Currently traveling at 300km/h on the ground

[tokie]

That's around 200mph for you Gringos.

High speed trains are so much better than flying, as long as the travel time is 5 hours or less. No TSA agent with stick up ass yelling SIR NO WATER PAST SECURITY. Quick x-ray of bags. Smooth and quiet so you don't need noise cancelling headphones.

I hope I live to see the day when Americans learn to be efficient and use high speed trains, washer and dryers combined in a single unit, and induction stovetops. Instead y'all would currently rather sit in inefficient cars guzzling soda like mouthwash.

 

[olds]

That's around 200mph for you Gringos.

High speed trains are so much better than flying, as long as the travel time is 5 hours or less. No TSA agent with stick up ass yelling SIR NO WATER PAST SECURITY. Quick x-ray of bags. Smooth and quiet so you don't need noise cancelling headphones.

I hope I live to see the day when Americans learn to be efficient and use high speed trains, washer and dryers combined in a single unit, and induction stovetops. Instead y'all would currently rather sit in inefficient cars guzzling soda like mouthwash.

I loved the trains in Europe. We go to the Bahnhof in Frankfurt on the weekends, pick a city at random and take the train there.
Walk around a bit trying different bars/beers, have a meal and head back.
We'd usually go into a private car till they kicked us out and pretend like we didn't know we weren't supposed to be in it.

 

[ponyo]

my car can go almost as fast. i rather drive at my own pace and schedule.
​

 

[the DRIZZLE]

That's around 200mph for you Gringos.

High speed trains are so much better than flying, as long as the travel time is 5 hours or less. No TSA agent with stick up ass yelling SIR NO WATER PAST SECURITY. Quick x-ray of bags. Smooth and quiet so you don't need noise cancelling headphones.

I hope I live to see the day when Americans learn to be efficient and use high speed trains, washer and dryers combined in a single unit, and induction stovetops. Instead y'all would currently rather sit in inefficient cars guzzling soda like mouthwash.

I agree trains are better for short trips (although I would say only less than 400-500 miles), but the advantage is self created. There is no inherent reason why we have a much more reasonable level of security on trains compared to airplanes.

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't think we can afford too many more money losing public services...

 

[Markbnj]

I hope I live to see the day when Americans learn to be efficient and use high speed trains

Yeah, we're so stupid. Not like it has anything to do with population density and distance.

 

[oynaz]

Yeah, we're so stupid. Not like it has anything to do with population density and distance.

Sweden has high speed trains, so that argument is moot.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

Yeah, we're so stupid. Not like it has anything to do with population density and distance.

The lack of high speed passenger trains in the U.S. has nothing to do with "population density and distance."

 

[Jaskalas]

That's around 200mph for you Gringos.

High speed trains are so much better than flying, as long as the travel time is 5 hours or less. No TSA agent with stick up ass yelling SIR NO WATER PAST SECURITY. Quick x-ray of bags. Smooth and quiet so you don't need noise cancelling headphones.

Our airports were largely peaceful like that, til our fascists exploited Sep 11th.

 

[tokie]

Yeah, we're so stupid. Not like it has anything to do with population density and distance.

Uh, there are several easily comparable places in the US with the population density to support high speed rail. Not many people live in the middle of the country you know...

Definitely a San Diego - San Francisco route, probably some Chicago - Detroit route, the Northeast (Acela doesn't count), Florida, etc.

 

[Markbnj]

Uh, there are several easily comparable places in the US with the population density to support high speed rail. Not many people live in the middle of the country you know...

Definitely a San Diego - San Francisco route, probably some Chicago - Detroit route, the Northeast (Acela doesn't count), Florida, etc.

The distance from San Diego to San Francisco is roughly 500 miles, or a little more than the distance from London to Zurich. Between those two points in Europe you have numerous major population centers and some of the most densely populated land on that continent. Between those two points in the U.S. you have LA, some rich hippies, 100 square miles of garlic, and dirt.

The northeast corridor is really the only place in the U.S. where it has even made sense to think about high speed rail. Boston to Washington is a little less than 400 miles, across numerous population centers and areas of high pop. density. Nonetheless, Amtrak has a hard time making rail pay there regardless of how fast they run the trains.

Which shouldn't be surprising. Air transport requires a patch of infrastructure at point A, another at point B, and some guys in radio rooms to provide guidance along the way. Compare that to rail, which requires a right of way between the two points, infrastructure for every mile of that right of way, which is getting beat to shit every time you run a train over it. On top of that you're running those trains through dozens of dense urban and suburban communities, where the residents will mail bomb the governor's office the first time they hear the whistle at 2 AM.

It's a lot quieter at 37,000 feet, and nobody will drive an SUV full of kids in your way, either. I've never quite understood why some Americans are so in love with commuter rail. It might just be that there's a reason trucks and planes won out over trains, just as trains beat canals and wagons.

 

[mmntech]

I'd love it if we had a high speed route between Toronto and Montreal. I could go visit my aunt and uncle in Kingston and it would only take 1.5hrs or less instead of the 3hr it takes now. I think it's quite embarrassing that Canada has no high speed rail, considering Bombardier makes numerous high speed train sets.

The big problem is nobody wants to spend money on big infrastructure projects anymore. Considering all the money the current Ontario government has flushed down the toilet in scandal after scandal, we could have funded it twice over by now. It's why our transit system sucks, and is unreliable, and our roads are worse than Los Angeles.

 

[feralkid]

I don't think we can afford too many more money losing public services...

So we need to close down the interstates?

Military hasn't reported any record profits in the last few quarters.

Probably the police and fire departments, as they've failed to make enough
profit as well.

 

[Lonyo]

I agree trains are better for short trips (although I would say only less than 400-500 miles), but the advantage is self created. There is no inherent reason why we have a much more reasonable level of security on trains compared to airplanes.

Pretty sure you can't take over a train and crash it into a building. But I could be imagining it.

 

[Markbnj]

Pretty sure you can't take over a train and crash it into a building. But I could be imagining it.

Sure you can. All rail lines end in a station somewhere. You'd have to take it over somewhere close to the destination, though, else they'd just derail you into a cornfield someplace.

 

[feralkid]

guzzling soda like mouthwash.

 

[Murloc]

the problem is also that the US was built around cars.
At the start of the last century (before the car) it could have went in both directions. Petrol was (and in the US it still is) cheap so they did that.
Europe could screw up only partly because of lack of space in many areas and narrow streets, so it was limited to single cities.

Sure you can. All rail lines end in a station somewhere. You'd have to take it over somewhere close to the destination, though, else they'd just derail you into a cornfield someplace.

a passenger will eventually pull an emergency lever, you need too many terrorists to control 7 coaches. It's like hijacking seven planes.

 

[bigrash]

Would love to check out these high speed Euro trains one day.

 

[zerocool84]

Here in Cali they're trying to make a high speed train but it's only occasionally high speed as it'll use normal train tracks to save money for a lot of it. Plus they don't even have enough money to even finish half the track. I just think we as a country have more important things to spend our tax dollars on.

 

[Red Squirrel]

Wow that's fast! Sounds like it would be fun to go in one of those. Did not realize they actually were made, I've only seen shows on TV about them being a concept of the future. Probably is way more efficient than air travel too as far as pollution goes.

The best is when I used to take the train (normal old style track one) to Toronto before they shut it down. When we'd get to the huge 400 series highways we could see all the traffic halted and the train just keeps going past everyone. Got to the terminal like an hour early. With the bus, or driving, it would be like an hour late. I don't know how people manage to drive those highways every single day. I'd want to kill someone.

 

[Markbnj]

the problem is also that the US was built around cars.
At the start of the last century (before the car) it could have went in both directions. Petrol was (and in the US it still is) cheap so they did that.
Europe could screw up only partly because of lack of space in many areas and narrow streets, so it was limited to single cities.



a passenger will eventually pull an emergency lever, you need too many terrorists to control 7 coaches. It's like hijacking seven planes.

Good point. The terrorists should just drop the passenger coaches. They could do enough damage with the locos.

Would probably still be too much risk with too low a chance of success. I'm not sure anyone will be able to pull of a large-scale transportation attack like 9/11 again. That event relied heavily on complacency.

 

[Lurknomore]

Lots of factors include flat terrain, proper bedding of substructure, higher overall standard of engineering, lower tolerance for any flaws in the metal (rails, wheels), vibration at high speeds, strict adherence to train and track maintenance...I know we have the technology, but do we have the temperament for 200mph+ rail travel?

For countries like Japan and Germany, it seems to make sense- high density on their stops, plus high speed rail is like their technological showcase. They have great pride in it, and their societies are built around order, punctuality, and sense of being ecologically "aware", that this tech is necessary for the proper functioning of their society.

In the US, we would see this as just another competitor for air and road.

 

[ElFenix]

washer and dryers combined in a single unit

those things suck ass. and the ventless ones really suck

and induction stovetops.

so do those. ever seen on in a restaurant? there's a reason why not.

Instead y'all would currently rather sit in inefficient cars guzzling soda like mouthwash.

free refills are awesome, europe is really missing out and basically sucks in that regard. especially for iced tea. uncivilized assholes when it comes to ice tea prices.

 

[K1052]

In the US, we would see this as just another competitor for air and road.

It's not that simple anymore. The financial, environmental, and political challenges of road and airport expansion in dense areas are becoming insurmountable. HSR is fast becoming about the only realistic option for corridor capacity expansion on much of the east coast and between SD-SF.

 

[K1052]

The distance from San Diego to San Francisco is roughly 500 miles, or a little more than the distance from London to Zurich. Between those two points in Europe you have numerous major population centers and some of the most densely populated land on that continent. Between those two points in the U.S. you have LA, some rich hippies, 100 square miles of garlic, and dirt.

The northeast corridor is really the only place in the U.S. where it has even made sense to think about high speed rail. Boston to Washington is a little less than 400 miles, across numerous population centers and areas of high pop. density. Nonetheless, Amtrak has a hard time making rail pay there regardless of how fast they run the trains.

Which shouldn't be surprising. Air transport requires a patch of infrastructure at point A, another at point B, and some guys in radio rooms to provide guidance along the way. Compare that to rail, which requires a right of way between the two points, infrastructure for every mile of that right of way, which is getting beat to shit every time you run a train over it. On top of that you're running those trains through dozens of dense urban and suburban communities, where the residents will mail bomb the governor's office the first time they hear the whistle at 2 AM.

It's a lot quieter at 37,000 feet, and nobody will drive an SUV full of kids in your way, either. I've never quite understood why some Americans are so in love with commuter rail. It might just be that there's a reason trucks and planes won out over trains, just as trains beat canals and wagons.

There isn't much in the valley however between SF-SJ and LA-SD there is a shitload of people and it's growing. The density argument against CA HSR is sort of weak because of the sheer population inside the corridor. The system will collect passengers from a much wider area than your typical eruo HSR system.

Amtrak's NEC operations are substantially profitable. They've captured upwards of 80% of the air shuttle market that was clogging up already congested airports. You are vastly overestimating the ease of expanding airports in dense areas and totally forgetting the limits the airspace can handle. The Port Authority is looking at a tab of $15B (probably double that) just to expand EWR and JFK which assumes they will get environmental approvals that will require an Act of Congress (not happening). Rail runs through and serves some of the wealthiest areas in the country in the northeast, they don't complain because they understand the value in time it saves them.

Commuter rail and HSR are entirely different things. Commuter rail largely exists to move people to and from their jobs, cities like NY and Chicago could not exist without it since there is no other mode you can dump that number of people on. HSR is meant to reduce corridor air and car demand in areas where expansion of those is difficult to impossible. Trucks and planes won over trains because the government poured vast sums of tax money into building roads and airports, a subsidy that private rail largely couldn't compete with when oil prices are low.