Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
Thanks for posting the article. The following statement caught my eye: [quote user="charlie hebdo"]Comparison to the European and Japanese railway systems cannot be made. Europe and Japan were bombed into rubble as a result of World War II. With nothing in the way, the Marshall Plan and SCAP — with an eye on the future — rebuilt the railway systems as straight as practicable.[/quote] I can only describe what happened in Germany. Of about 27,000 miles of track in 1945 only 5000 miles were destroyed completely. The remaining track was rebuilt as fast as possible to get finally one functioning transportation system. In 1967 the maximum speed was increased to 100 mph. In the mid 1970s a few routes were upgraded to 125 mph. only in 1991 the first two new-built high-speed routes were commissioned. So far "nothing in the way"  There is another point: [quote user="charlie hebdo"]Generation 1 (Acela Express) high-speed trains only accomplished a fraction of what they were touted to do. There is no reason to expect Generation 2 to be any different.[/quote] The design of the Acela Express (AE) needed to be changed massivly when FRA required the 800,000 lbs buffer load in 1999. The AE got 55% heavier than its TGV counterpart. Trap doors weren't possible any longer. The power to weight ratio plumeted from about 30 hp/ton to about 24 hp/ton. The consequences were felt in track and train maintenance, slower acceleration, station stops only at high platforms. That was an American own goal. Why should that happen again? The FRA crashworthiness standard allow an alternative approach with extensive use of CEM elements so that the Avila Liberty is expected to be 30% lighter than the AE. I don't see that the AEs are not practically. With 3.4 million passengers they had $596 million ticket revenue compared to 8.6 million passengers on the Regionals with $637 million. I think there is a misunderstanding regarding high-speed rail. It doesn't need to be the complete route. All German ICE routes have slower segments included. You want to offer the shortest travel time to the customer but on the other hand you need to compete with other modes of travel. And often it is only a few minutes that seperate you from air travel. According to Amtrak facts Amtrak carried more than three times as many riders between Washington, D.C., and New York City as all of the airlines combined, and more riders between New York City and Boston than all of the airlines combined. If you get slower like when replacing the AE with conventional equipment you loose to the airlines and that means you lose revenue. You need to replace with a service as fast as AE. The Avila Liberty is faster, 30% lighter per unit, has a 40% higher seat capacity, and has a tilt angle of 7° (3° higher than AE) allowing higher curve speeds. I think passengers can be glad that the cars are permanently couples. I wouldn't like to experience knuckle couplers at 150 mph. The not provable statements regarding speed comparisons I can't comment. It is a political decision if the USA want high-speed rail or not. Regards, Volker
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