Sunday Open Thread
This image has been bouncing around the internets this weekend – I first saw it here, although I do not know the original source:
Captures the sentiment well. The United States is being left behind by the rest of the globe. While countries such as Saudi Arabia invest in high speed rail, the House of Representatives and HSR critics in California are making excuses as to why we should continue to rely on old and obsolete infrastructure.
California will remain mired in economic crisis until those critics and opponents are overcome.
All of the other big kids have fast, fancy, aerodynamic sports cars while we (the US) are stuck with these things that look and move like tanks (supposedly in the name of safety). Its no small wonder that more people in the US don’t ride the rails.
“California will remain mired in economic crisis until those critics and opponents are overcome.”
Not just California, but America.
That’s pretty embarrassing and pathetic. And just to think; the GOP wants to kill Amtrak entirely! All in the name of protecting the rich of this nation. I give our country by mid-century to be a full-blown third world country: crumbling infrastructure with the very rich and very poor.
Stephen Smith Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 5:36 pm
The GOP wants to remove Amtrak’s Northeast Corridor subsidies, which would put it in the same funding position as the big intercity routes in France, Germany, and Japan.
Granted, Amtrak would still wither and die due to the FRA, but that’s not a funding problem.
Nikko P Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 8:55 pm
I hope you don’t think that the NEC would actually be sulf-sustaining in its current condition.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 11:15 am
What NEC subsidies?
Beta Magellan Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 12:51 pm
Is the NEC’s depreciation still written off?
That isagreat comparison of systems from the picture. I’m reminded, isn’t the Chinese train copycatted from the French TGV?
Useless Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 6:15 pm
@ Brandon from San Diego
No, Alstom didn’t sell any high speed train set to China due to the fear of Chinese piracy.
swing hanger Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 6:29 pm
Alstom did sell one of their designs (the Pendolino) to the Chinese, but without the critical tilting technology, which Alstom wisely withheld.
K.T. Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 6:28 pm
The Chinese one on the image looks CRH3, which is modified Siemens Velaro.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_CRH3
Alstom sold modified Pendolino ETR-600 to China.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/China_Railways_CRH5
ericmarseille Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 12:39 am
The Chinese HSR is japanese and german (Siemens) inspired rather.
More on what could be the generational change, or at least a saturated market:
http://blog.cleantechies.com/2011/07/29/has-the-united-states-hit-peak-cars/
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 7:45 pm
Some other data:
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/meet/11rev_est/pres/hill.pdf
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 7:48 pm
Are these predictions likely to be accurate, or are they overly rooted in the past?
http://www.cargroup.org/pdfs/ami.pdf
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:31 am
I think in an economic downturn with high unemployment and high underemployment, such studies are completely useless.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 11:07 am
I would hope that the economy recovers by 2025.
I like the picture of the AVG for France. If I’m not mistaken, there’s a chance that’s the train CAHSR is going to use.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 9:51 pm
It all depends on how strategic Alstom’s bribe payments are.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 6:48 am
If I judge from from fines paid for “improper business practices”, Alstom’s bribing ability is not what it used to be. It paid about €1 million in fines while Siemens paid more than €1 billion.
Alstom is also very bad at lobbying.
In Saudi Arabia, they got it all wrong and their lobbying was rated zero by business magazines. They partenered with a “non-royal” bank (Al Rajhi) and relied on president Sarkozy for political lobbying. King Abdullah hates Sarkozy so much that he even cancelled an official visit to France.
Talgo, on the other hand, partenered with Al Shoula, a bank owned by a royal prince, and was supported by the king of Spain, whom King Abdullah calls “my dearest friend Juan Carlos”.
When newspapers published photos of the two kings strolling hand in hand, everybody knew Alstom could kiss the deal goodbye. Except Alstom who kept ridiculing themselves saying they were confident they would win because they had built 600 high-speed trains and exported 200 while Talgo had only partly built 46 and exported none.
Alstom has become an engineer-dominated firm with no political experts on its board. Its chances of winning the CHSR bid are nil.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:06 am
Andre, nothing you said contradicts what I said.
PS High speed vehicle procurement for California is now 20 years away. All of the pointy-nosed foamer train pictures will have been cut up or be near retirement by then.
It doesn’t make sense to buy 400kmh wonder-trains to operate shorter segments of the theoretical CHSR line between minor markets. Buy less exotic trains, as few as necessary at a time, and save hundreds of millions. Finally, should a commercially viable length of track between commercially meaningful end-points be ready for operation, then and only then buy and operate at the highest speeds.
My bet is that nobody is going to be talking 350kmh in 20 years anyway: far too energy wasteful. There’s nothing at all wrong with sub-300 or circa-300 speeds and less exotic trains forever.
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:34 am
The more I see the more I’m convinced that the upper limit of economical speeds for steel-wheel-on-steel-rail technology is in the 300-320km/h range.
Donk Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 11:03 am
MAGLEV!!!!!!!
StevieB Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 11:08 am
Have you been reading Popular Science magazine again?
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:35 am
@StevieB:
I think that maybe you have been reading old copies of Popular Science that had lots of articles on trains. Only the ignorant are dismissive of technology they don’t understand.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 11:32 am
I thought it was self driving electric cars that can travel at 100 MPH for 500 miles and don’t get stuck in traffic.
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 1:29 pm
that’s why I said steel-wheel-on-steel-rail
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 4:10 pm
At high speeds wheel/rail friction becomes negligible compared to air drag which affects any vehicle whether steel-wheel or maglev. Steel wheels are very energy-efficient compared to rubber tires, which means no car, even electric, will be as efficient as a train.
Derek Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 4:48 pm
As a train gets longer, the amount of air drag per passenger approaches zero.
HSTSheldon Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 6:51 pm
Derek. You are correct. A lot of persons do not realize just how aerodynamic the profile of an AMTRAK brick is. Very long and slender means it approximates the shape of a needle. You don’t get more aerodynamic than that!!
D. P. Lubic Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 5:45 pm
Came across these while looking for something else, and thought they might add to the fun:
Burbank monorail, ca. 1911:
http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/paleofuture/2011/11/burbanks-aerial-monorail-of-the-future/
The Scottish Bennie Railplane:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bennie_Railplane
http://ssa.nls.uk/film.cfm?fid=1341
J. Wong Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 11:56 am
“20 years away”? I know you’re being pessimistic, but I think it will be sooner. Five years until completion of the ICS, and they will start construction on the next segment before that to give an IOS no more than 10 years out.
Yes, I’m being optimistic, so sue me.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 12:39 pm
Circa 200-250kmh trains will be adequate — more than adequate — for any trip shorter than LA-SF or LA-Sacto (or LA-Livermore, for that matter.) The market demand isn’t there, the marginally shorter trip time buys nothing.
Why waste money on something not useful? Something that depreciates by tens of millions a year, into the bargain?
There are a dozen such inter-regional train designs available (assuming anybody were to engage in open and competitive tendering on the global,market … ho ho ho!), they have potential resale value, they’re perfectly suited to cascading to other services (including other services running on the very same CHSR tracks!) if or when the super-speed trains ever arrived.
Paying hundreds of millions for something unnecessary that won’t be needed for years and will be obsolete if and when it is needed is patently ridiculous, extremely wasteful, and egregiously wasteful. Which makes it perfect CHSRA/PBQD shoo-in. (Got to “test” the “special local design” trains “made in the USA” for “unique American Conditions” for at least 10 years “just to be sure”.)
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 5:18 pm
I generally don’t agree with the Eurogreens but I think their argument that SNCF picked the wrong fight when it chose to compete with the airlines deserves to be discussed. They say that instead of investing billions on the TGV it could have upgraded legacy lines for 125mph and run trains at that speed to nearly every city. That, they think, would really have taken cars off the road.
ericmarseille Reply:
November 9th, 2011 at 11:47 am
I’ve taken 125 mph trains in England, in the 70′s, a few years before boarding my first TGV, which impressed me enough, since I never had at that time reached such speeds before, bet it in France or elsewhere.
Therefore I can declare with confidence that I’d never had become such a train user and lover hadn’t the TGV aimed for 200 mph. I sincerely hope it can reach 220 mph on as many lines as possible, 220 mph being enough to me, no need to aim faster, too costly and dangerous.
If rail was limited to 125mph, I’d certainly be using my car right now even for 500 miles + trips.
I’ve been contemplating recently using my car for my next trip to Paris, because I’ll need to rent a van up there, and after a lot of reflexion, I’ll still take the TGV because of the comfort, coolness and speed.
Andre Peretti Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
The European Greens put the upper limit at 200kmh (125mph). They argue that at higher speeds most of the power is absorbed by air drag, which is a huge waste of energy. They compare HSR to the Concorde, the kerosene-guzzling supersonic airliner the world didn’t need.
Alon Levy Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 1:24 pm
Ironically, if supersonic transportation had succeeded, boosters of all stripes today would derisively ask people to imagine a world without supersonic planes.
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
For environmental purposes going faster than 200 km/h is definitely not great, but I was talking more about the business case.
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 1:31 pm
Sorry, thought you were responding to my comment above
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 2:35 pm
If you want to be really green you stay at home. Only go places you can walk to.
Donk Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 10:00 pm
I don’t give a crap what kind of train they use, as long as it gets me from LA to SF in under 3 hours before I die.
VBobier Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 10:06 pm
I second the motion.
Brandon from San Diego Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 6:19 am
Based on the pics and the color schemes, I also like the French TGV. However, I wonder what it will look like with a CHSRA paint scheme.
Eric M Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 8:48 am
It definitely looks cool painted red for the Italians, but I think the CA paint scheme the way it is right now is too much. I think the German or Chinese paint scheme keeps the train clean and sleek. Maybe for CA, a blue and yellow stripe down the side with it wavy in the front.
In other news and opinions, is this letter appearing in the current edition of “Destination: Freedom,” the newsletter of the National Corridors Initiative:
“Misleading Aviation Propaganda’ In Our Last Issue?
“To The Editor:
“In the issue of 31 October, you reported on the proposed Heathrow – Gatwick high-speed rail link. You quoted Willie Walsh, CEO of the merged BA and Iberia, as saying that with 35 miles of high-speed rail you can go 35 miles: with 2 miles of runway, you can go anywhere in the world.
“This is a misleading piece of aviation propaganda which has surfaced before.
“My response to it is to say that there are other relevant statistics, too.
“As well as the 2 miles of runway, you need taxiways – and there are around 30 miles of taxiways at New York’s JFK airport.
“The French will tell you that their original high-speed line, from Paris to Lyon, takes up less land than Paris Charles de Gaulle airport. I was a bit skeptical when I first saw this, but then I read a report on the planned 125 mile high-speed line in Morocco which will take 1200 hectares. I happened to have statistics on Gatwick at the time: that single-runway airport takes up 647 hectares. Then I looked at Hong Kong Airport – 1255 hectares.
“Then look at Dallas-Fort Worth airport – larger than Manhattan and the cities of Boston, San Francisco and Miami. And Denver airport occupies 53 square miles – that’s equivalent to a square block of land with each side measuring 7 miles! I believe it’s the fourth largest airport in the world.
“Best wishes,
“Andrew Sharp
Executive Director
International Air Rail Organization”
The whole edition is here:
http://www.nationalcorridors.org/df3/df11072011.shtml
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 6th, 2011 at 10:54 pm
Some airport follies
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montréal-Mirabel_International_Airport
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stewart_International_Airport
Reality Check Reply:
November 11th, 2011 at 10:41 am
The response is misleading as well. A 2 mile runway would require no more than 6 miles of taxiways. The writer extrapolates an entire 4-runway airport to a single runway expansion. In the end, that runway can still take you anywhere in the world and the rail cannot.
It’s stupid arguments like that that get people like Andrew Sharp into credibility trouble.
The Bakersfield Californian has endorsed the California high-speed rail business plan saying “It won’t be easy, but HSR still makes sense”. The deal maker in their opinion: jobs.
Why isn’t the Acela pictured?
Peter Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 7:36 am
Because they’re making the point that, in general, our passenger rail system sucks.
Richard Mlynarik Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 9:08 am
Because your Chinese-manufactured LCD display would crack under the weight of real AMURRRRRRRICAN high speed hardware.
Joey Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 10:38 am
The real reason we must develop our own signaling and track standards is that foreign equipment can’t handle the gravitational stress of supermassive American trains.
Gag Halfrunt Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 12:30 pm
Because, at the risk of stating the obvious, the Acela looks like a real high speed train even if it isn’t one.
adirondacker12800 Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 12:45 pm
Aclela can do 165 MPH if it wants to, it’s just that it never wants to. It does do 150 for short stretches. It’s not the train’s fault the track other places isn’t up to it.
It was not easy to develop SLBMs and the many other Cold War military systems and the now retired Space Shuttle. The automobile is so personally convenient when it is not in traffic. The U.S. made choices over over the past 50 years. Not building HSR when it was less expensive and cities were less developed was a very poor choice. We could have easily developed or partnered in developing an HSR. We chose not to. Now we have a selection off the shelf. Either the opponents get on board HSR or propose an alternative.
matt Reply:
November 7th, 2011 at 8:52 am
naah, too much work to come up with an alternative; I’d rather just scream “boondoggle!”
That first picture makes me think of a joke article in a model railroad magazine that showed readers how to model a rail-trail (one of those bike and jogging paths that get built on top of abandoned railroad tracks). Because in most of America, there just ain’t any train service whatsoever.
Wow, this picture is embarrasing. I think this picture is more effective than actually explaining to anybody about HSR, especially those tards in Congress.
John Mica becomes amenable to Amtrak running an upgraded NEC:
http://transportationnation.org/2011/11/08/congressman-john-mica-northeast-corridor-must-be-the-high-speed-rail-priority-and-amtrak-can-keep-it/
(R) Senator from Illinois states the obvious:
“Putting people in high-speed rail across Nebraska makes no sense,” he said.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/transportation-report/railroads/192347-sen-kirk-high-speed-rail-should-be-limited-to-short-distances