Chinese break conventional train speed record

[guzzijohn]

If China can do this why can't we? With rising fuel prices,etc. it seems to me that the US should be able to develop something like this and be able to turn a profit,  especially if the routes were carefully chosen.
GuzziJohn

[Dixie Dude]

It cost billions to build a high speed train network and the Federal as well as State governments can't afford it right now. 

We invented the airplane and air travel is our mass mover as well as an interstate highway system and 175 million cars and trucks moving us.  China hasn't many airports, nor do they have many paved highways.  High speed rail is cheaper for them right now. 

Also in Europe, most of their railroads were bombed out in WWII, so they rebuilt for higher speed and more safety over and under roads.  Our infrastructure wasn't damaged.  Eisenhower built the interstate highway system, because we made more cars than anyone after WWII.  We already had an extensive rail system.  We were also the largest aircraft manufacturer after WWII so we built more planes.  We have not only more commercial planes than anyone, but also private planes. 

Most American's also like the convenience of their cars when traveling long distance, like a days ride to somewhere.  If it takes more than a day we fly.  Also if we are in a hurry to get somewere, we fly.  High speed rail is only good for trips less than 500-600 miles, this takes 3-4 hours by high speed rail.  You can drive it via interstate in 6-8 so why train.  If it is over 500-600 miles you either fly or drive 8-12 hours in a day.  High speed trains would at least have to stop at every major city, so that would make the 3-4 hours even longer.  Say I wanted to travel about 1,000 miles from Montgomery, AL to Milwaukee, WI (my wifes old hometown).  We drive it in 14 hours rotating.  Say you had a 200 mph train.  You could go non stop in 5 hours, but it would have to make a stop in Birmingham, Huntsville, Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis, and Chicago.  (I'm not using a straight route for the train because if would have to connect larger cities).  Ok if you only stopped for 15 minutes in each town along the way that is another 1-1/2 hours.  The train would have to slow down and speed up at each stop, so that probably adds another 1 to 1-1/2 hours.  Now you are at 8 hours, and since it is taking 8 hours, now you probably have to stop at least 1 hour for every one to have lunch, unless meals are served on the train?  Now we are at 9 hours, and we drove it in 14?  Why a high speed train?   

[guzzijohn]

Dixie Dude,
Your observations are quite correct. I was more referring to a long term project. For the most part it is hard to beat trains for efficiency. Start with some carefully selected routes and expand from there. Along the east coast may be the best bet where some of the population is already use to using trains and you have less car ownership.
GuzziJohn

[Dixie Dude]

I agree on the efficiency, but Americans aren't efficient.  They love their cars, or they want to get there in a hurry.  I've always thought the best route for high speed trains was the interstate median elevated. 

I also have an idea of adding a third rail to existing rail lines, like an old Lionel train.  Make high speed trains twice as wide so they can take turns faster on existing lines.  I think this would be faster building but would have to bypass railyards and veer off to stations.  Either way it ill be expensive. 

Interstate highways were designed for 90mph traffic, but it will require all vehicles to have a radar system installed to slow you down if overcoming a vehicle in front of you and warn you or something.  Ford tested 6 cars in a row, with only a driver in the front car.  The other cars were driven by computer.  Guy spead up to high speed, the 5 other cars followed at the same speed within 6' of each other.  He slammed on breaks, and all 5 cars behind him did the same and non hit each other.  Technology is here now, but hasn't been installed on cars yet. 

In 1976 Chrysler built a New Yorker with a Dodge colt engine (small 4 cyl).  They installed a 3' diameter flywheel in a vacuum case.  The car used the flywheel on acceleration and the 4 cyl engine only after getting up to speed.  Flywheel could either be spun up at home by plugging it up, or running the 4cyl engine while parked for about 20-30 minutes.  It was a old large car and got 36 mpg on the highway.  Why aren't they using flywheels instead of batteries for hybrids.  No maintenance.  No rare earth minerals to make a steel flywheel.  The Popular Science article also said 300' diameter flywheels could be built near existing nuclear power plants and hydro plants and even existing coal plants.  During off peek times the flywheels would be spun.  During peeks they would increase power production by 1/3 without building another power plant.  Why haven't they done that?

In the 1980's Volvo built a turbine engine about the size of a lunchbox.  It turned a generator.  The also had 8 batteries in the rear to power the rear wheels.  The turbine powered electric moters on the front wheels.  Batteries were only used in acceleration.  This small turbine-electric got 50 mpg on a full sized Volvo.  Why hasn't this been put into production?

We can install compressed natural gas stations at almost every gas station in America except more remote ones.  Natural gas is $1.34 a gallon compairing BTU to BTU content with gasoline.  We have a 200 year supply.  It is clean burning.  It is also the cleanest fossil fuel.  It can be made from algae, seaweed, and cow manure.  Why aren't we using it?  One reason is the oil companies don't want to install the compressor stations at their service stations. 

Lots of answers, lots of solutions, no one wants to make the decisions, or the patents are being bought up.   

[Dixie Dude]

I noticed the Chinese are spendin $315 billion on their high speed train system.  Cost in America for something like this is probable double or tripple.  They have cheap labor.  We can't afford it.  Also it says it will take 4 hours to travel the 800+ miles from Bejing to Shanghi.  Obviously no stops along the way.  Cheaper to fly here 800 or more miles.  Every major city has a large airport in America.   

[billy_56081]

So how will they secure a high speed rail? It would be an easy terrorist target.

[Gary G]

If it could be a profitable venture, a private company would have already built one.

[billy_56081]

If it could be a profitable venture, a private company would have already built one.

Excellent point! THe liberal parasites are always looking for more way to suckthe blood of the producers.

[guzzijohn]

Maybe, maybe not. Richard Branson and others are now putting space flight into private companies. I really doubt however that any of these private companies could have done it from scratch without all the taxpayer supported NASA research and flight experience.
GuzziJohn

[Dixie Dude]

Nasa is the only government agency that has paid for itself in research and development.  For every dollar spent on Nasa, there has been $100 worth of new products.  R&D always pays for itself in the long run.  Nasa's privately contracted bidders used money given to them to develop things like WD-40, licra used in women's girdles, better solar panels, better medical technology especially remote monitoring, new materials like kevlar (shields space station from space debris), smaller curcuits, smaller and cheaper computers, better jet engines.  The list goes on and on.  Giving money away like with welfare and food stamps only yeilds dependency.  High speed trains are easy to build, but the rail lines are the problem, not the actual building them (no new technology), but the overall cost to build and maintain the tracks.  Large reusable rockets have been designed to carry 500 passengers anywhere in the world in 45 minutes, but no one wants to spend billions of dollars for one.  Would cost as much as an aircraft carrier.  Nasa only gets $15 billion a year which is only 1% or less of the total Federal budget. 

[Pat/Rick]

+1 GaryG.  Our RR are already gov't funded/subsidized. High speed rails? Alot of the road beds are not set up fo it, alot would have to be supported/modified. Maintenance would be very intensive. Find a vantage point where you can observe just about any mainline (elevation helps), and notice just how much a train rocks and sways, or even moves up and down. (They are better now that lasers are being used by maintenance,things have changed a bit from my gandy dancinin' days). Still, cost would be the crippler, until we as a nation stops borrowing money to run our daily affairs, hi speed rail would be a mistake. 

[billy_56081]

I'm still wondering how these rail lines could be secured? I wonder how many survivors there would be in a train traveling 150 to 200 MPH derailed? I remember someone derailed a passenger train in AZ years ago. No one caught.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Palo_Verde,_Arizona_derailment

It is pretty simple, cut the track, have jumper wires to keep the circuit.

[guzzijohn]

How are our rail lines secured now? There is freight moved by train that could cause terrible loss of life if tampered with. It does not just have to be passenger trains attacks to cause death.
GuzziJohn

[jimster]

If China can do this why can't we? With rising fuel prices,etc. it seems to me that the US should be able to develop something like this and be able to turn a profit,  especially if the routes were carefully chosen.

Our government runs things like this in the red, they are not capable of running anything.

Current government run rails are in the red, they received stim package money to help them out as well.

My thoughts are the government needs to start with one little program they run, and try to run in the black, maybe work their way up to the post office...after they get some things they already broke running OK...maybe tackle Amtrak.  After a decade or so of winning back our trust, maybe we give them something new.  Fuel prices...?  Hey, maybe open up the drilling to at least what we had going, they shut down a lot of oil where there's already holes in the ground, feds are standing in the way as we speak. High speed trains won't help fuel prices, least the ones we have hasn't helped have they?  If they were worried about fuel prices they would start processing what we have here. 

Till then...might as well forget anything government run.   I must get back to work now...have to pay for Amtrak, they got a nice sum of money from the stim package you know, I'm trying to pay that off.  Can't see expanding that burden from my point of view, but I am the one paying, so my point of view may be different.

[Gary G]

I envision that one day we will live in a world without governments. It will be when people finally figure out that government endeavors always cost more and are less efficient than they are worth. That politicians are neither experts nor good managers of funds that always come out of the private sector, one way or the other. Central planning has been a dismal failure in all the world of socialism, yet many have fallen for the fatal conceit of the political calls for doing something with someone else money.

The first efficient railroad in America, I believe, was the Union-Pacific and it was privately funded in a time when the government was funding most rail construction. It proved to be better built and more efficiently designed that the government rails could not compete. They cried to the politicians, and so you have the first regulation in America. Government set prices to keep them in business. The result was that many became bankrupt and had to be subsidized by taxpayers.

[beerbelly]

Our rail systems are efficient? I took a train from Birmingham Alabama to ocean side Cal. in 1960, it took five days! I am sure if the federal government took it over it would take ten days and cost twenty times as much!