neillaubenthal

Doubt that. The expense of maintaining the tube in a vacuum will be tremendous…not to mention it's supposed to be built in an earthquake zone. The real reasons we don't have efficient passenger rail service in the US are our large country size with spread out population and the refusal of most folks here to use mass transit. Small/more densely populated countries are more efficient for rail systems…partially due to size and partially due to not wasting space on lots of roads and parking spots (which I guess gets back to size anyway).

Hyperloop is great in theory but their cost estimates are (a) huge and (b) most likely unrealistic.

pipesgt Loc: Central Florida

AMTRAK is just a big hole, that the government is pouring money into it. If passenger service made money, the railroads would be in the passenger business.

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

.....all for a highly subsidized endeavor that loses money but caters to our eastern corridor NYC-D.C.-Philly crowd,

CaptainBobBrown

Some years ago I discussed this with the head of Amtrack maintenance in the north east. A very smart guy and a civil engineer. He told me the main reason for not being able to enable "bullet trains" in the n.e. corridor was the huge, huge cost of widening or replacing bridges and changing curves because all trains have to allow for sway. The faster the train goes the more sway on curves and with narrow bridges the risks of a sway an inch or two more could spell disaster. We're stuck with slow trains until we replace all the century+ old bridges and replace track beds smooth and inflexible enough to enable high speeds with little sway. It's "cheaper" to build highways or use completely new technology than to replace existing infrastructure like had to be done in Europe/Japan after WWII. We're now paying the price of our own success last century.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

I think there are a lot of reasons we don't have high speed trains...but if we weren't so enamored with the thought of air travel the money would be found, and the end of huge wasteful polluting unnecessary air travel would be at hand, some distances require air travel, but a lot don't, NY to DC, probably no time savings by the time you get to the airport, check in etc, Penn is mid-town NY, train drops you mid DC, and you want to fly? a mystery to me!

Cykdelic Loc: Now outside of Chiraq & Santa Fe, NM

Great points! I am from the telecom field and the concept of "green fields" is real! Perhaps we should be skipping bucket trains and looking for the NEXT big leap in transportation..........driverless cars? Star Trek Transporters?

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

This all sounds really rosy until you consider that more people live in Florida, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, California and other cities than live in the Northeast. And everyone would be made to foot the bill to make high speed train travel affordable for people in the Northeast. As far as I'm concerned, if you choose to live there then the travel headaches are your choice. I moved out for the better weather, roads, etc. But, I do live in Florida and it now outranks New York as the 3rd most populous state. So, since most of us fly if we are going to NYC, Philly, etc. why should we have to foot the bill to make your travel easier? Now, if the high speed train was from Tampa or Miami to NYC, then I might consider it if I was forced to go up there. Fortunately, with UPS, FedEx etc., there is no need for me to go up there. AND, all of my friends up there are standing in line to come down here and stay with me for a week or two.

bobmcculloch Loc: NYC, NY

And in view we should pay for your airports? all three airports are subsidized by our outrageous bridge tolls, $15 cash to cross from NJ to NY, and why don't we have high speed trains from Fla to the North East, because you want to fly! Are you watching the airline accidents?

machia Loc: NJ

Two excellent points made here !
Air travel got all the attention after WW2 and the RR right of ways are relatively narrow with low bridges .
It would be a massive undertaking to prepare a right of way for a bullet train . Too much money going to the Welfare state and other garbage to rebuild infrastructure the way it should be . This may change somewhat after January 20th .
If not , we will continue to decline . What a dam shame .
The price of winning a World War and trying to help our former enemies and then through Leftist insanity , trying to save the world by turning ourselves into an International Lifeboat . The problem is , not enough people who are coming aboard want to help row anymore .
Merry Christmas , and hopefully a great New Year for everyone !

jeep_daddy Loc: Prescott AZ

They want to build a fast train here in California that will go from LA to San Francisco at billions of dollars. Every time they talk about it, the estimated costs go up. I mean every time! And like you said, the speed will not be anything like the trains in Europe and Japan. Some sections will be fast, some slow. So what's the point? I can get a 2 way flight to SF from LA for about $100 and be there in 45 minutes flight time. Yes, I'll have to add some time commuting to LAX etc, but you'd have that same commute and security checks at the train station.

Personally, I'm against it. The only reason the ass hats in Sacramento want it is so they can say we have one too. Dumb reasons to build it.

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater Fl

Actually, YOU don't pay for our airports. They are paid for by construction and management bond in each county or municipality. Tampa is in the process of a multi-million dollar airport improvement that more than triples the size of the airport. It is also paid for by charging the airlines that use it rent for their spaces.
As for airline accidents, they are fewer than the Amtrac train wrecks in Philly alone.

In the US These numbers are for 2014 and 2015 as 2016 has not been tabulated. However this has been another record year for the lack of airline accidents.
As U.S. passenger airlines racked up their fifth straight year without a fatal crash, last week the National Transportation Safety Board reported that the overall mishap rate for domestic carriers was one accident for roughly 300,000 departures, barely higher than the record low figure of one accident for every 400,000 or so flights the year before. By another measure, the latest data amounts to one accident per roughly 700,000 flight hours, or about half as frequently as during the late 1990s.

Commercial aviation in this country has become so safe that pilots routinely go through an entire career without ever experiencing engine trouble serious enough to result in an in-flight shutdown. In the extremely rare circumstance that an engine falters precisely during the moment of takeoff—the most critical moment of any flight—some jetliner models have automated systems able to compensate and safely make the plane climb with minimal input from the cockpit crew. Based on statistics, taxiing around crowded airports has become the most hazardous portion of flights in this country.





“We find ourselves with the kind of problem you want to have,” according to Peggy Gilligan, the Federal Aviation Administration’s top safety official. “Safety numbers are already so low that you must count close calls, accidents that didn’t happen” to target safety enhancements, she noted in the text of a speech to state aviation officials last Saturday in Washington.

Last year, a total of 641 people died around the world in commercial aviation, and the rate of serious jet accidents hit a historic low, according to the International Air Transport Association, the leading global airline industry trade group.

Bob Werre

Jerry, I beg to differ--the reason Government spends money is to promote the general welfare of the country. If it had to show a profit your taxes would be much-much higher. Sure, often all this gets mixed up in a mess of counterproductive things. But if government had to make a profit, then shouldn't we rent out our military to fight any war where they could afford us--hey it's only somebody's son getting blown away for some oil--like Iraq . How about some disease, and we have plenty of those it seems,--should government research and the resulting medications only be 'sold' to those with money! I don't think so, although it's actually happening often enough. Check your big Pharma stocks!

Lets assume the various governments decide to sell off the roads/highway system that always seem to need work. Hey man no gas tax! I could buy a chunk of road and charge a toll to be added to my PayPal account--so if I own a busy road I could rival the Rump in $$. However, if the road needs 10 million in repairs--not so good!

I'm a railfan and ride as often as possible, as I never had a chance when I was young. After WWII the railroads couldn't wait to dump the revenue loosing trains especially since the ICC had an iron grip on rates. This applied to both passenger service and freight on lesser routes. Often a passenger train was only kept running because of the government mail contracts. There has always been wars between the railroads and shippers. Shippers/passengers were being squeezed and the railroads were dying at a fast pace. Now most of the smaller towns have lost rail service and many are just a few crumbing buildings at best. At this time we really only have a half dozen major railroads where we had hundreds in the past. Those remaining railroads are making excellent returns but the Mainstreet public has been left behind 'cause the RR's need to make the big dollars!

I've generally traveled Amtrak in Midwest and Western States but usually have a worthwhile trip. The one Eastern exception was from New Orleans up into Mass. We were on time on all segments of the trip on the way up (3 trains), on the way back we ran a few hours late, but I've also spent hours waiting for airline delays too! Here in Texas, since the mid 70's several versions of semi-private hi-speed rail systems linking our major cities were proposed. All have been killed by too little cash, little political will or either SW Airlines fighting against it plus farmers saying their cows won't give milk anymore. Well, cows have been pasturing next to rail lines since belching steam engines so that doesn't hold water/milk! Furthermore since our government has been in bed with oil they would rather see jets burning and polluting than a few trains running leaner! I would also like to see SW Airlines lobbying budget!

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

I posted a couple of relevant images several days ago
http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-430357-1.html

Ed Greding Loc: Texas

If we're going to keep AMTRAK, I think one thing that needs to be learned is how to keep the trains on the tracks. It seems like they are always running off.

Ed Greding Loc: Texas

If we're going to keep AMTRAK, I think one thing that needs to be learned is how to keep the trains on the tracks. It seems like they are always running off.