Why does the Amtrak train still look like a 1950's body style design ?

[Jarlaxle]

No, you clearly DON'T understand the consequences of the extra weight. That being: the much-heavier freight trains need stronger railbeds, bridges, etc...and simply cannot go as fast. A passenger train might take a section of track at 80MPH...where a freight on the same stretch might have to take it at 50 or slower to avoid damaging the track, or even risking a derail. The weight also requires more fuel...to double the speed, you need to-at least-quadruple the power. (Also, freight trains are much less streamlined than passenger trains.) Running high-speed freight trains would require tearing up and replacing every foot of rail they run on! (There are over 100,000 miles of rail that would have to be replaced.)

Here is something to ponder: how much space would a 2-mile-long freight train need to stop from 140MPH? Remember: doubling the speed will roughly quadruple the stopping distance.

I imagine there was a Jaraxle standing by spouting the same things during the construction of the Erie Canal. You were probably giddy in Florida as we failed several times to launch rockets into space. You were probably cheering as people fell into the wet concrete at the site of the Hoover Dam. As I understand it, work ceased on the Panama Canal due to disease. Were you happy about that too?

I understand there are technological challenges. Apparently, if you're any indication, imagination is in short supply too.

You're up against physics. Again: high-speed freight trains will require tearing up and replacing ALL railways (and in some places, it simply cannot be done due to the available space), and will, once more, burn ENORMOUS amounts of fuel. (Wind resistance increases by the square of the speed: 100MPH had 4x the drag as 50MPH!)

[qupte]What I don't understand is the resistance to what could be a magic bullet solution to moving our goods to the world's markets faster, moving their goods to Target's shelves sooner, reducing pollution, allowing e-commerce to clear the next obvious hurdle of time in transit to receive product, reducing stress on our interestates and bridges, etc...[/quote]

Because I actually understand the subject and am familiar with basic physics...you do not and are not. Freight trains cannot run on pixie dust and unicorn flatulence.

 

[Papageorgio]

Paris to Bordeaux in 2 hours! French trains get even faster

By 2019, the Paris to Bordeaux line is expected to have an additional 2.3 million passengers per yer.

Where in this country is rail service profitable? Can you back up your statement or not?

 

[candycorn]

No, you clearly DON'T understand the consequences of the extra weight. That being: the much-heavier freight trains need stronger railbeds, bridges, etc...and simply cannot go as fast. A passenger train might take a section of track at 80MPH...where a freight on the same stretch might have to take it at 50 or slower to avoid damaging the track, or even risking a derail. The weight also requires more fuel...to double the speed, you need to-at least-quadruple the power. (Also, freight trains are much less streamlined than passenger trains.) Running high-speed freight trains would require tearing up and replacing every foot of rail they run on! (There are over 100,000 miles of rail that would have to be replaced.)

Here is something to ponder: how much space would a 2-mile-long freight train need to stop from 140MPH? Remember: doubling the speed will roughly quadruple the stopping distance.

I imagine there was a Jaraxle standing by spouting the same things during the construction of the Erie Canal. You were probably giddy in Florida as we failed several times to launch rockets into space. You were probably cheering as people fell into the wet concrete at the site of the Hoover Dam. As I understand it, work ceased on the Panama Canal due to disease. Were you happy about that too?

I understand there are technological challenges. Apparently, if you're any indication, imagination is in short supply too.

You're up against physics. Again: high-speed freight trains will require tearing up and replacing ALL railways (and in some places, it simply cannot be done due to the available space), and will, once more, burn ENORMOUS amounts of fuel. (Wind resistance increases by the square of the speed: 100MPH had 4x the drag as 50MPH!)

[qupte]What I don't understand is the resistance to what could be a magic bullet solution to moving our goods to the world's markets faster, moving their goods to Target's shelves sooner, reducing pollution, allowing e-commerce to clear the next obvious hurdle of time in transit to receive product, reducing stress on our interestates and bridges, etc...

Because I actually understand the subject and am familiar with basic physics...you do not and are not. Freight trains cannot run on pixie dust and unicorn flatulence.[/QUOTE]

I guess we should just stop any and all research. Physics says we can't expand beyond what we're at now. Boy, that really sucks.

lol

Wind resistance...wow. I'm amazed we were able to put the transcontinental railroad together to start with given such insurmountable obstacles.

 

[Political Junky]

Paris to Bordeaux in 2 hours! French trains get even faster

By 2019, the Paris to Bordeaux line is expected to have an additional 2.3 million passengers per yer.

Where in this country is rail service profitable? Can you back up your statement or not?

Are highways profitable?

 

[Wyatt earp]

No, you clearly DON'T understand the consequences of the extra weight. That being: the much-heavier freight trains need stronger railbeds, bridges, etc...and simply cannot go as fast. A passenger train might take a section of track at 80MPH...where a freight on the same stretch might have to take it at 50 or slower to avoid damaging the track, or even risking a derail. The weight also requires more fuel...to double the speed, you need to-at least-quadruple the power. (Also, freight trains are much less streamlined than passenger trains.) Running high-speed freight trains would require tearing up and replacing every foot of rail they run on! (There are over 100,000 miles of rail that would have to be replaced.)

Here is something to ponder: how much space would a 2-mile-long freight train need to stop from 140MPH? Remember: doubling the speed will roughly quadruple the stopping distance.

I imagine there was a Jaraxle standing by spouting the same things during the construction of the Erie Canal. You were probably giddy in Florida as we failed several times to launch rockets into space. You were probably cheering as people fell into the wet concrete at the site of the Hoover Dam. As I understand it, work ceased on the Panama Canal due to disease. Were you happy about that too?

I understand there are technological challenges. Apparently, if you're any indication, imagination is in short supply too.

You're up against physics. Again: high-speed freight trains will require tearing up and replacing ALL railways (and in some places, it simply cannot be done due to the available space), and will, once more, burn ENORMOUS amounts of fuel. (Wind resistance increases by the square of the speed: 100MPH had 4x the drag as 50MPH!)

[qupte]What I don't understand is the resistance to what could be a magic bullet solution to moving our goods to the world's markets faster, moving their goods to Target's shelves sooner, reducing pollution, allowing e-commerce to clear the next obvious hurdle of time in transit to receive product, reducing stress on our interestates and bridges, etc...

Because I actually understand the subject and am familiar with basic physics...you do not and are not. Freight trains cannot run on pixie dust and unicorn flatulence.[/QUOTE]


Just an FYI I heard one plan using the median on interstate highways a few years back, not a bad idea the bridges are high enough and so many long stretches in the Midwest and west.

 

[Wyatt earp]

No, you clearly DON'T understand the consequences of the extra weight. That being: the much-heavier freight trains need stronger railbeds, bridges, etc...and simply cannot go as fast. A passenger train might take a section of track at 80MPH...where a freight on the same stretch might have to take it at 50 or slower to avoid damaging the track, or even risking a derail. The weight also requires more fuel...to double the speed, you need to-at least-quadruple the power. (Also, freight trains are much less streamlined than passenger trains.) Running high-speed freight trains would require tearing up and replacing every foot of rail they run on! (There are over 100,000 miles of rail that would have to be replaced.)

Here is something to ponder: how much space would a 2-mile-long freight train need to stop from 140MPH? Remember: doubling the speed will roughly quadruple the stopping distance.

I imagine there was a Jaraxle standing by spouting the same things during the construction of the Erie Canal. You were probably giddy in Florida as we failed several times to launch rockets into space. You were probably cheering as people fell into the wet concrete at the site of the Hoover Dam. As I understand it, work ceased on the Panama Canal due to disease. Were you happy about that too?

I understand there are technological challenges. Apparently, if you're any indication, imagination is in short supply too.

You're up against physics. Again: high-speed freight trains will require tearing up and replacing ALL railways (and in some places, it simply cannot be done due to the available space), and will, once more, burn ENORMOUS amounts of fuel. (Wind resistance increases by the square of the speed: 100MPH had 4x the drag as 50MPH!)

[qupte]What I don't understand is the resistance to what could be a magic bullet solution to moving our goods to the world's markets faster, moving their goods to Target's shelves sooner, reducing pollution, allowing e-commerce to clear the next obvious hurdle of time in transit to receive product, reducing stress on our interestates and bridges, etc...

Because I actually understand the subject and am familiar with basic physics...you do not and are not. Freight trains cannot run on pixie dust and unicorn flatulence.

I guess we should just stop any and all research. Physics says we can't expand beyond what we're at now. Boy, that really sucks.

lol

Wind resistance...wow. I'm amazed we were able to put the transcontinental railroad together to start with given such insurmountable obstacles.[/QUOTE]


Please don't tell me you are going to import more china men are you?????

 

[Papageorgio]

Paris to Bordeaux in 2 hours! French trains get even faster

By 2019, the Paris to Bordeaux line is expected to have an additional 2.3 million passengers per yer.

Where in this country is rail service profitable? Can you back up your statement or not?

Are highways profitable?

You said that high speed trains in the northeast are profitable and popular, are you going to prove it or continue to deflect?

 

[candycorn]

No, you clearly DON'T understand the consequences of the extra weight. That being: the much-heavier freight trains need stronger railbeds, bridges, etc...and simply cannot go as fast. A passenger train might take a section of track at 80MPH...where a freight on the same stretch might have to take it at 50 or slower to avoid damaging the track, or even risking a derail. The weight also requires more fuel...to double the speed, you need to-at least-quadruple the power. (Also, freight trains are much less streamlined than passenger trains.) Running high-speed freight trains would require tearing up and replacing every foot of rail they run on! (There are over 100,000 miles of rail that would have to be replaced.)

Here is something to ponder: how much space would a 2-mile-long freight train need to stop from 140MPH? Remember: doubling the speed will roughly quadruple the stopping distance.

I imagine there was a Jaraxle standing by spouting the same things during the construction of the Erie Canal. You were probably giddy in Florida as we failed several times to launch rockets into space. You were probably cheering as people fell into the wet concrete at the site of the Hoover Dam. As I understand it, work ceased on the Panama Canal due to disease. Were you happy about that too?

I understand there are technological challenges. Apparently, if you're any indication, imagination is in short supply too.

You're up against physics. Again: high-speed freight trains will require tearing up and replacing ALL railways (and in some places, it simply cannot be done due to the available space), and will, once more, burn ENORMOUS amounts of fuel. (Wind resistance increases by the square of the speed: 100MPH had 4x the drag as 50MPH!)

[qupte]What I don't understand is the resistance to what could be a magic bullet solution to moving our goods to the world's markets faster, moving their goods to Target's shelves sooner, reducing pollution, allowing e-commerce to clear the next obvious hurdle of time in transit to receive product, reducing stress on our interestates and bridges, etc...

Because I actually understand the subject and am familiar with basic physics...you do not and are not. Freight trains cannot run on pixie dust and unicorn flatulence.

I guess we should just stop any and all research. Physics says we can't expand beyond what we're at now. Boy, that really sucks.

lol

Wind resistance...wow. I'm amazed we were able to put the transcontinental railroad together to start with given such insurmountable obstacles.

Please don't tell me you are going to import more china men are you?????[/QUOTE]

Well, apparently getting them over here is a problem...wind resistance keeping the ships from crossing the ocean.

 

[beagle9]

Amtrak get 2 billion a year, it has lost money since its inception. It is a black hole. The government needs to let the behemoth die.

Nobody wants to get rid of AMTRAK more that those of us who want high speed rail here in the US.

Good, pressure Congress to quit feeding it. As far as high speed rail, I don't see it as feasible nationwide, perhaps the northeast.

It's already popular in the northeast, and profitable

So I'm right. How much government funding is it taking to be "profitable"?

Trains lose money, true. We deconstructed trollies back in the fifties for buses constructed by GM? Contractors. Contractors, they are always ignored, funny how that works. They wanted to get rid of trollies for buses, now it is trollies (light rail) For Busses. Make sense? Contractors are now making buku buck building light rail. Is it coming together now?

When I wrote that post, it was not really addressing the main topic, sorry. It was a rant against light rail. Amtrak is a different animal. Rail travel in America was replaced by Automobiles and the interstate highway system (created in the 50's by Eisenhower), and secondly, air travel. Air travel is faster, and there isn't much financial advantage to taking a train as it cost nearly as much if not as much as travel by train. The economics of running a modern high speed rail system VS auto, Bus or air travel just doesn't work in the US, that would be my first guess.

. Ever notice when riding down a 4 lane highway with a median or wide strip of open land in the middle of it, and do you ever think about how awesome it would be to have a small type of super sleek modernized bullet train / shuttle train running in both directions up on concrete styled stands in which run between major city to major city ? Wouldn't that be an awesome add to the modernization of this nation ? People who want to board it, could shop in another near by city, and return by that afternoon for an experience of a life time. Look at the landscape talked about, and wow what a super look and modernization that would be. It would be a super cool deal in our travels from major city to major city. The stands could be designed to take a hit, and could then lose a stand without damaging or endangering the train above.

 

[beagle9]

Paris to Bordeaux in 2 hours! French trains get even faster

By 2019, the Paris to Bordeaux line is expected to have an additional 2.3 million passengers per yer.

Where in this country is rail service profitable? Can you back up your statement or not?

Are highways profitable?

. Profitable to the taxpayers who use them.

 

[Papageorgio]

Paris to Bordeaux in 2 hours! French trains get even faster

By 2019, the Paris to Bordeaux line is expected to have an additional 2.3 million passengers per yer.

Where in this country is rail service profitable? Can you back up your statement or not?

Are highways profitable?

. Profitable to the taxpayers who use them.

Political junky made the claim that the high speed rails are popular and profitable. He is now trying to divert from his claim. I don't expect the nutter to answer.

 

[EverCurious]

The reason there is a gap between lanes is because of the way people drive - it's to keep folks safe. Throw a train in there and you're going to see a ton of expenses to pay for fixing damaged tracks, as well as funerals and pain & suffering for the vehicle folks because it'd be pretty easy for a lawyer to show that the city/state/line runner disregarded safety to put the train there.

 

[airplanemechanic]

Ever notice when riding down a 4 lane highway with a median or wide strip of open land in the middle of it, and do you ever think about how awesome it would be to have a small type of super sleek modernized bullet train / shuttle train running in both directions up on concrete styled stands in which run between major city to major city ?

No, not at all. That median is there for safety purposes. It's called a divided highway. If you put something there, you must reduce the speed limits. Also, you ever notice where 18 wheelers end up when an accident happens in front of them and they can't stop? They head for the median. If there was a fucking train coming at 300mph I don't think there would be a safe out for these 18 wheelers and more people would be killed in car wrecks.

Nope, the median isn't there for anything other than safety. Leave it that way.

 

[beagle9]

Ever notice when riding down a 4 lane highway with a median or wide strip of open land in the middle of it, and do you ever think about how awesome it would be to have a small type of super sleek modernized bullet train / shuttle train running in both directions up on concrete styled stands in which run between major city to major city ?

No, not at all. That median is there for safety purposes. It's called a divided highway. If you put something there, you must reduce the speed limits. Also, you ever notice where 18 wheelers end up when an accident happens in front of them and they can't stop? They head for the median. If there was a fucking train coming at 300mph I don't think there would be a safe out for these 18 wheelers and more people would be killed in car wrecks.

Nope, the median isn't there for anything other than safety. Leave it that way.

Again there is no looking forward or open mindedness where as there would be the necessary adjustments made or problem solving/solutions figured out after extensive research is done to ensure compatibility for all who would occupy any space that is looked at for modernization purposes in order to make the transportation industry more compatible to the numbers coming on soon in which will be in the amount of traffic we will be experiencing, and will be seeing in the not so distant future.

Not talking necessarily about a full grown and/or operation bullet train that would run 300 MPH to occupy the space, but rather about a more scaled down version shuttle type train or trains in which would fit the application or space that is talked about best. Ever heard of concrete ? Makes for some great protective barriers, and the trains would be around 25 to 30' above the ground level.

The trains would be or could be surrounded by concrete barriers, and they would be up on concreate stands that would protect them from direct or indirect hits from vehicles below. The barriers could be designed for deflecting vehicles, and keeping them in their space. People are smart, and soon the trains would become part of the normal landscape in which they all would be built for, and could exist together in such a space. Maybe when technology in vehicles catches up, then the idea would be more do-able in the future.

 

[EverCurious]

You're missing the regulation part. There is a regulation from the DOT that those medians have to be there, they also must be entirely clear of all obstacles, hell if the DOT had their way, there wouldn't even be support trusses for highway pass-overs in there (they bitch at our road designers a lot over that one because up here we have this black ice shit that you can't even tell is ice and all of a sudden you're in a 360, or if the wind through the pass hits you just right in a SUV it'll spin you.)

The truth is that concrete isn't as great as one might think. While it might stop a vehicle if it's made thick enough, it also kills the driver and usually passengers instantly. DOT makes us put guard rails to deflect vehicles into the open center median of our overpasses, else the overpass supports would take the full brunt and could possibly even be damaged enough to cause a failure in the bridge itself. Even so, if a fully loaded rig were to lose it and hit one of those supports, I have no doubt it could bring down the bridge...

It's not about being close minded, it's about understanding the regulations, and why those regulations exist.

 

[beagle9]

You're missing the regulation part. There is a regulation from the DOT that those medians have to be there, they also must be entirely clear of all obstacles, hell if the DOT had their way, there wouldn't even be support trusses for highway pass-overs in there (they bitch at our road designers a lot over that one because up here we have this black ice shit that you can't even tell is ice and all of a sudden you're in a 360, or if the wind through the pass hits you just right in a SUV it'll spin you.)

The truth is that concrete isn't as great as one might think. While it might stop a vehicle if it's made thick enough, it also kills the driver and usually passengers instantly. DOT makes us put guard rails to deflect vehicles into the open center median of our overpasses, else the overpass supports would take the full brunt and could possibly even be damaged enough to cause a failure in the bridge itself. Even so, if a fully loaded rig were to lose it and hit one of those supports, I have no doubt it could bring down the bridge...

It's not about being close minded, it's about understanding the regulations, and why those regulations exist.

. I understand what your saying, but if everyone could just work together then great things could happen. The rail bridge or stands could be designed where it could lose up to three stands from a hit, and yet the track above would still be safe to pass by on. Otherwise the stands would look like the old stands under a bridge that would create that upside down U at the top of each leg. The legs would be able to take a hit that could take out about three legs without a droop or bow to form in the track. Steal beams would run along beneath both rails that would rest upon the stands. The steal would give stability between the stands in so that the track doesn't experience problems drooping or bowing if a hit below takes place.

 

[Dekster]

You're missing the regulation part. There is a regulation from the DOT that those medians have to be there, they also must be entirely clear of all obstacles, hell if the DOT had their way, there wouldn't even be support trusses for highway pass-overs in there (they bitch at our road designers a lot over that one because up here we have this black ice shit that you can't even tell is ice and all of a sudden you're in a 360, or if the wind through the pass hits you just right in a SUV it'll spin you.)

The truth is that concrete isn't as great as one might think. While it might stop a vehicle if it's made thick enough, it also kills the driver and usually passengers instantly. DOT makes us put guard rails to deflect vehicles into the open center median of our overpasses, else the overpass supports would take the full brunt and could possibly even be damaged enough to cause a failure in the bridge itself. Even so, if a fully loaded rig were to lose it and hit one of those supports, I have no doubt it could bring down the bridge...

It's not about being close minded, it's about understanding the regulations, and why those regulations exist.

There's nothing wrong with a 360--you end up heading in the same direction you intended to be traveling anyway

Most of our local overpass supports are designed such that a structural failure is not likely to happen at all. They have a wedge on them so that if hit, the wreckage will push back out into the traffic lanes and there is enough concrete wrapping them that it would take a train to drop them. Basically the bottom ten feet of the verticals are wrapped in a bunker of concrete.

 

[EverCurious]

So the solution where ya're is to send the out of control vehicle back into on-coming traffic? That is a dumb plan if you ask me hahahaha

 

[candycorn]

Ever notice when riding down a 4 lane highway with a median or wide strip of open land in the middle of it, and do you ever think about how awesome it would be to have a small type of super sleek modernized bullet train / shuttle train running in both directions up on concrete styled stands in which run between major city to major city ?

No, not at all. That median is there for safety purposes. It's called a divided highway. If you put something there, you must reduce the speed limits. Also, you ever notice where 18 wheelers end up when an accident happens in front of them and they can't stop? They head for the median. If there was a fucking train coming at 300mph I don't think there would be a safe out for these 18 wheelers and more people would be killed in car wrecks.

Nope, the median isn't there for anything other than safety. Leave it that way.

Again there is no looking forward or open mindedness where as there would be the necessary adjustments made or problem solving/solutions figured out after extensive research is done to ensure compatibility for all who would occupy any space that is looked at for modernization purposes in order to make the transportation industry more compatible to the numbers coming on soon in which will be in the amount of traffic we will be experiencing, and will be seeing in the not so distant future.

Not talking necessarily about a full grown and/or operation bullet train that would run 300 MPH to occupy the space, but rather about a more scaled down version shuttle type train or trains in which would fit the application or space that is talked about best. Ever heard of concrete ? Makes for some great protective barriers, and the trains would be around 25 to 30' above the ground level.

The trains would be or could be surrounded by concrete barriers, and they would be up on concreate stands that would protect them from direct or indirect hits from vehicles below. The barriers could be designed for deflecting vehicles, and keeping them in their space. People are smart, and soon the trains would become part of the normal landscape in which they all would be built for, and could exist together in such a space. Maybe when technology in vehicles catches up, then the idea would be more do-able in the future.

As I stated, there were people just like these folks doubting we could do the Erie Canal, space program, etc… All it is are problems to be solved.

And what is really silly is that the geometry of the undertaking will have other effects. Like the electrical transmission lines that would be needed. That would add to the grid. If the transmission lines go down, they could be re-routed along the new power lines that support the rail. You make the time-in-transit comparable and you get passengers in our affluent society. I think it’s more sustainable to rely on freight and add a public transit component to that since if your “bread and butter” is hauling mail, packages, ocean containers; the tickets for passengers will be incidental.

 

[beagle9]

So the solution where ya're is to send the out of control vehicle back into on-coming traffic? That is a dumb plan if you ask me hahahaha

. Uh the out of control vehicles are already crossing over into the on coming sides by way of the open medians that I'm talking mainly about, and where the 4 lanes exist between the major cities in our state. The devider created by the new comutor train would actually prevent the crossing over. Now interstates have the concrete barriers, and they have a cable system in place, but most of your old 4 lanes between the city to city routes have nothing to prevent the cross overs. This would be prime proving grounds for the shuttles and the systems needed to make it all work. We have an old 4 lane with an open median between two major cities where I live. It's about an hour ride between the two, and there are many vehicle accidents along this journey. The trains may even begin to save lives by releiving congestion on some routes.