Notices
Aviation Technology New, advanced, and future aviation technology discussion

High speed rail in the NE

Old 09-04-2019, 10:20 AM
  #41  
Banned
 
Slaphappy's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2006
Posts: 1,192
Default

Originally Posted by Macchi30 View Post
I definitely would. Trains are more convenient. They take you right to city center, and you also don’t have to show up to the train station 2-3 hours early for security screenings. I live in the DC area and it would be way easier and cheaper to take the train (if we have true HSR) from Union Station to Penn Station than to fly out of IAD or DCA to LGA or JFK.
I wouldn't, I've done both trips one via air and one via the acela and there is hourly service between DCA and LGA and even with dealing with the airport It still was quicker to take a flight depending on the time of day. Amtrak is consistently delayed and late, there always seem to be some kind of construction going on somewhere on the line
Slaphappy is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 10:26 AM
  #42  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by Slaphappy View Post
Efficiency is more than just the number of people you can haul around, it's also about the time and cost.
Yes. A HUGE factor is the hourly cost of the staff/crew. Airlines actually optimize cruise flight speed to account for the costs of the crew... to the point where the computer might plan a faster cruise speed if the crew is very senior (and has a higher hourly rate). A more junior crew on the same flight might get a slower speed assigned to save fuel.

A train on a 1000+ mile run is going to account for a lot more crew/staff man-hours than a jet.
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 11:09 AM
  #43  
Perennial Reserve
 
Excargodog's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,409
Default

It’s also largely a function of population density. The US has a population density of 36 people per km^2. France has a population of 118 per km^2. Italy is 217 and Germany’s 240.

You simply CANNOT offset that difference with mass transit of any kind. Passenger trains will NEVER be as cost effective in countries with a low population density as they would somewhere with a high population density even if they are cheaper to build there. Moreover, it is particularly sensitive to both the population and population density of the cities served. With a population of 10.25 million in the greater metropolitan area and a population density of 21,500 per square kilometer, Paris France is a near ideal terminus for high speed rail. By comparison, the greater Washington DC area has a population of six million people but a population density of only 419 per square kilometer. You are comparing apples and oranges.

Which makes California’s High speed rail route between Merced (pop. 83,000) and Bakersfield (pop. 380,000) particularly stupid.
Excargodog is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:01 PM
  #44  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 131
Default

Originally Posted by rickair7777 View Post
Yes. A HUGE factor is the hourly cost of the staff/crew. Airlines actually optimize cruise flight speed to account for the costs of the crew... to the point where the computer might plan a faster cruise speed if the crew is very senior (and has a higher hourly rate). A more junior crew on the same flight might get a slower speed assigned to save fuel.

A train on a 1000+ mile run is going to account for a lot more crew/staff man-hours than a jet.
A train on 1000+ mile run doesn't make any sense. It is most efficient on 200 to 400 mile runs between highly populated city pairs.

Last edited by Spin; 09-04-2019 at 12:36 PM.
Spin is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:23 PM
  #45  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 131
Default

Originally Posted by Macchi30 View Post
Yes but one day this will be forced to change. As our population grows rapidly, there are more and more cars on the road. Eventually our roadways will be so saturated with cars it will be impossible to get anywhere. Where I live I can already see commute times increasing over the past few years. Yeah it’s expensive, but by not “jumping on the train” now, we are just hindering our future QOL when it will be even harder to make these changes.


Futurama transporters would be awesome btw
I completely agree with you, we have to think about the future. In a near future, if not already, roads will be saturated -the air too-, making travel unpleasant and inefficient. We also have to think about pollution.
US politicians sooner or later will have to start thinking about the HSR.
Spin is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:33 PM
  #46  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,168
Default

Originally Posted by Spin View Post
I completely agree with you, we have to think about the future. In a near future, if not already, roads will be saturated -the air too-, making travel unpleasant and inefficient. We also have to think about pollution.
US politicians sooner or later will have to start thinking about the HSR.
If you think road and air travel is, or is approaching, unpleasant and inefficient, try an Amtrak trip. I can beat Amtrak in my car, in the Northeast easily.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 12:42 PM
  #47  
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
 
Joined APC: Jun 2010
Posts: 131
Default

I'm not talking about Amtrak, that's not HSR. I mean real high speed rail, like in other countries.
Spin is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 01:05 PM
  #48  
Prime Minister/Moderator
 
rickair7777's Avatar
 
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,100
Default

Originally Posted by Spin View Post
A train on 1000+ mile run doesn't make any sense. It is most efficient on 200 to 400 mile runs between highly populated city pairs.
Not according to certain politicians

I agree there's a hypothetical niche for it in the US in a few high-density areas. But good luck seizing all of that land and evicting people from their homes to make way for the infrastructure.. that is simply NOT happening in the US today, people are way too entitled and the system coddles them. It's a real biatch just to build something on land you ALREADY own... You'd need a really big paradigm shift (like a small nuclear war or a massive and sustained economic depression that would shame the Great Depression).
rickair7777 is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 02:36 PM
  #49  
Gets Weekends Off
 
galaxy flyer's Avatar
 
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,168
Default

Originally Posted by Spin View Post
I'm not talking about Amtrak, that's not HSR. I mean real high speed rail, like in other countries.
HSR ain’t happenin’, so Amtrak what you have and will have for a long time.

GF
galaxy flyer is offline  
Old 09-04-2019, 04:47 PM
  #50  
Gets Weekends Off
 
Joined APC: Jul 2006
Position: 767 Pilot
Posts: 1,133
Default

Originally Posted by Spin View Post
A train on 1000+ mile run doesn't make any sense. It is most efficient on 200 to 400 mile runs between highly populated city pairs.
A 1000+ mile route stops in dozens of cities along it's route though, creating dozens of possible city pairs to travel between or make connections to other services. Most pax don't travel from end to end but make shorter trips on the possible city pairs, many being 200-400 miles apart. Therefore one single seat will sell multiple times on one single run. This way, many smaller towns can be served too, where it is often very expensive to fly.

Of course, there are outliers where each route does have pax travel the whole distance or most of it; over 1000 miles. It depends on the route, of course, but on one of the New York to Miami runs, more than 20% of its riders go over 1000 miles. Of it's 33 station stops, the most popular city pair is between New York and Orlando.
saxman66 is offline  
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
TCASTESTOK
United
64
07-17-2018 09:58 PM
Bucking Bar
Hangar Talk
66
04-13-2011 08:53 AM
Strut
Hangar Talk
36
11-07-2010 04:43 PM
AZFlyer
Hangar Talk
18
08-23-2009 07:27 PM
Dan64456
Technical
19
06-25-2009 10:25 AM

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Your Privacy Choices