Just wondering, but: how many nations have HST's operating that are faster than our Accela?
For the sake of comprehensiveness, let's also count countries that have such HST's running but are of a different country's design or manufacture.
There are many interpretations for what HST-type speed is, but let's go with a common one: a train is an HST if it can and does maintain (not all, but) sustained running at 125 mph (200/kph) or more. Notice that Accela meets that definition. - a. s.
al-in-chgo wrote: Just wondering, but: how many nations have HST's operating that are faster than our Accela? For the sake of comprehensiveness, let's also count countries that have such HST's running but are of a different country's design or manufacture. There are many interpretations for what HST-type speed is, but let's go with a common one: a train is an HST if it can and does maintain (not all, but) sustained running at 125 mph (200/kph) or more. Notice that Accela meets that definition. - a. s.
125? That's not true HST.
Let's say the USA is rather backward and lagging with HST technology. Yes they rattle a acela down tracks at 125-150.. but that is about all that set of tracks can do.
True high speed has been done by the Japanese and Europeans for decades. Such trains are totally isolated from grade crossings etc. And BOY do they fly. In fact Ive heard that some French trains managed to kill regional airlines by beating thier own schedules.
I think the Australians have or had Luxury trains that goes from one coast to the other.. not too fast but has everything a passenger could want for the hours and days spent on that train.
I recall a experiment where they mounted a set of jets on a railroad something with wheels and broke 175 mph but it wont happen in revenue.
I have heard of some maglev experiments in popular magazines where they have the ability to generate the high speeds above and way beyond piddling 150. Heck, Ive been at 140+ a few times in a very powerful car. But that I save just for me and write it off to youth gone by.
Typing in Maglev in google for the USA turns up projects numbering about 10-30 around the USA where there are efforts or baby steps being made towards true HST in the USA.
We have the land, money and the room to make it happen but until someone actually gets out of the research lab and builds a working HST I'll stick with a Southwest 737.
Let's start counting:
USA (That's all for the western hemisphere!)
England
France
Germany
Netherlands
Japan
Taiwan (I think)
China (Shanghai Maglev)
Italy
Spain
(how about Austria, Denmark, Switzerland? I don't know...)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Also:
Belgium, Portugal, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Czech, Russia, South Korea, Turkey (almost commissioned), Austria (2008)
Taiwan is in service; we just hired some of the expats who worked on it.
RWM
I lived in Australia from 1999 to 2004. It has some really neat trains, but they are not high speed trains.
The quickest train runs daily from Brisbane, Queensland, to Rockhampton, Queensland. Three days a week it goes to Cairns. Its maximum speed is 160 kilometers or 100 miles per hour, although there are only a few short stretches where it achieves these speeds. The train is called the Tilt Train because it incorporates tilt train technology.
The train to Cairns leaves Brisbane at 6:25 p.m. and gets to Cairns at 7:20 p.m. The times are somewhat different when the train is only going as far as Rockhampton. Interestingly, the QR is a narrow gauge railway, albeit a first class property.
The Tilt Train has business class and coach class carriages. I rode it twice from Brisbane to Townsville. It is very comfortable. Meals are served at the passenger's seat, thereby eliminating the cost associated with restaurant cars. Even though it is an overnight train three days a week, it does not have any sleeping or lounge cars. Passengers have a variety of entertainment options. They can even switch to a camera mounted in the nose of the locomotive and watch the track roll by.
Another interesting QR train is The Outback. It runs from Brisbane to Long Reach, which amongst other things is the home of the Qantas Airline's Museum. Qantas, which is one of the oldest, continuous airlines in the world, got its start in 1926 in Longreach. All of Qantas' 747-400s are named Longreach. Initially I thought it was because of the long reach, i.e. non-stop capabilities of the airplane, but it turned out that they are named for Longreach, Queensland. A trip to Longreach on The Outback is a great way to see the Australian Outback.
The train that runs across Australia, at least from east to west, is the Indian Pacific. I took it from Sydney to Perth. It is a three day journey on conventional equipment. The cars are 1950s vintage that were built in Australia under a license granted by Budd. The trip includes the longest stretch of straight track in the world - 298.5 miles. The train runs through the Blue Mountains, which are awesome, and across The Nullarbor Desert. At Broken Hill, which is the home of the Flying Doctors, Adelaide, and Kalgoorlie, where a large open pit gold mine is located, passengers can de-train and take a bus tour of these locations. They are a very worthwhile interlude.
The other two trains that I have ridden are the Overland between Adelaide and Melbourne and the City Link between Melbourne and Sydney. The Overland is equipped with cars similar to those found on the Indian Pacific, but the City Link is a bullet style train that bears a sharp resemblance to the Acela and Tilt Train.
I go back to Australia every 15 months or thereabout, and I include at least one cross country train trip while I am there. This year I am going in February. I plan to fly to Adelaide. Then I will take the Overland to Melbourne, where I lived, and then the City Link to Sydney. The only premier Australian train that I have not ridden is the Ghan, which runs from Adelaide to Darwin.
Samantha, that was a great accounting of Australian passenger trains. Thank you! - a. s.
Where do these other countries (many of them considered to be "lesser" compared to the USA manage to scrape together the money for these billion dollar developments? And the United States can't do this because some influential voice constantly sells the idea that we can't afford it, that no one will ride it, that it can't be justified in the current "fill in the blank" climate. Maybe 43 years from .....
These Nations or States have the ability to make things happen and right away.
The United States needs Studies, EPA impact studies, committiees, local input (NOT IN MY BACK YARD!!) and years of wasted effort.
It is my understanding we slammed a road through to Alaska in 6 months to a years time in world war two. Now a mile of free way is years in the process before the first survey peg is installed.
Sweep the bloat away, find the money, get the property and make it happen. Putting boots on the ground as they say.
Nah, they rather go back to thier currently scheduled committee meeting.
Prairietype wrote: Where do these other countries (many of them considered to be "lesser" compared to the USA manage to scrape together the money for these billion dollar developments? And the United States can't do this because some influential voice constantly sells the idea that we can't afford it, that no one will ride it, that it can't be justified in the current "fill in the blank" climate. Maybe 43 years from .....
Most of the "lesser" countries have it because they never invested in much of a highway network, so the population lives in cities, not suburbs. Because of the population living there, the cities have transit to support intercity train travel. Because they can connect to the existing rail network for travel outside their country, which leverages their investment. And, because they have chosen to place a high tax on gasoline. You can argue which is the "chicken" and which is the "egg", I suppose.....
The NEC works well because the Northeast has less roads, more transit and big population centers. If you build a ground up, HS line in the US, say Atlanta to Chattanooga, as is now being actively studied, where would the riders come from and where would they go to? The major reason it's even being studied is becaus there is no more room for more runways at the airport, I-75 is pretty close to full, and a second airport or additional highway could be much more costly than the HS rail line. So, if it's going to happen in the US, it's for a whole differents set of reasons than elsewhere in the world.
I live in metro Atlanta, but a Hartsfield Jackson to Chatt rail line would do me almost no good. Just to get to the rail line, would be about half the trip to Chatt, and the worst part of the driving would be over - might as well just finish the trip in my car. The 4.5 million in metrol ATL are so sprawled out that you can't build a single rail line that would provide meaningful service for all of them. If ATL never had the interstates built, it might be more densely settled and a better fit for intercity rail.
Just bring in the HST straight to the airports.
If Kennedy or BWI or similar ground to a halt because of filthy weather, the people will continue to "Fly" by HST Direct from airport ternimal to airport ternimal. In fact they may like it sooo much that more people will drive to the airport, park and HST it. In time they might say.. whoops time for me to hiss instead of time for me to jet.
Im taking another look at the Moller Skycars while I wait for HST... those things are potentially VERY useful bypassing that choked highway I fought today.
Southwest does not fly from DFW if by that you mean DFW International Airport. It flies from Love Field, which is approximately 11 miles east of DFW.
Southwest flies 60 flights a weekday between Dallas and Houston, 26 flights between Dallas and Austin, and 30 flights between Dallas and San Antonio. Southwest's 737s can carry an average of 149 passengers. Its load factor in 2007 on its Texas flights was approximately 80 per cent. This means that it carried approximately 3,595,072 passengers between these three cities during the week. The number of flights on the weekend and over certain holiday periods varies from the weekday operations.
Add in the passengers carried on the weekends or special holiday flights, plus the passengers carried to its other Texas cities (Amarillo, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Harlingen, and Lubbock), and Southwest carried more passengers in Texas in 2007 than all of Amtrak's long distance trains (3,819,267).
Southwest is only one of the many airlines serving Texas. When you throw in the passengers carried by the other carriers (American, Continental, etc.) within Texas, as well as into and out of Texas, the airlines serving Texas probably enplaned and deplaned more passengers than Amtrak carried over its system with the possible exception of the Northeast Corridor.
Approximately 15 years ago, if I remember correctly, a consortium of investors proposed building a high speed rail line to connect first two and then all the Texas Triangle cities. I believe the first candidates for the rail line were Dallas and Houston. Their proposal did not fly - no pun intended - because the state legislature would not guarantee the bonds needed to raise the funds for the project. They promoters could not raise enough money in the capital markets to float the project. It died.
Southwest Airlines, amongst others, opposed public funding for the project. It argued that a potential competitor should not receive government money to complete against a private enterprise.
Supporters of the rail project argued that Southwest was hypocritical. It gets, so they argued, a hefty subsidy from the federal government because the airports that if flies from were built with municipal bonds, which attract a lower interest rate because they are tax free. This in turn supports lower landing fees, etc. The supporters also pointed to the argument that the commercial airlines, including Southwest, don't pay their fair share of the costs associated with the air traffic control system. These two points are debatable. The airline trade group, for example, has some reasonable numbers that show airline passengers pay a disproportinately high percentage of the control system costs.
The subsidies received by the airlines, even in a worse case scenario, don't match the subsidies received by Amtrak's passengers, especially those traveling on long distance trains. In 2007 airline ticket buyers received an average subsidy of approximately $5.75 per passenger. Amtrak's passengers, by comparison, received an average system wide subsidy of approximately $40 per ticket. The long distance train riders received an average subsidy of approximately $138 per passenger.
In addition to the federal subsidies pay to Amtrak, it gets other subsidies. For example, the Dallas and Fort Worth stations are owned by the cities. Amtrak shares space in them with other carriers and pays a nominal fee for its space.
The Dallas Union Station complex is being refurbished. Yep! The city will use taxpayer bonds to do the job. One could argue, I think, that this is a subsidy akin to the airport subsidy referred to above.
The airline subsidy numbers were taken from NARP's website and are subject to revision. Other than adding them up, I have not yet had time to dig into them.
NARP makes a big deal about the subsidies received by airline passengers and highway users. By comparision, however, the subsidies received by Amtrak's patrons appear to be higher. I have suggested to them that they should focus on rail passenger issues.
Lets backup a little bit.
The "Acela" does not "rattle" down the track. Inside at full speed it rides better than an Amfleet Car. The locomotive rides hard at 150, about the same as an F40-PH at 80 mph.
The Acela was based on Alstrom's TGV 300 klm French train. U.S. Safety Standards has made the Acela heavier than the French version. As the Northeast Coridor is built on old railroad Right of Ways, buying more land to take the curves out would be too costly taking homes and factories, more acceleration was needed. Gearing was set for a 250 klm cruse speed (153), It has hit over 170 mph during testing. Multi-deck parking garages are built, not only in the city, but also outside majior cities on the Interstate Beltways.
"You Build It, They Will Come" The 20 Acela Bullet Trains running between Boston and Washington reported a 19% increase in riders in just 2007.
Don U. TCA 73-5735
The Acela Express is not "based on the TGV". The TGV is not a tilt train, like the AE is. The only things that the AE shares with the TGV are the traction components and wheel truck setup. Other than that, it's a new-build that is distantly related (pardon the pun) to Bombardier's LRC.During testing, the AE hit 169 mph and did not hit or exceed 170 mph.Germany's ICE 1 is comparable to Acela Express in weight, although overall it is lighter. (ICE 1's power cars are 172,000 lbs whereas AE power cars, not "locomotives", are 204,000 lbs; the heaviest cars on the ICE 1 weigh a bit over 128,000 lbs whereas the AE's heaviest cars, next to the power cars, weigh 142,000 lbs. Going with newer ICE designs, the average per-car weight of ICE-T tilt trains is 110,231 pounds.) Not only is the AE not all that much heavier than other high-speed trains, it's not even that heavy for US passenger rolling stock.It's not necessary to "take the curves out" on traditional railroad rights of way, such as the NEC is; certainly if the ICE-T can achieve average speeds of 120 mph, and the X2000 achieve average speeds of 109 mph, on traditional railroads, the AE ought to be able to achieve similar results. The FRA has gotten in the way, in some respects, requiring "Class 8 track" (whose specifications still elude me; France and Germany run high speed on 132 lb/yd track whereas more 140 lb/yd tracks on the NEC are limited to "Class 7"??) for operation faster than 125 mph, and of course the need for newer constant-tension catenary wire, for rapid operation on the former PRR in particular.
As far as "build it and they will come", all the proofs to the effect (the high-speed endeavors of other countries combined with the example in the USA and even Canada) ought to make arguments to the contrary moot.
I have a solution to the red herring about subsidies.
Let's eliminate all direct payment subsidies to Amtrak.
Then we'll have the Federal and State governments build, and maintain all the track and right of ways, like they do the highways that are the right of way for busses and trucks. Then we'll have the local governments build and maintain all the train stations and yards like they do the airports that are the terminals for the airlines. And, of course, the dispatch centers which perform the same function as Air Traffic Control. Oh, did I forget hire and pay the railroad police like they do the traffic enforcement and accident investigation on the highways and at the airports.
With the government owned infrastructure open to anyone, subject to a rr fuel and ticket tax, I bet you would see lots of new railroads serving both freight and passengers. Anyone who could afford to buy an engine and a couple of cars could start scheduled or on demand passenger service.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Already tried in Britain in relation to rail, right? Open access does not exist anywhere in the world, at present. The complexity of dispatching would require a lot of federal oversight. It'd be like if we had Amtrak take over all the railroads, or if you like, a return to USRA. (And IIRC, the prevailing judgment is that USRA was directly, not indirectly, responsible for the so-called "golden age" of US railroading.)
Hold on; we gotta take away direct subsidy payment to all commuter rail and transit, too. Let's see what that results in...
Not precisely a definative reply but this article:-
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2007/09/7742/new_lines_boost_rails_high_speed_performance.html
gives a ranking of the fastest point to point trains in each country.
US ranks 12th.
Just to clarify, not to start a debate.
Speed of the Acela has at least two different published values. The U.S. Dept. Of Transportation had a News Release by then Secretart Rodney Slater on October 18, 2000.
"Acela Express services will operate at speeds of up to 150 mph between New York and Boston and 135 mph between New York and Washington D.C. During testing on the NEC, the train achieved speeds of 170 mph."
The "BLE" news letter from the same time claimed 168 mph test speed.
----------------------
Amtrak awarded the $611 milllion contract to build 20 "American Flyers" (name later changed to Acela) to a Consortium led by Bombardier of Canada. "Bombardier , which holds exclusive rights to TGV technologies in North America, was joined by Alstom, maker of the French TGV." Bombardier held 75% of the Consortium, Alstom 25%. The "Buy American" meant building them in Bombardier's Barre Vermont (now closed) and Plattsburgh New York factories. The builder, Bombardier, also provided the entire $611 million financing to Amtrak.
-----------------
Noted Amtrak changes among others:
1. 4 axel cars, so one car could be remover for service or cars added.
2. Must meet the new 1999 DOT Safety Standard. Engine crew protection, car integrity, emergency rescue from passenger cars
3. Must operate on 12,000 and 25,000 volts AC at 25 or 60 Hz.
4. The proven Bombardier "Tilt Technology" to be provided to tilt 6.5 degrees.
5. Airliner type interiors, latching overhead cargo bins, fold down large tables, 115 volt outlets at each seat.
The finished train ended up 45% heavier than a TGV. Another result was a train 4" TO WIDE to meet the AAR Plate C Clearance Standard ! The "tilt" had to be reduced and speed restricted in some curves. The 180 year old Canton MA Viaduct was widen. Shortly after service started the "to be corrected Punch List" grew to 92 items incluiding some of the engine shrouding blowing off at full speed.
While tilting makes the ride comfortable, it does not lessen the impact on the rails in a curve. The train pays for its self, but Amtrak has taken a big hit on track maintenance making the total a losing investment. The ticket price is competitive with airlines, and with the airport security and delays, makes the city to city time faster.
The remark that the Acela is costly in terms of track maintenance -- I am not doubting or demanding references, just curious. Is the maintenance impact of the Acela relative to what they used before (AEM-7 and Amfleet) quantifiable, or is there anecdotal evidence regarding extra or more frequent repairs? Amtrak is also said to be critical of the Amfleet streetcar-style inside-bearing trucks and prefers the GSI swing motion trucks on account that Amfleet is "hard on the tracks." Is any of this quantifiable or is it just a hunch or expert knowledge from operating or maintenance people?
The reason I ask, my dad was at GATX in the late 60's and early 70's when there was a research interest in high-speed rail. He talked about the dynamic or impact forces going up with the square of speed, and part of the interest in EMU's over locomotives (OK, power cars) was having enough adhesion not to get into a high-speed wheel slip, part of it was reducing axle loads to reduce maintenance requirements on the track.
For all of the talk about America needs to be ashamed for not having HSR, HSR is a costly undertaking, not only in terms of a purpose-built track, but in terms of maintenance of both track and rolling stock. Much of the British APT research was on addressing those concerns. I am not questioning whether 150 MPH trains are hard on the tracks, but I am curious if the maintenance burden of HSR is a known, quantifiable item.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
The 157.6 miles from Boston to New Haven, the section with the most curves as it follows the "Shore Line" of the former New Haven Railroad, was not under wire untill 1999. All track has been rebuilt and high speed switches installed (with moving frogs).
Amtrak service in this area was with F40-PH locomotives and Amfleet cars that toping out at 110 mph. Service was roughly every 2 to 4 hours. Today you have an Acela or a Regional train with the HHP8 every hour, more often at peak hours. The Acela has two 6,000 HP locomotives, one on each end, one pulls, the other pushes, that got to be tough on curves.
The Right Of Way is not fenced, ever see a Deer that was hit by an Acela, no one hurt but Acela had to be towed.
JT22CW wrote:Indeed.
Agree!
Down here in the "interesting" southern state of GA, there is, and has been a proposal to do a commuter rail project. The capital cost is $375M or so with an annual operating subsidy of $4M or so. Do get the equivalent congestion relief by building highways would cost about $1B, presumably with no operating subsidy.
Just comparing these numbers with a quick "back of the envelope" calculation, if you took the $1B and spent the $375 to do the commuter rail project and then stuck another $80M in the bank at 5% to cover the operating subsidy, you'd have $545 to give back to the taxpayers.
Commuter rail is a no-brainer! But, the project's been stalled for years because of the way the "game" is rigged. Transportation capital money comes from the state, but operating subsidies have to come from the local counties. Since the state has lots of small counties, any regional project requires all of them to get together and agree how to fund and split the operating subsidy. This particular project runs through 5 counties. The state won't even start considering letting any capital money loose until they have solid agreements in place from each county guaranteeing they pay the operating subsidy for 10 years. Failing to get this, the state will have no trouble coming up with the $1B for the highway improvment, though.
My point was only that only the railroads are expected to build and maintain their own right of way, so comparing subsidy costs is irrelevant.
Here is a tale of two approaches to operating subsidies to passenger trains. One way is to just throw up one's hands and say there are no valid baselines for comparison, so just give us the money. The other way is to say that spending a small but quantifiable amount on operating subsidy can save big dollars on capital spending with another mode.
The advocacy community (cough, NARP, cough) has spent the past 37 years going about it the first way. It is time we pursued the second way, making a case for passenger rail in quantifiable terms instead of simply getting mad at the Amtrak critics and everyone who doesn't agree with us.
DMUinCT wrote: Just to clarify, not to start a debate.Speed of the Acela has at least two different published values. The U.S. Dept. Of Transportation had a News Release by then Secretart Rodney Slater on October 18, 2000. "Acela Express services will operate at speeds of up to 150 mph between New York and Boston and 135 mph between New York and Washington D.C. During testing on the NEC, the train achieved speeds of 170 mph."The "BLE" news letter from the same time claimed 168 mph test speed. ---------------------- Amtrak awarded the $611 milllion contract to build 20 "American Flyers" (name later changed to Acela [Express]) to a Consortium led by Bombardier of Canada. "Bombardier, which holds exclusive rights to TGV technologies in North America, was joined by Alstom, maker of the French TGV." Bombardier held 75% of the Consortium, Alstom 25%. The "Buy American" meant building them in Bombardier's Barre Vermont (now closed) and Plattsburgh New York factories. The builder, Bombardier, also provided the entire $611 million financing to Amtrak.-----------------Noted Amtrak changes among others: 1. 4 axle cars, so one car could be removed for service or cars added. 2. Must meet the new 1999 DOT Safety Standard. Engine crew protection, car integrity, emergency rescue from passenger cars3. Must operate on 12,000 and 25,000 volts AC at 25 or 60 Hz. 4. The proven Bombardier "Tilt Technology" to be provided to tilt 6.5 degrees. 5. Airliner type interiors, latching overhead cargo bins, fold down large tables, 115 volt outlets at each seat. The finished train ended up 45% heavier than a TGV. Another result was a train 4" TO(O) WIDE to meet the AAR Plate C Clearance Standard ! The "tilt" had to be reduced and speed restricted in some curves. The 180 year old Canton MA Viaduct was widen(ed). Shortly after service started the "to be corrected Punch List" grew to 92 items incluiding some of the engine shrouding blowing off at full speed. While tilting makes the ride comfortable, it does not lessen the impact on the rails in a curve. The train pays for its self, but Amtrak has taken a big hit on track maintenance making the total a losing investment. The ticket price is competitive with airlines, and with the airport security and delays, makes the city to city time faster.
Amtrak awarded the $611 milllion contract to build 20 "American Flyers" (name later changed to Acela [Express]) to a Consortium led by Bombardier of Canada. "Bombardier, which holds exclusive rights to TGV technologies in North America, was joined by Alstom, maker of the French TGV." Bombardier held 75% of the Consortium, Alstom 25%. The "Buy American" meant building them in Bombardier's Barre Vermont (now closed) and Plattsburgh New York factories. The builder, Bombardier, also provided the entire $611 million financing to Amtrak.
1. 4 axle cars, so one car could be removed for service or cars added.
The finished train ended up 45% heavier than a TGV. Another result was a train 4" TO(O) WIDE to meet the AAR Plate C Clearance Standard ! The "tilt" had to be reduced and speed restricted in some curves. The 180 year old Canton MA Viaduct was widen(ed). Shortly after service started the "to be corrected Punch List" grew to 92 items incluiding some of the engine shrouding blowing off at full speed.
Phoebe Vet wrote:My point was only that only the railroads are expected to build and maintain their own right of way, so comparing subsidy costs is irrelevant.
And IIRC, railroads, as (mostly) private entities, have to pay property tax on the ROW too! Talk about unbalanced!
Paul Milenkovic wrote: My point was only that only the railroads are expected to build and maintain their own right of way, so comparing subsidy costs is irrelevant.Just comparing these numbers with a quick "back of the envelope" calculation, if you took the $1B and spent the $375 to do the commuter rail project and then stuck another $80M in the bank at 5% to cover the operating subsidy, you'd have $545 to give back to the taxpayers.Here is a tale of two approaches to operating subsidies to passenger trains. One way is to just throw up one's hands and say there are no valid baselines for comparison, so just give us the money. The other way is to say that spending a small but quantifiable amount on operating subsidy can save big dollars on capital spending with another mode.The advocacy community (cough, NARP, cough) has spent the past 37 years going about it the first way. It is time we pursued the second way, making a case for passenger rail in quantifiable terms instead of simply getting mad at the Amtrak critics and everyone who doesn't agree with us.
I suspect NARP doesn't even try it because there is ZERO capital spending needed to accomodate all the LD train riders on other modes?
When you start to talk about corridors, though, even fractional highway lane capacity provided by rail can make a big difference on at or close to capacity highways.
A good approach would be to look at the total net present cost of alternative where the ongoing operating subsidy is brought back to a current value and added to the capital cost. It might also be good to capture the highway construction traffic delays as part of the net present cost for the highway alternative - ever met a highway construction project that didn't include traffic delays? These are rarely, if ever, considered as a cost by state DOT's, as far as I know. Wrapping up all the costs together to try to get project funding would stop the sub-optimization caused by there being different kinds of money, capital and operating. After all, money is money and a tax is a tax!
I sill love the Acela, 150 mph is good, would another 20 mph make it any better in the short runs between stations in the Norteast ?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.