Biden just said he's planning to build trains that travel as fast as commercial jets

[Kondor3]

Slow news day, kiddies?

No, Joe Biden is still holding 18,000 kids in concentration camps at the border, and you're still ignoring it.

Nope. I'm not on his side on that subject. And what does that have to do with the subject-matter?

 

[Dadoalex]

I think the senile old fuck missed a diaper change or something.

Whelp, first off your quote says "close to", not "as fast as". Second, the TGV (Train de Grand Vitesse) in France has been clocked at over 350 mph; and third, airports are always located well outside of cities, which adds all the time, assuming no schedule delays, of commuting to one airport and from the other, the security lines, check-in, all of that, resulting in the fact that I could drive from here in the sticks of North Carolina to downtown Nashville in the same time the company's plane ticket would get me there, and that's simply easy car driving and not a TGV.

Train stations, in contrast to airports, rarely ever fall out of the sky and therefore bring you right to the center of town.

So you agree with Biden's assessment that a train can get you "across the country" almost as fast as a commercial jet? Let's hear you say it...

Are YOU saying that a train will NEVER be able to travel as fast as current commercial aircraft? Let's hear you say that bit of stupid.

Nope. Top speeds of a train are 267mph. Commercial airliner is around 570mph. Aint gonna happen.

Well golly.

What were the top speeds of aircraft 50 years ago?
Have the fastest trains approached those speeds?

And you're saying trains can't do it? EVER?
The current land speed record is over 700MPH

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I think the senile old fuck missed a diaper change or something.

Whelp, first off your quote says "close to", not "as fast as". Second, the TGV (Train de Grand Vitesse) in France has been clocked at over 350 mph; and third, airports are always located well outside of cities, which adds all the time, assuming no schedule delays, of commuting to one airport and from the other, the security lines, check-in, all of that, resulting in the fact that I could drive from here in the sticks of North Carolina to downtown Nashville in the same time the company's plane ticket would get me there, and that's simply easy car driving and not a TGV.

Train stations, in contrast to airports, rarely ever fall out of the sky and therefore bring you right to the center of town.

So you agree with Biden's assessment that a train can get you "across the country" almost as fast as a commercial jet? Let's hear you say it...

Are YOU saying that a train will NEVER be able to travel as fast as current commercial aircraft? Let's hear you say that bit of stupid.

Nope. Top speeds of a train are 267mph. Commercial airliner is around 570mph. Aint gonna happen.

Top speeds [sic] of which train? I've already posted that the TGV has done over 350. That's not even counting the hyperloop others have posted about which would double that. That hyperloop doesn't exist yet, but the alleged quote, again DOES say "imagine a world where", it does not say "you can do this right now".

Besides which, as I pointed out at the beginning of all this, plane travel involves a fuck of a lot more than just the flying, which adds hours to the trip.

I swear ta god summa y'all seem to have never been on a plane trip at all. Which is fine, but don't sit here and pontificate on something y'all don't understand.

570>350. Thats basic math.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I think the senile old fuck missed a diaper change or something.

Whelp, first off your quote says "close to", not "as fast as". Second, the TGV (Train de Grand Vitesse) in France has been clocked at over 350 mph; and third, airports are always located well outside of cities, which adds all the time, assuming no schedule delays, of commuting to one airport and from the other, the security lines, check-in, all of that, resulting in the fact that I could drive from here in the sticks of North Carolina to downtown Nashville in the same time the company's plane ticket would get me there, and that's simply easy car driving and not a TGV.

Train stations, in contrast to airports, rarely ever fall out of the sky and therefore bring you right to the center of town.

So you agree with Biden's assessment that a train can get you "across the country" almost as fast as a commercial jet? Let's hear you say it...

Are YOU saying that a train will NEVER be able to travel as fast as current commercial aircraft? Let's hear you say that bit of stupid.

Nope. Top speeds of a train are 267mph. Commercial airliner is around 570mph. Aint gonna happen.

Well golly.

What were the top speeds of aircraft 50 years ago?
Have the fastest trains approached those speeds?

And you're saying trains can't do it? EVER?
The current land speed record is over 700MPH

You make the false assumption that air flight speeds will stay the same as train speeds increase.

 

[Pogo]

I think the senile old fuck missed a diaper change or something.

Whelp, first off your quote says "close to", not "as fast as". Second, the TGV (Train de Grand Vitesse) in France has been clocked at over 350 mph; and third, airports are always located well outside of cities, which adds all the time, assuming no schedule delays, of commuting to one airport and from the other, the security lines, check-in, waiting for baggage carousels, all of that, resulting in the fact that I could drive from here in the sticks of North Carolina to downtown Nashville in the same time the company's plane ticket would get me there, and that's simply easy car driving and not a TGV. Even a slow train would beat the plane there.

Trains, in contrast to airports, rarely ever fall out of the sky and therefore bring you right to the center of town.

Airplanes are better for us. There is no track and other maintenance issues in the air. The track would need longer stretches of straighter lines and less curves. Progs do things just to be the opposite of others. They love big ticket items and expenses. You want a big ticket expense? Expand the space program in a huge way. Making sure the private side is involved with it.

There are not enough "Funnys" to cover the assertion that airplanes need no maintenance.

Of course they do. So do trains. The sky needs no maintenance. It needs monitoring of course. Unless they take the tracks from conventional trains, where are they going to build these things? Is Biden going to enforce pure eminent domain on everything on their paths? That will make the residents in the way happy. The ironic thing is they may be easier to build in more rural areas to start. We will go from Fly Over to Roll Over.

Yet another doofus desperately trying to shift the track from "how fast" to "how much". Must be inconvenient to stay on topic. I haven't seen this many derailers since I last walked into a bike shop.

 

[Pogo]

I think the senile old fuck missed a diaper change or something.

Whelp, first off your quote says "close to", not "as fast as". Second, the TGV (Train de Grand Vitesse) in France has been clocked at over 350 mph; and third, airports are always located well outside of cities, which adds all the time, assuming no schedule delays, of commuting to one airport and from the other, the security lines, check-in, all of that, resulting in the fact that I could drive from here in the sticks of North Carolina to downtown Nashville in the same time the company's plane ticket would get me there, and that's simply easy car driving and not a TGV.

Train stations, in contrast to airports, rarely ever fall out of the sky and therefore bring you right to the center of town.

So you agree with Biden's assessment that a train can get you "across the country" almost as fast as a commercial jet? Let's hear you say it...

Are YOU saying that a train will NEVER be able to travel as fast as current commercial aircraft? Let's hear you say that bit of stupid.

Nope. Top speeds of a train are 267mph. Commercial airliner is around 570mph. Aint gonna happen.

Well golly.

What were the top speeds of aircraft 50 years ago?
Have the fastest trains approached those speeds?

And you're saying trains can't do it? EVER?
The current land speed record is over 700MPH

You make the false assumption that air flight speeds will stay the same as train speeds increase.

Perhaps he makes true assumptions that the laws of physics are not up for negotiation.

 

[irosie91]

beam me up----scotty

 

[Pogo]

I think the senile old fuck missed a diaper change or something.

Whelp, first off your quote says "close to", not "as fast as". Second, the TGV (Train de Grand Vitesse) in France has been clocked at over 350 mph; and third, airports are always located well outside of cities, which adds all the time, assuming no schedule delays, of commuting to one airport and from the other, the security lines, check-in, all of that, resulting in the fact that I could drive from here in the sticks of North Carolina to downtown Nashville in the same time the company's plane ticket would get me there, and that's simply easy car driving and not a TGV.

Train stations, in contrast to airports, rarely ever fall out of the sky and therefore bring you right to the center of town.

So you agree with Biden's assessment that a train can get you "across the country" almost as fast as a commercial jet? Let's hear you say it...

Are YOU saying that a train will NEVER be able to travel as fast as current commercial aircraft? Let's hear you say that bit of stupid.

Nope. Top speeds of a train are 267mph. Commercial airliner is around 570mph. Aint gonna happen.

Top speeds [sic] of which train? I've already posted that the TGV has done over 350. That's not even counting the hyperloop others have posted about which would double that. That hyperloop doesn't exist yet, but the alleged quote, again DOES say "imagine a world where", it does not say "you can do this right now".

Besides which, as I pointed out at the beginning of all this, plane travel involves a fuck of a lot more than just the flying, which adds hours to the trip.

I swear ta god summa y'all seem to have never been on a plane trip at all. Which is fine, but don't sit here and pontificate on something y'all don't understand.

570>350. Thats basic math.

Long trips into and out of airports, endless TSA lines, endless waiting, including waiting for baggage carousels, if it's not lost altogether, is all part of the trip. That's basic reality.

 

[ClaireH]

So which one will it be? 155 mph seems to be the max for a high speed train, but that number lowers significantly if the track passes through populated areas. So the bottom line is that a train will never get you to coast to coast as fast as a jet. Only a senile old fool would think it possible


Category I – New tracks specially constructed for high speeds, allowing a maximum running speed of at least 250 km/h (155 mph).Category II – Existing tracks specially upgraded for high speeds, allowing a maximum running speed of at least 200 km/h (124 mph).Category III – Existing tracks specially upgraded for high speeds, allowing a maximum running speed of at least 200 km/h (124 mph), but with some sections having a lower allowable speed (for example due to topographic constraints, or passage through urban areas).
A third definition of high-speed and very high-speed rail (Demiridis & Pyrgidis 2012[7]) requires simultaneous fulfilment of the following two conditions:[6]

1. Maximum achievable running speed in excess of 200 km/h (124 mph), or 250 km/h (155 mph) for very high-speed,
2. Average running speed across the corridor in excess of 150 km/h (93 mph), or 200 km/h (124 mph) for very high-speed.

Well, looking at the maximum speeds you've listed shows why testing those limits could wind up in disaster, or several disasters...all in the name of good competition. The global race to attain the highest speed has already tested these maximum speed limits and failed on occasion.

In France, a high-speed train in 2020 carrying 300 passengers, was heading from Colmar in eastern France to the capital and traveling at a speed of 270 kph (170 mph) when it jumped the tracks. "The SNCF said it was the first time that a commercially operated TGV train has derailed since the service was inaugurated in 1981, between Paris and the southern city of Lyon. TGV stands for “Train à Grande Vitesse,” or high-speed train. The high-speed trains started running in 1981. A fatal accident involving a TGV test train took place on the same rail line in 2015 before its official opening."

High-speed train derails in eastern France; 21 injured

One of France's vaunted high-speed trains has derailed on a trip to Paris. The train driver was seriously injured but managed to slam on the emergency brakes and bring the train to a halt.

apnews.com

In comparison, "Japan has a network of nine high speed rail lines serving 22 of its major cities, stretching across its three main islands, with three more lines in development. It is the busiest high-speed rail service in the world, carrying more than 420,000 passengers on a typical weekday. Its trains travel up to 320 km/h (200 mph), and the railway boasts that, in over 50 years of operation, there have been no passenger fatalities or injuries due to accidents."

Fact Sheet | Building Sustainably: Mass Timber (September 2023) | White Papers | EESI

Builders are turning to mass timber, a type of engineered wood building materials, because of its many climate and sustainability benefits.

www.eesi.org

 

[22lcidw]

I think the senile old fuck missed a diaper change or something.

Whelp, first off your quote says "close to", not "as fast as". Second, the TGV (Train de Grand Vitesse) in France has been clocked at over 350 mph; and third, airports are always located well outside of cities, which adds all the time, assuming no schedule delays, of commuting to one airport and from the other, the security lines, check-in, waiting for baggage carousels, all of that, resulting in the fact that I could drive from here in the sticks of North Carolina to downtown Nashville in the same time the company's plane ticket would get me there, and that's simply easy car driving and not a TGV. Even a slow train would beat the plane there.

Trains, in contrast to airports, rarely ever fall out of the sky and therefore bring you right to the center of town.

Airplanes are better for us. There is no track and other maintenance issues in the air. The track would need longer stretches of straighter lines and less curves. Progs do things just to be the opposite of others. They love big ticket items and expenses. You want a big ticket expense? Expand the space program in a huge way. Making sure the private side is involved with it.

There are not enough "Funnys" to cover the assertion that airplanes need no maintenance.

Of course they do. So do trains. The sky needs no maintenance. It needs monitoring of course. Unless they take the tracks from conventional trains, where are they going to build these things? Is Biden going to enforce pure eminent domain on everything on their paths? That will make the residents in the way happy. The ironic thing is they may be easier to build in more rural areas to start. We will go from Fly Over to Roll Over.

Yet another doofus desperately trying to shift the track from "how fast" to "how much". Must be inconvenient to stay on topic. I haven't seen this many derailers since I last walked into a bike shop.

There was a time I liked the idea. Our more heavily populated areas are quagmires of construction almost like jigsaw puzzles pieced together in a forceful way. We are many diverse cultures and backgrounds with levels of power to deny the right of way through many areas. Boston, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington D.C. was being called Megalopolis over a half century ago. To get the right of way through those areas with the legal community in this nation larger then the several industrial nations combined is going to be fruitless and enrich many while costing the taxpayer endless resources for something that is not attainable at this point. A totalitarian despot leader though will get it done.

 

[cnm]

So you agree with Biden's assessment that a train can get you "across the country" almost as fast as a commercial jet? Let's hear you say it...

From a city centre to a city centre. Do you insist that can't be done?

 

[EMH]

Joe has found a great newjobfor Hunter...


The test dummy for the train's first trial run.

 

[cnm]

Cutting out the two hours you have to wait at the airport gets you a nice head start

Uh, they'll have the same wait at those trains if they ever were built.

You think the TSA will be in charge?

 

[Pogo]

This is from fourteen years ago....

​

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I’ve never been on a train for a long trip but I can’t imagine you don’t check your bags. I don’t see everyone going to their seats with two rolling suit cases. No way.

Yeah you do. I've crossed the country by train.

Second, there’s no chance these trains won’t have a two hour check in time with TSA and all the same shit they have at airports. We used to run into an airport 15 minutes before take off, not now. Trains would be the same.

Speculation fallacy.

Third, and this is the technical part. You can’t just have a train going LA to NY like a direct flight. It’s not feasable, cost wise or use wise. The train would have to stop. A lot. So what stops? Let’s say LA, SLC, Denver, KC, STL, Chicago, Philly, NYC? Something like that. You aren’t smoking through those cities at 350 mph, sudden stop, 15 minute unload reload time and back to 350 mph. It’s an hour per stop minimum after slowing down well before getting there and leaving.

None of it makes sense as a tax payer investment. If a private railroad thinks they can do it I’m all for it. Not all of us paying for this mess.

The OP wasn't about "taxpayer investment", nor was it about security lines. -- it was about speed. It was about reading comprehension and it was about not knowing what a real link is. But speaking of security checks, it's a fuck of a lot more dangerous to blow up a plane than a train, something about the relative altitude of each.

First, yeah I figured.
Second, it not fallacy. You aren’t getting on a trillion dollar train without being molested by the TSA and getting everything checked for two hours. You’re insane if you think that’s not happening.
Third, fuck yeah a train wreck is worse. Not just the deaths but the destruction of the track means everything is fucked. A plane can go down and the next one flys over the wreck. A train gets blown up and the entire system is shut down for months.

 

[Missouri_Mike]

The longest rail tunnel in the world cost a lot of money to build. The cost estimate of the project turned into a ~50% cost overrun. Imagine how much it would cost in America.

As of 1998, the total projected cost of the project was CHF 6.323 billion; as of December 2015, the final cost is projected as CHF 9.560 billion.​

Wikiwand - Gotthard Base Tunnel

The Gotthard Base Tunnel is a railway tunnel through the Alps in Switzerland. It opened in June 2016 and full service began the following December. With a route length of 57.09 km (35.5 mi), it is the world's longest railway and deepest traffic tunnel and the first flat, low-level route through...

www.wikiwand.com

Interestiing how you keep trying to change the topic from "how fast" to "how much cost".

Speed costs. There’s a reason you drive a Prius not an F1 car. It’s expensive as fuck and in no way efficient beyond a certain level.

 

[Pogo]

I’ve never been on a train for a long trip but I can’t imagine you don’t check your bags. I don’t see everyone going to their seats with two rolling suit cases. No way.

Yeah you do. I've crossed the country by train.

Second, there’s no chance these trains won’t have a two hour check in time with TSA and all the same shit they have at airports. We used to run into an airport 15 minutes before take off, not now. Trains would be the same.

Speculation fallacy.

Third, and this is the technical part. You can’t just have a train going LA to NY like a direct flight. It’s not feasable, cost wise or use wise. The train would have to stop. A lot. So what stops? Let’s say LA, SLC, Denver, KC, STL, Chicago, Philly, NYC? Something like that. You aren’t smoking through those cities at 350 mph, sudden stop, 15 minute unload reload time and back to 350 mph. It’s an hour per stop minimum after slowing down well before getting there and leaving.

None of it makes sense as a tax payer investment. If a private railroad thinks they can do it I’m all for it. Not all of us paying for this mess.

The OP wasn't about "taxpayer investment", nor was it about security lines. -- it was about speed. It was about reading comprehension and it was about not knowing what a real link is. But speaking of security checks, it's a fuck of a lot more dangerous to blow up a plane than a train, something about the relative altitude of each.

First, yeah I figured.
Second, it not fallacy. You aren’t getting on a trillion dollar train without being molested by the TSA and getting everything checked for two hours. You’re insane if you think that’s not happening.

I did. Wasn't a "trillion dollar train (there's no such thing) though.
Trust me, I've been on a gazillion planes and I know the difference. But yeah it's a fallacy until it actually happens. You seem to be under the impression that more speed means more security. It's still a train, and the other thing's still a plane, and only the latter is going to be sailing at 35,000 feet.

Third, fuck yeah a train wreck is worse. Not just the deaths but the destruction of the track means everything is fucked. A plane can go down and the next one flys over the wreck. A train gets blown up and the entire system is shut down for months.

Yuh huh.
Tell the class how far a derailed train falls out of the sky and then tell us with a straight face how it's "worse". Not to mention all the constant harping about how the plane goes so much faster, yet suddenly that gets forgotten as soon as we talk accidents. Want to crash at 120 or at 570?

 

[Pogo]

The longest rail tunnel in the world cost a lot of money to build. The cost estimate of the project turned into a ~50% cost overrun. Imagine how much it would cost in America.

As of 1998, the total projected cost of the project was CHF 6.323 billion; as of December 2015, the final cost is projected as CHF 9.560 billion.​

Wikiwand - Gotthard Base Tunnel

The Gotthard Base Tunnel is a railway tunnel through the Alps in Switzerland. It opened in June 2016 and full service began the following December. With a route length of 57.09 km (35.5 mi), it is the world's longest railway and deepest traffic tunnel and the first flat, low-level route through...

www.wikiwand.com

Interestiing how you keep trying to change the topic from "how fast" to "how much cost".

Speed costs. There’s a reason you drive a Prius not an F1 car. It’s expensive as fuck and in no way efficient beyond a certain level.

Aasaaaaaaaaaaand there we go again, trying to derail the topic from "how fast" to "how much". Y'all sure are scared of this topic.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Judging how well the CA bullet train is progressing in cost while not progressing very fast toward completion we might get something in 30 yrs at a cost of 50 trillion for one line

 

[Missouri_Mike]

I’ve never been on a train for a long trip but I can’t imagine you don’t check your bags. I don’t see everyone going to their seats with two rolling suit cases. No way.

Yeah you do. I've crossed the country by train.

Second, there’s no chance these trains won’t have a two hour check in time with TSA and all the same shit they have at airports. We used to run into an airport 15 minutes before take off, not now. Trains would be the same.

Speculation fallacy.

Third, and this is the technical part. You can’t just have a train going LA to NY like a direct flight. It’s not feasable, cost wise or use wise. The train would have to stop. A lot. So what stops? Let’s say LA, SLC, Denver, KC, STL, Chicago, Philly, NYC? Something like that. You aren’t smoking through those cities at 350 mph, sudden stop, 15 minute unload reload time and back to 350 mph. It’s an hour per stop minimum after slowing down well before getting there and leaving.

None of it makes sense as a tax payer investment. If a private railroad thinks they can do it I’m all for it. Not all of us paying for this mess.

The OP wasn't about "taxpayer investment", nor was it about security lines. -- it was about speed. It was about reading comprehension and it was about not knowing what a real link is. But speaking of security checks, it's a fuck of a lot more dangerous to blow up a plane than a train, something about the relative altitude of each.

First, yeah I figured.
Second, it not fallacy. You aren’t getting on a trillion dollar train without being molested by the TSA and getting everything checked for two hours. You’re insane if you think that’s not happening.

I did. Wasn't a "trillion dollar train (there's no such thing) though.
Trust me, I've been on a gazillion planes and I know the difference. But yeah it's a fallacy until it actually happens. You seem to be under the impression that more speed means more security. It's still a train, and the other thing's still a plane, and only the latter is going to be sailing at 35,000 feet.

Third, fuck yeah a train wreck is worse. Not just the deaths but the destruction of the track means everything is fucked. A plane can go down and the next one flys over the wreck. A train gets blown up and the entire system is shut down for months.

Yuh huh.
Tell the class how far a derailed train falls out of the sky and then tell us with a straight face how it's "worse". Not to mention all the constant harping about how the plane goes so much faster, yet suddenly that gets forgotten as soon as we talk accidents. Want to crash at 120 or at 570?

You can die going down the highway at 55. It’s not the speed you moron it’s the aftermath of the transportation system. If you crash a plane the sky is still open for another plane. If you crash a train your only path through is fucked. A wreck on a highway at 65 can block traffic for a day. It has nothing to do with the speed you moron. It’s the aftermath.