High Speed Rail not replacing jets ... .
01-25-2011 | 07:37 PM
#22
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,350
Likes: 0
From: Flying the SEC
It is actually costlier on many routes to take the train in the EU than it is to fly (thanks to EasyJet and RyanAir). Not to mention flying takes must less time. Not to mention the infrastructure for rail is just as much a PITA and expensive to build as that for aviation.
The US is far to large for the type of rail used in Europe, it makes sense in places like the northeast corridor, but I'm not taking a train from NYC to CLT, or DTW to BOS. I had a friend take a train from Chicago to NYC jsut to try it, it took 24 hours (thanks to a 4 hours delay on the tracks).
What we really need is some alternative type of fuel for aviation...be it Algae, liquid coal, or what have you.
The US is far to large for the type of rail used in Europe, it makes sense in places like the northeast corridor, but I'm not taking a train from NYC to CLT, or DTW to BOS. I had a friend take a train from Chicago to NYC jsut to try it, it took 24 hours (thanks to a 4 hours delay on the tracks).
What we really need is some alternative type of fuel for aviation...be it Algae, liquid coal, or what have you.
What we really need is to drill for our own oil, of which we have plenty, and give OPEC the middle finger. Unless you change the laws of physics, alternative bio fuels won't power airplanes. Not enough energy per molecule.
01-25-2011 | 08:38 PM
#25
Banned
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,655
Likes: 0
From: Narrow/Left Wide/Right
I'm sure there are more than enough Architecture firms, lawyers, consultants, designers, etc in Chicago to spend $1.8 without ever building something.
Out here in Hawaii they want to build a light rail that will bankrupt the city/county, knowing that it will do nothing for traffic, but hey, it's all about sucking money from the Fed tit. They used to claim it would improve traffic, now even proponents say it's just about the decade of construction jobs it will produce.
01-25-2011 | 08:42 PM
#26
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Mar 2007
Posts: 3,215
Likes: 0
From: Capt
Hi!
For land travel, Bicycle is the most effecient for short distances, then cars/buses for up to about 100/150 miles. Trains are the most efficient from about 100-600 miles, then aircraft.
Current "normal" high speed rail is about 250 miles per hour. Maglev is not commercially viable now.
High speed rail makes sense from:
Boston-DC
San Diego-SFO
SEA-PDX
LAX-LAS
Tampa/Jacksonville-MCO-MIA, and maybe even ATL-MCO-MIA.
DFW-IAH
A Midwest hub based in ORD.
Upset about subsidizing trains?
Then, you HAVE to agree to stop subsidizing other forms of mass transportation:
You need to advocate for the ending of:
The $10+ per gallon of gov't subsidy for gasoline
The gov't subsidies for the FAA, airports, and aircraft manufacturers (each airliner produced has about 1/2 of the cost paid for by gov't, and the other 1/2 by the customer).
The gov't subsidies for ports, locks, dams, Coast Guard, Corp of Engineers, etc.
Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, EVERY MAJOR FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IS HIGHLY SUBSIDZED by various gov't agencies.
And, the cost of gasoline? A PENTAGON study from about 5 years ago showed that the actual cost of a gallon of gas was about $12. Only about $2 of that was being covered by the customer paying for gasoline at the pump...the rest was paid for by US, the taxpayers!!!
cliff
GRB
For land travel, Bicycle is the most effecient for short distances, then cars/buses for up to about 100/150 miles. Trains are the most efficient from about 100-600 miles, then aircraft.
Current "normal" high speed rail is about 250 miles per hour. Maglev is not commercially viable now.
High speed rail makes sense from:
Boston-DC
San Diego-SFO
SEA-PDX
LAX-LAS
Tampa/Jacksonville-MCO-MIA, and maybe even ATL-MCO-MIA.
DFW-IAH
A Midwest hub based in ORD.
Upset about subsidizing trains?
Then, you HAVE to agree to stop subsidizing other forms of mass transportation:
You need to advocate for the ending of:
The $10+ per gallon of gov't subsidy for gasoline
The gov't subsidies for the FAA, airports, and aircraft manufacturers (each airliner produced has about 1/2 of the cost paid for by gov't, and the other 1/2 by the customer).
The gov't subsidies for ports, locks, dams, Coast Guard, Corp of Engineers, etc.
Whether you like it or not, or believe it or not, EVERY MAJOR FORM OF TRANSPORTATION IS HIGHLY SUBSIDZED by various gov't agencies.
And, the cost of gasoline? A PENTAGON study from about 5 years ago showed that the actual cost of a gallon of gas was about $12. Only about $2 of that was being covered by the customer paying for gasoline at the pump...the rest was paid for by US, the taxpayers!!!
cliff
GRB
01-25-2011 | 08:54 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 6,248
Likes: 0
From: 767A (Ret)
The European high-speed trains do have some drawbacks: they're less roomy, you can't open the windows, and tickets cost more. They also have to slow down here and there, maybe due to other traffic. Similar issues with the high-speed boats on the Rhine, in addition to noise and a rough ride.
For vacation travel, I think the regular trains/boats are better.
For vacation travel, I think the regular trains/boats are better.
01-25-2011 | 09:09 PM
#29
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 44,908
Likes: 694
From: Engines Turn or People Swim
Problems with high speed trains...
1. Energy Efficiency: Slow trains are very efficient. But what if you flew your jet at an altitude of 2' MSL at 300 mph? What kind of fuel burn would you see? Anything that fast creates a lot of drag at sea level, regardless of whether it has wings or not. Electricity is better than liquid fuel, but has additional rail infrastructure costs.
2. Infrastructure: The current rails won't work, they will need new ones and they will have to be straighter. The NIMBY's won't sit still for that, especially in the highly populated areas where rail might make sense.
3. Security. Trains have all the same issues that airplanes, plus one extra. If the airplane is properly secured on the ground, it is safe once airborne (no, MANPADS are not viable anti-airliner weapons, they were not designed for that). A train is vulnerable over it's ENTIRE route...bombs, mortars, rockets, etc. Hell a cinder block thrown on the tracks would destroy a 300 mph train (KE = 1/2MV^2)
It might work in some highly dense areas (NE corridor), but they will have a hell of a time building the tracks. Airplanes just work better for a nation as large as the US. We do need cost-stable, renewable, carbon-neutral fuels though (biofuel).
1. Energy Efficiency: Slow trains are very efficient. But what if you flew your jet at an altitude of 2' MSL at 300 mph? What kind of fuel burn would you see? Anything that fast creates a lot of drag at sea level, regardless of whether it has wings or not. Electricity is better than liquid fuel, but has additional rail infrastructure costs.
2. Infrastructure: The current rails won't work, they will need new ones and they will have to be straighter. The NIMBY's won't sit still for that, especially in the highly populated areas where rail might make sense.
3. Security. Trains have all the same issues that airplanes, plus one extra. If the airplane is properly secured on the ground, it is safe once airborne (no, MANPADS are not viable anti-airliner weapons, they were not designed for that). A train is vulnerable over it's ENTIRE route...bombs, mortars, rockets, etc. Hell a cinder block thrown on the tracks would destroy a 300 mph train (KE = 1/2MV^2)
It might work in some highly dense areas (NE corridor), but they will have a hell of a time building the tracks. Airplanes just work better for a nation as large as the US. We do need cost-stable, renewable, carbon-neutral fuels though (biofuel).
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
