Re: The joy of actual numbers, was Democracy

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 02/11/2024 23:23, rbowman wrote:

On Sat, 2 Nov 2024 19:23:44 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
 
 

If air travel becomes impossible high speed rail would suit the USA
perfectly. Plenty of empty space.
 
I think current top speeds are around 200mph.

 
The US struggles with low speed rail.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_High-Speed_Rail
 
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-03-21/high-speed-rail
 
That's the poster child for screwing up high speed rail.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acela
 
Acela is more successful but when it averages out at 70 mph it isn't
exactly high speed. The problem with plenty of empty space is that it's
more or less empty. No large metropolitan areas, no ridership, no money.
 
This city has two train stations and no passenger service. The Milwaukee
Line is gone completely. The station is the home of the Boone and Crockett
club abd much of the right of way has been converted to bike trails.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_station_(Northern_Pacific_Railway)
 
The other still has tracks. The coal trains wave as they pass by.

 
Don't panic. The same is true of all countries - rail suffered because
cars came.
 
BUT the Japanese have high speed trains running through empty places to
full ones just the same
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shinkansen
 
I am not saying that right now its all easy peasy profit making stuff.
Just that trains already exist that will, on the standard rail gauge, do
200mph or more.
 
The USA already has the transcontinental tracks, they just need upgrading.
 
The key feature is that most passengers now choose air, because its
cheap, and the freight gets hauled by road or very slow train.
 
These are economic decisions.
 
If high speed rail freight became cheaper than a truck, people would
switch to it.
 

I think in many cases it is. one stretch of I-40 parallels the BNSF(?)
mainline, and we’d drive along seeing one VERY long train after another
about 15 minutes apart. not high speed, but faster than cars on the
interstate.

High speed rail requires a major investment to upgrade the track. There are
still a lot of grade crossings out west that would need to be upgraded.

And if fuel travel became too expensive, and electric cars didn't have
the range, then concerting main roads to railways, and putting the
electric cars on board a train to recharge, is not so stupid.
 
The history of transport is absolutely dominated by economics. Sailing
ships were way cheaper than a horse and cart. Trains were cheaper and
faster than a stage coach or the Pony express.
 
In the UK we built canals, which were cheaper than horse and cart, but
then the railways came, and they were even cheaper, and finally we had
motor vehicles and they were cheaper still.
 
If it turns out that high speed rail is cost and time competitive with
aircraft, that's what we will get.
 
 
 

--
Pete