A coast to coast high speed train in what country?

>>313214
The US, of course.
Most every other civilized country in the world has a coast-to-coast passenger railway.

BECAUSE RICK SCOTT IS A DOUCHEBAG

>>313215
>Most every other civilized country in the world has a coast-to-coast passenger railway.

Most every other civilized country in the world could fit inside the US with room to spare.

>>313221
>Russia has the transsiberian

>>313221
That's actually more an argument for a CTC HS rail line than against.

no point. the longest shinkansen line only covers ~320 miles because distances longer than that make more sense to fly.

>>313233
> distances longer than that make more sense to fly.

Bullshit.

>>313227
i know a guy who rode the trans-siberian ride once; he said that you see towns for the first day on either end, you see villages and houses the second day on either end, and after that you see nothing but trees,,,,,, for THREE...... FUCKING..... WEEKS until you get close to the other end

it's the land equivalent of an ocean crossing

his russian buddy joked afterward "see? i told you!" the russian guy said that no russians ever take that train ride, because they all know that there's nothing to see.... only tourists think its interesting

>>313250
The Transsib is full of Chines merchants.

>>313233
>the longest shinkansen line only covers ~320 miles
バーカー

Aomori - Tōkyō 674.9km (419mi)
Tōkyō - Ōsaka 515.4km (320mi)
Ōsaka - Hakata 553.7km (344mi)
Hakata - Kagoshima 256.8km (159mi)

Aomori - Kagoshima 2 000.8km (1 243mi)

>>313247
They do.

It takes too long on a train and it makes more sense to turn it into a 30-45 minute flight from a 2-3 hour train ride.

>>313302
Dude was off by less than 100 miles. I think he had the right idea.

>>313310
>It takes too long on a train and it makes more sense to turn it into a 30-45 minute flight from a 2-3 hour train ride.

-fuel prices will make air travel much less attractive in the future
-high speed train cargo will be balling out of control

>Dude was off by less than 100 miles. I think he had the right idea.

he was off by almost 1000 miles, do you even read

>>313311
One line is 1000 miles. Most others are under 350.

Banking on air travel becoming unattractive is a big mistake.

The Acela has already proven that a High Speed Rail is viable in the U.S. Its only logical that they would expand it.

>High Speed Rail is viable in the U.S. Its only logical that they would expand it.
>viable in the U.S. Its only logical
> The U.S., Its only logical

>>313221
Because this

>>313312
One industry is fossil fuel dependent, the other can use any energy source that can be turned into electricity, which is almost all of them.

Either way, there is no reason why you cannot use both systems. Europe and China use both rail and air, seems to work for them.

>>313326
Are you presuming that turbines cannot find another fuel source?

Are you suggesting that with the decreased use of fossil fuels in consumer cars that there won't be enough fuel for aviation?

>>313324
I can't help but to think of the scene in Snowcrash
>they will listen to reason

Book was fun.

>>313365
Alternative fuels for cars is easy, they just need something they can carry and makes them move at a reasonable speed (below 120kph is basically nothing). Passenger aircraft require a fuel that can get them speed enough to remain competitive to ground transport (aka more than 500kph), and dense enough that it isn't too much of a load to carry.

Sure there MIGHT be an invention of a new fuel source for airliners, and sure there MIGHT be a revolution in automotive use that leaves enough petroleum for aviation (the 1st is more likely than the 2nd...). But why wait around on the hope of something that might happen, when we know HSR can work off most sources of electricity, and we know many many ways to get that electricity, some of which are renewable and low to no pollution. It seems silly to ignore it right now. We can see that there will be fuel problems in the not to distant future, so why not get started on fixing the problem now, so the alternatives are in place before the problem really starts to effect society. The added effect from that will actual add a much longer life to our aviation industry, what oil we have left can be saved for international flights and not wasted domestically.

>>313310
>it makes more sense to turn it into a 30-45 minute flight from a 2-3 hour train ride.
Enjoy your queues at the airport
Enjoy needing to be at the airport at least one hour before takeoff
Enjoy the time needed to get into it and drop into downtown
Enjoy the security screens and molestations
Enjoy waiting your lost luggage

you can do 600 miles in 3 hours on a High Speed Train
(Paris-Marseilles, Wuhan-Guangzhou)
Now certainly within a 600 mile radius there are many places to go inside the USA - the North East, the Mid-West, Texas, California, etc - but alas this is not coast to coast
This does not mean it should be ignored, a common strawman of critics, it just means you would only do it in the highly populated major regions

>>313418
This. I had to fly to Edinburgh for work, and I took the train back. It was quicker overall to use the train, cheaper, and I didn't have to take off my shoes and be treated like a criminal.
Air travel used to be enjoyable, now it's just one long testicle slamming session.

>>313418
Enjoy having all those factors be applied to HSR once it attains equal levels of popularity... fuck.

the Russians are planning to do the following with the transsiberian
1) convert standard gauge
2) duplicate it
3) upgrade to high speed rail

some day Eastern Europe will have developed high speed rail and you'll be able to go from Paris to Moscow
some day the the long proposed Japan-Korea rail tunnel will be built
And then you will be able to ride a train from Japan to England.

>>313316
the Acela isn't even High Speed Rail
its a shit train
and further compromised by mediocre and downright shit infrastructure all along the route
if it was up to the standards of what you find in Europe and Japan - fuck!

>>313432
The Russians want to build a rail tunnel under the Bering strait

http://www.industryleadersmagazine.com/bering-strait-tunnel-linking-russia-n-america-will-be-world%E
2%80%99s-longest/

>>313227
The Transsiberian is not HSR. America DOES have equivalents to the Transsiberian. America built the FIRST Transcontinental Railroad, did you forget?

>>313436
Are you some sort of fucking idiot?

>>313433
Don't blame the train for the infrastructure.

>>313442
The train won't even go 300 km/h, it's limited to about 250. I object to any train line that never even reaches 300 km/h being called HSR, it's an express service, period.

>>313443
>High-speed rail (HSR) is a type of passenger rail transport that operates significantly faster than the normal speed of rail traffic. Specific definitions by the European Union include 200 km/h (124 mph) for upgraded track and 250 km/h (155 mph) or faster for new track, whilst in the United States, the U.S. Department of Transportation defines it as "reasonably expected to reach sustained speeds of more than 125 mph (201 km/h)," although the Federal Railroad Administration uses a definition of above 110 mph (177 km/h)

Fast high speed rail is good for intercity distances withing 500-800 miles, like Seattle to Portland, LA to San Francisco, Chicago to St. Louis, or Boston to New York.

Once it starts getting to 800+ miles, planes are faster.

i wonder what the statistics are on plane accidents vs HSR accidents. can you imagine crashing on a highspeed rail? did anyone survive that one that crashed in china?

>>313443
High Speed Rail means 200+km/h
no train currently does 300km/h you dolt
the Acella is far far slower than that, 90-110mph = 144-177kph

>>313442
it would still be shite even if everything was fixed with the railways
its a medicore design
when you run TGV or Shinkansen let me know

>>314153
Since commencing operation in 1964 the Japanese have had a single accident with their High Speed Rail trains have had a single accident, in 2004 during an earthquake a trains automatic stop failed and it derailed there were injuries but no fatalities
Since commencing operation in 1982 the French have had 3 accidents, all of these have occured on shared track or level crossings which stress the need for regular passenger trains & freight to not share track with high speed trains, there have been no fatalities
America builds their trains to survive an accident because they're going to be operating on a lousy network, which is why they're so big and inefficient, everyone else builds the whole network to not have an accident in the first place

>>313485
this is the problem...i am from chicago and nobody wants to go to either milwaukee or st louis.

800 miles is about the distance between chicago and new york, wouldn't mind having HSR between those two. chicago and toronto maybe. chicago and detroit. i'd ride those.

then again i am not a businessman, they probably need like high speed express to toledo or some shit

>>314159
No, Americans build their trains big and heavy, but poor in surviving crashes. This is due to braindead FRA regulation.

Lightweight, crumple-zoned European and Japanese trains protect passengers against all types of derailment and head-on crash better than their heavier, high buff strength American cousins.

>>314154
Thats because of the fact that the Acela has to share the line with CSX, Metro North, MBTA and the regional service.

The train itself has the potential to go about as fast as the first Shinkasen train.

>>314192
I'm pretty sure Acela trains have Crumple zones. Considering they're the first passenger cars built since 1983.

>>314170
>i am from chicago and nobody wants to go to either milwaukee or st louis.
>800 miles is about the distance between chicago and new york, wouldn't mind having HSR between those two. chicago and toronto maybe. chicago and detroit. i'd ride those.
>then again i am not a businessman, they probably need like high speed express to toledo or some shit
see map
>>314197
...being capable of going as fast as something from 46 years ago isn't top of the line

>>314197
aside from sharing, and being given second priority, the track itself is quite shonky and run down

Americans don't like paying for stuff. This is why 3 million homes are without power after a light dusting of snow - nobody wants to pay to move to underground cabling.

>>314391
Proper countries like Norway which actually get a decent amount of snowfall rely on pylon supported lines. There's nothing wrong with them.

The problem is that America cannot produce quality engineering since the 1950's. Today it's Bangladesh tier.

>>314420
The problem isn't the pylons, it's the connection to the home. UK substations form connections between the high-voltage pylons and the low-votage underground lines. Americans seemingly do both parts overhead.

>>314153
Hint: HSR Made by China (let’s copy the Japanese/French/German using shoddy materials!) =/= HSR Made by Japan, France, Germany (those are living people who ride these trains, safety comes first before cheap materials)

>>314170
chicago and detroit? Ha!! GM, Ford, and Chrysler would never allow it. They'll just use the billions syphoned off taxpayers to fund politicians to scrap that plan because it'll hurt their profits (like Detroit is doing any better) LOL

Biggest issue with Accela is that Amtrak does not own the track it operates on
It is owned by private freight operators and state railways
They give it a lower priority to their own services and Amtrak cant carry out maintenance or rebuild
This is why its slow, shit, etc

What you need is where railways are in or near populated areas they ought to be owned by an independent government body, maintaining them for all to use be it passenger or freight or private* - its the fairest way to go about it, just look how everyone was affected last year throughout the entire North East when that coal train derailed
(*private could be motorail, luxury service, tourism, historical preservation, etc)

>>313431
agreed. Now the only thing it will change is preparing time...fueling/de-icing/etc planes take a while. Seems like trains will cut down on time.

As for security screenings, with more people comes a higher risk. Have you seen Source Code, terrorist be everywhere. Luggage loading will be a hassle. IF people are using high speed trains instead of planes, means more luggage per person, how can you transport luggage to train to person?
Unless the high speed trains were like old fashioned trains with rooms with pull out beds.(Do they still have those, and with the popularity, couldn't they not be used to fit more people into one train?)

>>314222
I live in rochester,

sure as hell aint seen any 200mph trains coming through. what the fuck is this map?

>>314451
For short intracity distances why would you need to carry so much luggage that you would on a plane?

A small rollerboard that fits in the overhead bin is fine. Americans carry so much shit anyway like a whole months worth of clothes and everything except for the kitchen sink just to visit grandma for three days.

>>314474
durrrrr
its a proposal
not something thats actually been built

>>314489
you could be gone a while
you bring plenty of luggage on them in Europe and Asia

Why is it that none of you understand that essentially no passenger rail line in the USA makes money? Passenger rail in the USA is almost always a subsidy situation, and a LARGE subsidy situation. So any fucking moron that advocates it, just wants unions and government employees and other layabouts to get FUKKEN PAID while the public gets taxed up the ASS.

>>314511
highways & freeways
airports
the military
etc

California High Speed Rail business plan will be released tomorrow. The project is pretty much done.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-high-speed-rail-20111101,0,1124440.story

2033 and $100 billion. Not going to happen.

>>314513
fucking this.

two iron rails do not deteriorate nearly as fast as asphalt.

we fucking GIVE auto manufacturers all the infrastructure they need FOR FREE! but any time anyone mentions rail lines "HURR DURR SOCIALISM! UNIONS! COMMIES, COMMIES EVERYWHERE!" fuck that guy and fuck all the stupid faggots holding back real progress and gains in transportation because of stupid ideology. until GM starts buying our highways, y'all need to shut the fuck up, for real.

>>314511
If government pays for all the infrastructure, as in highways and roads in general or airports, and leaves the company to pay only for the operating cost of the trains and anything immediately related (say ticket sales, ground crew), it wouldn't be so difficult to make a profit. Hell, despite all of that, the Acela makes some money. Of course, paying for rails, signal operation, stations, and a shitload of other services is a bit of a drag and prevents private companies of taking an interest in railroad operation.

>>314456
Sleeper trains are still common in europe, for 8-14 hour intercity trips, you board the train at night, and arrive in the morning, thus you lose next to no time for something that would take 4-6 hours by plane (door to door that is). Mostly it's more of a high-class service for people looking for more comfort, although reclining seats or even shared rooms with bunk beds can be competitive with plane ticket prices, especially now that in europe they charge an extra fee for short haul flights.

>>313431
Not true, the only time I took a HST was in Spain, I took the luggage on board and left it in the same coach I was, and there was some screening, but nothing annoying, barely an x-ray and metal detector, but without making you feel like a terrorist like at the airport.

Because the republicans are on a mission to cock block america from ever getting to third base with a high speed coast to coast line.

>>314511
Why do you hate America?

Because the california high speed rail will cost 98 billion once its finished and we can't afford that.

>>314511
It has already been demonstrated ITT that passenger rail in the US is profitable. Ctrl-F "Acela."

Because one has yet to be constructed.

>>314571
Acela is profitable only because it serves the most densely populated region of the United States, where there's lots of demand for intra-regional commuting. There are handful of other places where regional high-speed rail might be profitable, but in the overwhelming majority of the country it would never approach the levels of usage to make it profitable.

see the map here:
>>312606
If a national network of high speed rail was built would people use it? Of course. But could fares on those low traffic routes be competitive with air travel prices, without requiring ridiculously huge federal subsidies? Doubtful.

>>314582
Unless it's viable to fly jumbo jets that seats 500 passengers in one shot for a short distance flight, it ain't gonna happen.

Airlines are taking a hit with rising fuel prices as much as car commuters and they're all becoming those dinky regional jets that can only fit 50-60 passengers at a time.

Higher fuel cost with less passengers; doesn't take a genius to figure out airfares are going to rise. Would you want to pay $400 one way just to get between LA and San Diego? If you think I'm joking, that's the average price of a flight between the two cities little more than 100 miles apart.

>>314570

Someone who obviously doesn't live in California or know anything about the project.

>>314582
The Subsidies would be no higher than what the Highways get.
Plus rail lines outside of california and the east coast are badly in need of some matinence due to years of Neglect.

>>314626
Truth. If a rail line got the same amount of subsidy as a highway, and the same amount of passengers, it would be more viable than a highway along the same route.
But, since the highway is already there there's little chance for the HSR line to be built, at least not until gasoline becomes too expensive for people to afford. And before that happens, the government will start subsidizing gasoline. So the U.S. will likely go bankrupt before they are able to realize that in the future transportation will be based on electricity produced from renewable energy sources.

northeast corridor would be perfect for a true hsr but it would still imply having to build everything from the ground up
and god forbid we invest money in american infrastructure to strengthen then country and creating thousands of jobs in the process

>>314721
NE Corridor, New York to Chicago, and the west coast are Ideal for HSR. But the money involved.

On a side note, Amtrak should bring back the Turboliners for the Upstate New York runs.

>>314605
Read LA Times today , front page 98billion dollar cost wont complete till 2033, yeah pretty sure he's from California. why the fuck is it going to cost so much and take so long to build i don't understand

>>313210
Trains are overrated

>>314721
Then the car companies won't get more money.

>>314755
NIMBYs. Every wants it, but not in their backyard.

You should see all the frivolous lawsuits by the affluent residents of Palo Alto, Menlo Park, and Atherton in the Bay Area. They are all for it, but they just don't want it running anywhere near their "exclusive communties."

So they file frivolous lawsuits, pass referendums that require "additional studies," and try to push back the construction until "more negotiations are made," which ends up eating up billions in money before even a shovel is put to ground.

In contrast, it's much more easier in China. STFU and get it done, if you don't like it, sucks to be you and they just bring bulldozers, and opposers mysteriously disappear never to be heard from again.

Quoting Fat Tony "Actually, you can really keep costs down when you don't pay for materials, or labor, or permits or... land."

Main reason why China is kicking our butts at everything. LOL

>>314755
Simple; just ask yourself what changes in America happened that enabled us to complete the transcontinental railroad in 4 years back in the 1860s while it takes forever to get HSR in the US in 2011?

1. It was much cheaper back then to use cheap Irish and Chinese immigrant labor without total regards to safety hazards. If they die or get seriously injured while working there’s more of them coming to America so they were easily disposable. Railroad barons didn’t have to pay diddly squat if the workers died or if they got seriously injured, so costs were kept very low. Now we have safety laws, stringent labor laws, unions, and gee can you imagine what the lawsuits will be if a railroad worker today got injured on their job?

2. Stricter environmental laws. Back then no one cared if they chopped down forests, grazed the land, and dumped industrial waste into rivers and lakes. Now we have tree huggers and environmentalists that want to save an endangered desert lizards’ habitat. Because of this, when a huge project has to be done, billions have to be spent on EIR environmental studies, reports, and endless meetings before a shovel is put to ground.

3. Land was the open frontier; just take them away from the Native Americans by paying close to nothing or even driving them out to Indian Reservations. Heck, obviously buying land is cheap if it costs nothing! LOL Now you try to build HSR, it has to go through neighborhoods, towns, and cities full of residents and businesses. It costs money to buy those lands out, and there are some who ask for more than it’s worth and then there are some who just don’t want to move no matter what. Who get’s screwed? Taxpayers.

>>314968
>Meanwhile, in China...

>>314963
So basically we should be more like China and ship people off to the salt mines after we demolish their homes and take their land in order to build an absurdly expensive project for a few teenagers in the bay area who want an easy way to get to disneyland.

Sorry but I'd rather fly or drive.

The only thing China does well is cheap labor.

Also
>billions in money
lrn2english

You HSR fags are so dense.

You want to know why its going to cost so much? Its a government project.

>>315011

>a few teenagers in the bay area who want an easy way to get to disneyland

let me guess?
>Nobody travels on trains in California
>Nobody flies between northern and outhern California on a regular basis
>Planes are fine, there is plenty of room to expand San Francisco, San Jose, Los Angeles, San Diego airports
>People are moving out of California, our population isn't growing

>>314963

Ugh. The West is fucked, man. How can tepid democratic capitalism compete with authoritarian capitalism?

>>314968
nah its not just the labour prices
its
all the enviromental concerns, residents in the surrounding areas, studies upon studies being thrown back and forth by every party imaginable trying to push their agenda
once that 10 year process is finished and you already thrown millions of dollars out the window and you reached some convuluted bastardisation of a consensus work starts
but it has to be cheap obviously there arnt many workers and then the plangs get modified so work has to rest for a few more months intermittendly

at the same time the french just laugh and go le fück you, is my land now we shall build le TGV and if you dont like it move (you know once they get past the tree huggers and their enviromental impact studdies on the common sewer rat)

>>315011
Hope you like filling up $6/gal gas or whatever price the oil companies will force you to pay at the pump.

>>315013
I travel between SoCal and Northern Washington pretty regularly. If HSR went that far, I'd be buying a hell of a lot less airline tickets, that's for sure.

>>315071
That argument applies to rail fares just as well.

>>315130
Honestly I'd rather pay for a 120 dollar round trip to Boston by train than pay up to two hundred dollars at the pump.

Would a Transcontinental High Speed Railroad even be Viable? I mean, the continental US is massive. Unless it was a one way nonstopfrom New York to LA I don't think it would work.

>>315258
The only solution is a transcontinental cable car or zipline

>>315258
it would be pointless
thers allot of nothing in the middle and nobody wants to go to denver or salt lake city anyways

bottom line is, if you cant even get it to work in the northeast corridor or la to san francisco then you might aswell give up

>>315271
Well... it sort of works in the NEC, but that's only because of the population density. If it barely works there it is definitely not going to work coast-to-coast.

I really don't understand why people support the idea. I know.. it would be really cool.. but it's totally unrealistic.

here is how it could work in the NEC
>Step 0)
set high goals, build the tracks for 220 mph, aim for a 160 average
>Step 1)
you build a new fucking line, railbeds and everything
>Step 2)
Stations are Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark (i guess), New York, New Haven, Providence, Boston
>Step 2a)
throw oodles of cash into actuly useable public transportation in these cities.. except for new york ... nothing can save new york anymore
>Step 3)
award large amounts of work to local bussinesses (that are qualified obviously) to get the work done quickly and well
>Step 4)
arrest hippies and get it done in 5 years

>>315554
The Subways in NYC are fine if you actually read the fucking map.

We can't even get a bill to build more highways and bridges through Congress and you want a coast-to-coast highspeed rail line?

While we're wishing, I wish I was George Clooney and could bang any chick I wanted.

I think the biggest reason would be that the USA has been left behind in terms of this technology
No one in the USA designs or builds this
So nobody is paying for congressmen/senators or has factories in sensitive electorates like automotive, defence, aerospace, IT, biomedical, insurance & banking, etc

WHY HSR IN THE US IS FUCKED (Possibly) :
>Listen to me here guys, or else I'll slap you
FIRSTLY: The US is ass backwards in terms of procurement laws and rolling stock regulations. You want to know why the Acela is so shit? It had to be made by Americans and weighs as much Jupiter because of shitty FRA regulations requiring for it to be buiilt like a tank.

SECONDLY: Your political system is fucked, so the motor and oil lobbies can basically tell the whole project to fuck off through "donations" to a party's campaign.

THIRDLY: Coast to coast just won't work. Period. In high density areas, sure give it a try, but fuck Nebraska and Arkansas

FINALLY: Retarded populace. Anything associated with trains is communism and will wreck the economy etc etc etc.

Fucking hell the US is the most insanely frustrating nation to watch, all it seems to do is stumble all over itself and end up in a shitheap of lobbies and corporate interests.

the environment

This shit won't even turn a profit. Let's drop billions on another government project that the government can't upkeep. And if California can't even keep I-5 in good order, would you want to be on a train in which they maintain the tracks?

>>315724
> all it seems to do is stumble all over itself and end up in a shitheap of lobbies and corporate interests.
As an American, that feel makes me rage so hard.

>>315724

>You want to know why the Acela is so shit? It was made by Canadians

fixed

>>315802
same. Unfortunately, the quoted anon is dead right.

While you bitches are still arguing about this, I commute to work by HSR. Lower living costs + 30 minutes to read the morning paper? Feels good, man.

>>315826
I know, I was agreeing. The worst part is that I, nor anyone else, seem to be able to think of a way to eliminate that influence.

gears, how the fuck do they work?

there is a coast-to-coast highspeed train, its underground though

>>315839
whenever i think about it it always boils down the elementary sense of money and greed.
Problem 1: We need money to exchange for food and shelter.
Problem 2: We always want more than everybody else.

but anyways enough going off track (dohoho)
to get HSR to work in the states its either going to be in california or the NEC and its going to have to be a largely newbuilt track to reach actual hsr speeds

>>315819
Designed by Canadians, built in America, to a custom design, therefore excessively heavy and expensive, THANKS FRA.

All of my hate.

Here is a actual railroader's opinion:

>As if anyone cares.

Heavy Rail HST will, theoretically, never be viable here in the states. We just simply do not have the population density to justify it.

Also, Failrak is Failtrak.

Even in the 30's 40's and 50's passenger rail was costing the RR's more money than what they made off it. All the flagship routes were PR stunts to get lucrative freight customers and mail/express contracts.

Failtrak serves no purpose.

Fuck HSR, what this country needs is Light Rail in the populated areas.

>>315917
Thanks, it's always good to hear from an informed perspective.

Now prepare to be avalanched with ignorant neckbeard hate.

>>315917
but you do have the density in the major regions and states

Amtraks problem is that is does not own the track it operates services on, their private freight or state passenger
it gets lower priority, cant maintain them, etc
>Fuck HSR, what this country needs is Light Rail in the populated areas.
you dont work on the railways
if you did you wouldn't be trying to use it as a substitute for proper railway trains

>>315925
Amtrak's main problem is the fuck expensive and underperforming rolling stock. Good vehicles will endure through bad tracks and go quickly while doing that.

FRA and Amtrak's own lack of balls are together doing everything to stop economical passenger rolling stock to be used.

It's me again>>315917


I understand that. Hell I have personally made the Zephyr one hour late due to a hotbox.

For a coast to coast High Speed, we need population density throughout, which we do not have, lrn2wyoming

LRT is the only answer to mass transit here.

I would prove that I do work on railroads, but alas, you are foreign, so IDGAFF.

Also, do any of you neckbeards fully comprehind how much it would truly cost to build a new true HSR line from coast to coast? We are talking billions here.

>>315945
>LRT is the only answer to mass transit here.
you peoples idea is to take something thats the scale of a streetcar, make it as big as a train, and then try to put it on the road or some grade separation or a freight line
it dont work
it doesn't have the capacity of a railway train or the range
it cant work that way
and then the way you apply it often its one dinky little route in the gentrified downtown - nobody can use in the first place!

What you need are:
-metro trains in the city
-commuter trains from the city to and through suburbia
these are the same thing: EMU trains of 3 or 4 or 6 or more carriages, with 6 you can carry 1,000 people, surface railway in suburbia and outer medium density area, subway/elevated inside the city. Then its just a matter of frequency.
-regional trains and inter-urbans
locomotives or DMU, to the rural region beyond and big towns/small cities therein
-streetcars
small low floor articulated body rail vehicles, not trains and not trying to operate as trains, on the streets, with perhaps some grade separated sections, in the urban area. These COMPLEMENT the trains, they do not compete with or replace them. In my city I can get a train into the city from the suburbs, walk outside a station, and there on the streets are trams for me to continue my journey

>>315926
>and go quickly while doing that.
lolwut
if there is a level crossing or poor signaling or the overhead isn't rated for high volume use or a bridge is old or a railway is poorly maintained and you ignore the speed restrictions placed on it, you're gonna have a big fucking problem

>>316011
and it is those kinds of problems, and more still, that hold up Amtrak trains
and Amtrak cant do shit because it dont own the track
What the USA needs is what every other country seems to have: the government owns the railways maintaining them for everyone - public transportation, private freight, other private uses (motorrail, tourism, historical, etc) - to access equally and fairly

>>316013
GOVT OWN RR?

OVER MY DEAD FUCKING BODY

>>316015
Sup.

>>316017


He's talking about govt' owned trackage. Over my dead body.

>>316018

Amtrak owns most of the Northeast Corridor.

Commuter services across the country operate on tracks owned by county government agencies.

OCTA owns tracks in Orange County, for example.

>>316107
bullshit
Acela does not run on track they own
thats why it runs on existing railways and high speed rated right of ways
thats why it gets priority behind freight and state passenger railways
thats why they cant replace old bridges and overhead
thats why they cant perform maintenance on tracks
thats why they cant do anything about tracks being too close together for the tilting mechanism to work in Connecticut
etc
also wtf is a county doing owning the track? how does it connect to the rest of the state? that just really fucking complicates things

>>316151
I don't think he literally means county.

MBTA (Massachusetts Bay Trans. Authority) owns most of their commuter rail track. Except for the parts that run on the NEC. I know that for a fact because they had to change the commuter rail scheduling due to TIE REPLACEMENTS BEING DONE BY AMTRAK.

Also,
>The Northeast Corridor (commonly abbreviated NEC) is a fully electrified railway line owned primarily by Amtrak
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northeast_corridor

having a real HSR on the length of the acela express would cost arround 12 billion dollars if you go arround the average cost in europe

>>316151
>AND NOT high speed rated right of ways
fix'd

>>316188
Congress transfers 10 billion a year to the Highway Trust Fund because it is broken and no longer makes ends meet because you morons are hysterical about taxes and wont raise fuel excises
10 billion
each
and
every
year

>>314526
+1 million internets for you!

>>316188
Thats nothing compared to what we pay to maintain the Highways.
Also, The Acela actually makes money for Amtrak.

Because 'MURIKKKA FUCK YEAH

>>316202
A winrar is me. Thanks, frie/n/d, I forgot about that post. man this board is slow.

(off-topic-post sage)

>>313210 Why isn't there a coast-to-coast high speed train?

Because an airliner is roughly twice as fast.

>>313210
low speed trains cover the us.. similar to when the us was first connected by rail.. 2/There's 1 automobile for every 4 people in the us 3/ We're mostly concentrated at big centers of trade anyway. 4/ city folk have little need for high speed rail except to surrounding regions

>>316017
I just fucking love diesel locomotives

>>318100

look at what I just done!

>>318099
>>318100
>>318101
That right There!

Trains are annoying. Here in Germany the "high speed" trains (also called ICE) stop in every village and that is really annoying as it prolongs the journey and is comfortable as people always get in and out. Air planes are point to point and once seated it is nice, warm an comfortable. I also enjoy turbulences and vibrations in planes much more than in trains.

Don't waste your money on trains US bros!

>>318105
ICE =/= High Speed Trains
lets look at Japan and France and Spain

>>318107
Well technically the ICE 3 is a high speed train, slightly slower perhaps than some French TGV or some Japanese trains, it goes nevertheless 320+ km/h and is therefore a high speed train by any meassure.

>>318105
ICE is basically the Euro Equivilant of the Acela. A Slightly faster Express service.