress. Note how is first response is to talk about how much money he would need in order to consider any HSR project. He explicitly mentions $40 billion: Given the past history of Amtrak funding, It'd turn into $400 billion by the end of such a project, and only deliver on half of it's originally stated goals.
c) He repeatedly mentions that there's no publicly funded passenger rail system that's profitable, and completely sidesteps the question of whether or not Amtrak can be profitable. This is because the answer is clearly no.

>>240327
>Except that this is not infrastructure; This is a company in the business of moving people.
it is infrastructure, what are railways and bridges and tunnels and bridges and overhead?
cant move people and make a profit at it without that stuff
>Legal, Social, and Economic. None of which are favorable to HSR.
>Legal
anti rail laws
>Social
people wont use a good alternative when its provided?
Consider this story
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9JUHA5O0.htm
When a good alternative is provided PEOPLE WILL USE IT
>Economic
No such thing as a free lunch. You want to something you have to spend money and build it.
>Which means that it's absolutely pathetic when compared to private car traffic and the airlines.
its 60+% of the traffic
>Don't forget, Acela takes three times as long to get between Boston and New York as the airlines
And if it were a High-Speed Train would take under two hours
Paris to Lyons is 245 miles, Boston to NYC is 230 miles, TGV takes an hour and 57 minutes, Acela takes three and a half hours
>Another point against them.
Point FOR THEM - no accidents, no slowing down
>>240329
>He explicitly mentions $40 billion
Yes because you need to build High Speed Railways
It is not something you can do on the cheap running them on freight railways
It benefits freight btw, separating this sort of passenger service from conventional railways would free up capacity for more freight
When did Americans develop this idea that things must only run on freight railways and you can't build new track when required? What sort of cosmic catastrophe would occur if you did?
>c)
So what? We don't expect building inspectors or fire brigades & paramedics or the military to turn a profit.

bump

china, please, All chinese people beg Korean dogs let ur companies get out of China, Just as u said, Chinese economy depends on korean company, if ur bitch company get out, it ruin chinese economy, it is just agreeable with thoughts. So please do that,let ur damn companies get out of China, dont say we depend on u, just get out like a dog. If ur damn country do that all chinese gonna thank korean dogs. Please make us poorer, please, just get out of China. Thank u korean dogs! Haha.

>>237003
Apparently the bit in the middle will be open first.

>>240347

>Still thinks it's infrastructure
Except that unlike bridges and tunnels, which are public access, you have to buy service from a company or a government, which provides service only when and how it wants to.

>Anti-rail laws

Only thing that leaps to mind is speed limits established for freight.

> Story

Shock and Amazement! People try new things while it's still new!
And look! No ridership numbers!

80% chance that by this time next year, average ridership numbers are half of what they will be this month.


>NSTAAFL

Exactly: HSR is a ham sandwich that you're trying to charge steak prices for.

> 60% of the traffic.

Yeah, I'm gonna need some sauce on that bullshit. And no, Amtrak numbers don't count.

> Acela not a high-speed train.

wtfamireading? First it is, when you want to talk about ridership numbers, now it isn't when you want to talk about scheduling? Can't have it both ways, friend.

Oh, and congratufuckinglations. Now it's twice as long for 80% of the price.

>No accidents, no slowing down.

Yeah, bullshit. And you still haven't covered how much all that shit COSTS, which is a huge part of the reason why nobody is willing to pay for it.

>Need to build high speed railways.

No, we don't need to build them. We don't need them period. Some people with a fetish for spending tax dollars on useless shit think we do, but anybody who looks at these things from an economic perspective will call bullshit.

>>240347
Let me throw out a couple of other things to give you some more perspective.

You can typically expect to pay 2-3 million dollars per track mile to upgrade existing, in use track for high-speed conventional passenger service. Don't forget that that's per track: most of the time, you'll have two or more tracks running in parallel. If you want to build true 'High-speed' rail lines like the kind you're fapping over, you need to spend about 10 times that amount.

Suddenly, you're talking about tens of billions of dollars just to connect one pair of cities. You'd spend about half as much on building an international airport in one of those cities. That international airport would serve and order of magnitude more passengers, to an almost infinite array of destinations, compared to your HSRL's two. I've already shown that the costs per passenger are comparable - And airlines make a profit. HSR, judging by the 100 billion dollars per year thrown at it in Europe, does not.

Second, their's no current benefit to building separate HSR lines from a freight perspective. Freight's already running below capacity as it is, and there's negligible passenger traffic. Also, there are tens of thousands of miles of unused and abandoned track laid throughout the United States, all of it dating back to the time when freight rail was regulated. The freight lines would LOVE to reactivate it - it would mean an exponential increase in the number of customers they could serve. Unfortunately, thanks to environmental and civic groups (the same ones you think would advocate HSR), it's too expensive to do so. Remember, this is track that ALREADY EXISTS - It's on the ground, sitting there. Do you honestly believe that building BRAND NEW track would be any cheaper or easier?

can't let this thread die

>>240822
>>NSTAAFL
Unlike endless highway & freeway development
built for free, over night, on land that just appears, transporting vehicles powered by honey and exhausting perfume, and maintained by dwarves
>wtfamireading? First it is
it is isn't, you can call it High-Speed but look at its average speed and the time it takes
compared to real High-Speed Rail
>Yeah, bullshit.
Shinkansen has had 1 accident in 46 years of operation, during an earthquake one didn't stop and derailed (no fatalities)
in 28 years of operation the TGV have had 3 accidents - all have occurred not on High-Speed Railways but on conventional track
With the sort of gradual curves and grades involved in building High-Speed Railways, yes there is no slowing down until you approach the station
>And you still haven't covered how much all that shit COSTS, which is a huge part of the reason why nobody is willing to pay for it.
tens of billions
>You can typically expect to pay 2-3 million dollars per track mile to upgrade existing, in use track for high-speed conventional passenger service.
It wont be high speed, there will be restrictions on its speed due to mixed traffic and a lower priority than the track owners own services
>that international airport would serve and order of magnitude more passengers
nope
>And airlines make a profit.
Because Uncle Sam pays various subsidies and tax refinancing for airports at all levels f government, for airport security, FAA, Air Traffic Organization, and via the military the R&D that goes into the aircraft in the first place.
Also bails them out when they get in trouble.
>Second, their's no current benefit to building separate HSR lines from a freight perspective.
Removes current passenger services that run on freight lines increasing safety and potential capacity

This is a fun thread to watch folks knock each other on about...

>>241730
theres just one contrarian dude getting knocked about

>>241520

>Endless highway

Or endless railway development. Two can play that game.

> Nope. Not high speed.

It's the fastest rail system on the continent. It meets all but the most asinine definition of high speed. The fact that it doesn't have a high enough average speed to satisfy you suggests that there are substantial flaws within the concept of high-speed rail in the united states, not that high-speed rail hasn't been tried.

> accidents on conventional track.

So wait, first they can't use conventional track, and now they can? Which the hell is it?

>Tens of billions.

More than one hundred billion to upgrade an existing high-speed line for 220 mph service between cities less than 450 miles apart. That's Amtrak's estimate, by the way.

http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/BlobServer?blobcol=urldata&blobtable=MungoBlobs&blobkey=id&
;blobwhere=1249217394430&blobheader=application%2Fpdf&blobheadername1=Content-disposition&am
p;blobheadervalue1=attachment;filename=Amtrak_NECHSRReport92810RLR.pdf

Wanna guess how much it would cost to run a nationwide system in the U.S?

>won't be high speed
It'll be high speed compared to anything else you're likely to see. There were passenger services in the U.S. running 100mph plus, on steam, in the 1930's, on the same tracks used by freight. Believe it or not, you can run an efficient passenger system without resorting to fancy 'zomygodsofast' nonsense.

>>241520

>Nope.

Yep. And one word doesn't count as a reply. American airlines still receive less in annual subsidies from the federal government than European high-speed rail does by two or more orders of magnitude, and those European subsidies go just to paying maintenance, not construction or expansion.

> Removes blah blah blah blah.
Again, I said no benefit, and explained why here. Explain to me exactly why the issues HSR would supposedly solve have been a problem for freight rail in the United States anytime within the past three decades.
>>240823

>>241862
>Or endless railway development. Two can play that game.
1) >implying that has ever happened in the USA
2) No you can't when there are cities & regions with little or no public transportation in America
>It meets all but the most asinine definition of high speed.
The standards by which actual systems are judged - speed & duration over a given distance
Boston-NYC: 230 miles, 3 and a half hours
Paris-Lyons: 245 miles, hour and 57 minutes
Which one is high speed?
>So wait, first they can't use conventional track, and now they can? Which the hell is it?
Of course they CAN, but SHOULDN'T because they have to slow down as it is not built for high-speed operation and run the risk of accidents
>Wanna guess how much it would cost to run a nationwide system in the U.S?
Major regions. North East, Mid-West, California, Texas.
>It'll be high speed compared to anything else you're likely to see.
Unless I look at actual high-speed networks
>There were passenger services in the U.S. running 100mph plus, on steam, in the 1930's, on the same tracks used by freight.
Yes I know but they were diesel locomotives: Pioneer Zephyr & Flying Yankee, M-10000, etc and the electric Electroliner. incidentally the Japanese uses that as the basis for their Romancecars and 1st generation Shinkansen - imagine if the USA had done the same thing.

>Believe it or not, you can run an efficient passenger system without resorting to fancy 'zomygodsofast' nonsense.
Certainly, Regional services for places 100-200 miles apart ought to see track & signal upgrades, new track where apropriate, and DMU trains to increase services - Victoria Australia has done this with their Regional Fast Rail initiative and seen a massive boost in rail use to/from their regional centres, having to order additional DMU carriages to keep up with it.
And then of course there are Commuter and Metro train networks and Streetcar networks which every city and its surroundings ought to be doing.
But for major inter-city services, thats going to have to mean High-Speed Trains at some point - High-Speed Railways, 25kV electric locomotives, etc
>>241863
>from the federal government than European high-speed rail does by two or more orders of magnitude, and those European subsidies go just to paying maintenance, not construction or expansion.
They pay for the construction, unlike your magical freeways & highways which don't cost a cent.
And as was explained, with the investment put into the High-Speed Railways SNCF now makes a billion a year on it - who'da thunk it you have to invest capital to generate a return?
And then of course you say well that doesn't cover the cost of building it. Of course not, its a long-term low-yield investment - I already gave such an example (Golden Gate Bridge) how about you name a major piece of infrastructure that paid back the money put into it in the first financial quarter?
>Explain to me exactly why the issues HSR would supposedly solve have been a problem for freight rail in the United States anytime within the past three decades
How long did that coal train derailment in Virgina earlier this year disrupt passenger services across much of the North East?

/jan

>>241867

Oh lawd. Here we go.

1. It's never happened because it's never been viable. When it's been tried privately, it's never efficient to make it big enough to make the politicians happy. When it's been tried publicly, it's never effective enough to make the people who pay for it happy.

2. 230 miles, 3.5 hours. 70 miles an hour, average speed. Considering that's through the densest fucking part of the country, and that you'd be lucky to go that fast in a car, yeah. I'm calling them both high speed.

3. Unfortunately for you, unless we get a fucking money tree, they're going to have to if you want a system that services more than a handful of politically well-connected districts.

4. Unfortunately, within said major regions, most traffic will be by car. People won't commute 150 miles just because there's HSR between two arbitrary points. People who take vacations want to take them outside of their current region, so a regional system won't gain any marketshare there.

5. 'Actual high speed networks which won't exist within the U.S. because they're not viable. Have you been paying attention? Clearly not.

>>241871

I don't think you understand that HSR is simply not viable in the kind of scenarios you're talking about. There's not enough demand for travel between adjacent major urban centers within the U.S.

The SNCF is one of those services receiving billions a year in subsidies. They may be bringing in revenue, but they're certainly not a viable going concern. Airlines are still cheaper and more profitable.

>Virgina

3 days, worst case, looks like.

That was a freight derailment that caused a delay for freight rail. Any passenger traffic that was delayed would have been delayed regardless of the presence of HSR. HSR gets separate tracks, remember?

This might be a dumb question. But I want to 'soak' up these high speed trains during a winter trip soon.

Where do go in Japan to find a train viewing place?

Like a bridge... that intersects a busy high speed line?
Or a look out etc

(Tokyo Area is where Im staying)

>>242206
>2. 230 miles, 3.5 hours. 70 miles an hour, average speed. Considering that's through the densest fucking part of the country, and that you'd be lucky to go that fast in a car, yeah. I'm calling them both high speed.
>densest fucking part of the country
all the more reason for high speed rail connections between the cities there
>4. Unfortunately, within said major regions, most traffic will be by car. People won't commute 150 miles just because there's HSR between two arbitrary points.
but they'll make it by car apparently
>between two arbitrary points.
>implying major cities and population centres and other such destinations are arbitrary
>The SNCF is one of those services receiving billions a year in subsidies. They may be bringing in revenue, but they're certainly not a viable going concern.
They are, the subsidies you whinge about was the capital investment to initially build the High-Speed Railways, and other types of networks at lower tiers, something you seem to be determined to not understand
I dont see you complaining about the subsidies roads and air travel get.
>Any passenger traffic that was delayed would have been delayed regardless of the presence of HSR. HSR gets separate tracks, remember?
If there was High-Speed Rail there would have been no delays for passengers. But there isn't so there were delays.
Longer than 3 days too.
Speaking of which, look at that Volcano in Iceland - planes grounded and High-Speed Trains trains still running.
>>242212
Just look on railfan/trainspotter/gunzel/etc forums

huh this topic is still going. nice

Frankly, I don't think it's possible to have HSR be anywhere near profitable in any place outside the Northeast or the West coast. I'd be OK with more transit like BRT and such in my city before going on to HSR and whatnot

Of course, I think government should be removing the subsidies to roads and automobile travel it currently has in place.

>>242218
I'm an Amerifag who loves the idea of HSR but I realize it won't work here. I live just outside of Washington DC, and I grew up just outside of New York City. Having HSR would be nice to go visit my family if it could make the 250 (appx) mile journey in 2 hours for less than one hundred dollars. But since HSR requires new rails and infrastructure it's going to be so unbelievably expensive to build and then maintain that it can't ever be profitable.

And regarding your point about people commuting 150 miles in a car, No, they don't do that. No one commutes from say Baltimore to Philly (both north east corridor cities).

>>242219
bus suck
you want TRAINS
Metro
Commuter
Regional
and Streetcars

>>242221
>But since HSR requires new rails and infrastructure it's going to be so unbelievably expensive to build and then maintain that it can't ever be profitable.
LONG TERM LOW YIELD INVESTMENT JUST LIKE ANY PIECE OF INFRASTRUCTURE
jesus christ what is wrong with you people, you honestly think infrastructure pays for itself by the next financial quarter

>>242223
I'd prefer whatever's sustainable.

Where I live, it seems that BRT is the way to go first
then as more density develops along the good BRT line, that could become LRT of some sort.

>>242225
no I honestly believe that it can NEVER be profitable. Not even if given 50 years. I think the initial cost to build new tracks and purchase trains will be so immense that with fares adjusted to cover operating cost it will be too expensive to ride, and thus will never ever become profitable because ridership will be too low.

>>242227
In Australia, this is where the government would step in and build the damn thing and take the losses.
But America's full of retards who wet themselves at thought of 'socialism'.

>>242229
derp
>doesn't understand Amtrak.
>still can never be profitable
> financial sinkhole America can't afford right now.

>>242229
In every country
In the USA they'd have no problem paying for it if it was some useless junk for the military
or roads

>>242232
Amtrak gets a billion or less a year, compared to how many billions roads and air travel get
Amtrak does not own the track it operates services on, so its services are subject to the conditions and whims of the state operators & private freight operators
And it just goes on like that
TL;DR - dont properly fund something and leave it ill-equipped and guess what will happen

>>242226
bus carries fewest people
bus lasts the short amount of time, requiring high turn over of rolling stock
expends resources on fuel, tyres, parts, etc
bus causes wear & tear to road necessitating more frequent road works
bus contribute to noise pollution and smog
density immediately develops along tram/streetcar routes as business sees this as a firm commitment to transportation whereas a bus can be shutdown overnight, with people coming and going through it there are ready customers
>>242227
>I think the initial cost to build new tracks and purchase trains will be so immense that with fares adjusted to cover operating cost it will be too expensive to ride
>ares adjusted to cover operating cost
STILL insisting on breaking even in the first financial quarter

whoo

Riding a TGV is like riding a bus that never shakes, tilts or rolls, and goes 4 times faster. :D

In the UK the Torys are pissed at other Torys because they want to build High Speed Rail through Tory land

pic related: kawaii Olympic Train

>>243044
shit will never happened so long as privatized, franchised, etc
bring back BritishRail

>>242236
Modern BRT like New Jersey runs last for over 40 years (Flexible busses purchased in 1970-1975 run to 2011 with minimal problems)
They carry 50-100 people with ease, and with new natural gas and diesel engines they use very little fuel, and are very quiet. Along our existing Light Rail lines, there are no new businesses due to the simple lack of room (built in cuts around a park and downtown), and the local businesses get a bigger boost from the high speed bus line which goes to their areas, rather than the light rail which just is an express to the edge of the City.

Also, you would have to demolish a.. huge ammount of buildings to build a new line here, since it happens to go through a large city center, and over 10 highways which took... well AGES to build, then over the freight highways.. it would be a trillion dollar project for benefits which are low, when simply improving signaling and adding new traincars which can run to the 180-200 MPH limits would be better.

>>243057
so you can build highways, 10 of them and freight highways, but no railways
huh

>>235384
It might be worth looking into how the percentage of freight shipped within the EU using container vessels. A much higher percentage of the European border is coastline than ours.

>>243083
Those highways are.. various clusterfucks, because of the Airport, and 5 major roads combining into the I-95-78-1-9-21 super cluster, and the trrucks which are going through them are pretty much from the massive ocean port which is nearby. North Jersey is pretty horrid traffic wise because of that.

And Freight Railways, not highways, there is a HUGE series of terminals/transfer points between the local brewery, the container port, and the intermodal transit center from Ocean to Train to Shore. There is NO ROOM to build a high speed route, it is all spoken for unless you want to demolish thousands of houses.

>>243131
>and the trrucks which are going through them are pretty much from the massive ocean port which is nearby
why aren't they on rail? I thought the excuse for no public transportation in America was that rails all used up for freight
>And Freight Railways, not highways, there is a HUGE series of terminals/transfer points between the local brewery, the container port, and the intermodal transit center from Ocean to Train to Shore. There is NO ROOM to build a high speed route, it is all spoken for unless you want to demolish thousands of houses.
High-Speed Rail does not run on freight railways or any existing passenger railways - how many times does this get stated
As for room - should have thought about that before you allowed development to sprawl hrm? But I bet there was no problem putting in highways and freeways for them
So what to is elevated, subway, or bite the bullet and resume properties and pay people a fair price

>>243132
you try to ship to a store with a train. The Ports ship things from China which are going either to Europe or to points South OR being revived (lots of oil is processed here as well!)

Here in the Northeast the rails are shared, leading to oddities (my local rail line is part freight, but they just have signals blocking out the passengers when they do their Port to Shore movements).

There is no sprawl this is a middle of a CITY CENTER, unlike the TGV which goes through NOTHING BUT EMPTY FIELDS~ or Japan's Osaka to Tokyo high speed line, which goes through empty mountains the NEC happens to travel through the densest populations in America, New Jersey/Connecticut (the NEC brought the people/buildings/highway which parallels it). It ALREADY IS ELEVATED in New Jersey, running on surface made cuts in the 1900s. You would have to put it next to the 6 tra oh wait no room because there is a major sports dome, old commuter rail which can't be moved without BILLIONS in improvements, new bridges to be strung up.. I should show you satellite images of my part of the NEC and why it would be pointless to build more tracks.

No more room in the inn, every major station is overcrowded with existing commuter trans, and paying billions and displacing buisnesses in a time of economic crisis would destroy newark, making this high speed rail serve no one but rich out of state interests. It would be a form of economic racism, while improvements to make the existing lines high speed would make much more sense (there is nothing preventing 125+ MPH operation besides signaling and line quality here on the NEC, it used to be run by Turbo Trains/high speed diesels in the 20s-70s after all, it was just downgraded to save some cash when Penn Central was BLEEDING, and even then it did run 125 MPH metroliner cars.

>>243144
>There is no sprawl this is a middle of a CITY CENTER
A High-Speed Train isn't doing 250kmh the second it pulls out of the platform
it enters/leaves the terminal and city on the regular railways, speeds up out that area when it finally gets on the High-Speed Railway.
Inside the city you perhaps require a metro in a subway or elevated depending on size and density and population, and certainly a streetcars/trams on the road or median strip
>baww
Britain and France built a tunnel under the Channel, Switzerland has just completed a tunnel under a mountain, but I doubt something comparably drastic would be required with sensible planning and engineering.
>No more room in the inn
That argument wouldn't be made if it were a road, room would be found or made
>and paying billions and displacing buisnesses in a time of economic crisis
People employed building railway(s) and rolling stock, hmm...
>while improvements to make the existing lines high speed would make much more sense (there is nothing preventing 125+ MPH operation besides signaling and line quality here on the NEC
Signaling, curves and grades, track condition, level crossings, freight speed restrictions
90-110 would be more realistic, and operated by DMU not locomotive.
For shorter distances this can indeed render improvements and should be pursued
M-10000, Flying Yanky & Zephyr, and Electroliner didn't do 125+

>>243158
I'd vote for you if you were to become the next chairman of the department of transportation.

>>243042
I had teh pleasure to ride one In Seoul>Busan

>>243158
>Inside the city you perhaps require a metro in a subway or elevated depending on size and density and population, and certainly a streetcars/trams on the road or median strip
Oh an Commuter out to your suburbs too of course, then Regional(s) to rural areas and big towns/small cities