Login
or
Register
Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
Where is David Gunn when we need him?
Edit post
Edit your reply below.
Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="Paul Milenkovic"]</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> <strong>Sam1:</strong></div> <div> <p> </p> <p>Sir Madog:</p> <p>I have heard that the top speed on the ICE trains in Germany is now 187.5 mph. Is this true? Also, I have heard that the system has a relatively high number of speed restrictions or slow order track because of deferred maintenance. Is this true?</p> <p> </p> <div style="clear:both;"></div> <p> </p> </div> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p>Are you now a 200+ MPH HSR denialist? That is a provocative claim around here. [/quote]</p> <p>It is no secret that I believe passenger rail makes sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost to expand the highway and the airways is prohibitive. </p> <p>Quick should be one of the characteristics of passenger rail service in the corridors. End point to end point times that are sufficient to attract customers, who ideally would pay for the service, is a key requirement. I am not convinced that a train has to run 200 mph to achieve this goal. After all, if we are to believe Amtrak's numbers, it already carries more passengers between New York and Washington than either commercial airliners or buses. </p> <p>You are an engineer. You know better than I do that the cost of obtaining incrementally higher speeds is greater than the incremental step-up in the speeds, especially for the higher incremental speeds near the outside of the envelope. Very high speed comes with a very high price tag. If it is more than what is required for a viable solution, it is throwing money down the drain.</p> <p>When we built a power plant, it was scoped to meet the needs of our customers. We did not build it to meet the needs of Florida Power & Light's customers. The same rationale, it seems to me, applies to building so-called high speed rail in the U.S. It should be scoped for our needs. If a top speed of 160 mph will cut it, there is no reason to spend significantly more money to get to 200 mph or 187.5 mph. This is especially true for a country with combined federal, state, and local debt of more than $19 trillion. And that is before we talk about unfunded liabilities.</p>
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag
Update Reply
Join our Community!
Our community is
FREE
to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.
Login »
Register »
Search the Community
Newsletter Sign-Up
By signing up you may also receive occasional reader surveys and special offers from Trains magazine.Please view our
privacy policy
More great sites from Kalmbach Media
Terms Of Use
|
Privacy Policy
|
Copyright Policy