BaltACD 243129 charlie hebdo Saying the same old sfuff over and over doesn't change anything. You just don't get it. Dispute what I say. Why? What didn't work the first time still doesn't work the last time. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
243129 charlie hebdo Saying the same old sfuff over and over doesn't change anything. You just don't get it. Dispute what I say.
charlie hebdo Saying the same old sfuff over and over doesn't change anything. You just don't get it.
Saying the same old sfuff over and over doesn't change anything. You just don't get it.
Dispute what I say.
Why? What didn't work the first time still doesn't work the last time. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.
So you cannot dispute what I say..
charlie hebdoHey Joe, don't get on your high horse commanding people. You have zero influence with authorities and almost nobody on here gives a hoot about your compulsive rants.
So, you also cannot dispute what I say.
Acela-2s hopefully will have a higher standard of reliability. The additional seats will more seats not now available on -1s. But since the present NEC cannot suport HSR ( over 160 MPH ) but can support HrSR already in some places . But to engage HrSR means getting rid of slow sections.
That means the new Gateway tunnels, 4 tracks from Gateway - Newark Penn, eliminate Elizabeth S curve, Trenton to North PHL including eliminate the slow Frankfort CP/curve, replacing and 4 tracking the 3 movable bridges in Maryland, Baltimore's B&P tunnel into 4 main tracks with no speed restrictions , 4 main tracks or more PHL - Wash. Ease most curves that are less than 160 capable.
Of course also rebuild the CAT to constant tension 160 MPH capable. A start for that will be completing all CAT work from Newark Penn to Trenton and extend it along with Frankford straightening.
Cut station dwell times
With all these improvements a 125 MPH average speed ( using 160 MAS ) could be possible for NYP <> WASH making for a 2 hour trip. More importantly the 91 miles PHL <> NYP could become 40 - 45 minutes.
The regionals being limited to 125 can probably make NYP <> WASH in 2:30 which will spread the differnce between Acela-2s and regionals vs -1s and regionals.
An added benefit of 2:00 hour trips would actually allow more total -2 seats per day by turning -2s faster on another trip.
Unfortunately this will do nothing for improving NYP <> BOS timings due to MAS cannot be improved.
243129 charlie hebdo Hey Joe, don't get on your high horse commanding people. You have zero influence with authorities and almost nobody on here gives a hoot about your compulsive rants. So, you also cannot dispute what I say.
charlie hebdo Hey Joe, don't get on your high horse commanding people. You have zero influence with authorities and almost nobody on here gives a hoot about your compulsive rants.
No Joe. Nobody wants to dispute or agree with you because you just keep saying the same stuff over and over. Perhaps Dr. A visits you?
charlie hebdoPerhaps Dr. A visits you?
Let's hope so. He can get Dr. A to change the name of his brand to "Optavita" ... which fits better ... to free up 'Optavia' for the new 'European' high-speed-that-isn't service. (Hey, I know you think of spinsters when you hear that name, but it's better than 'Acela' or that rrhoid-cream replacement...)
charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo Hey Joe, don't get on your high horse commanding people. You have zero influence with authorities and almost nobody on here gives a hoot about your compulsive rants. So, you also cannot dispute what I say. No Joe. Nobody wants to dispute or agree with you because you just keep saying the same stuff over and over. Perhaps Dr. A visits you?
So you admit that you cannot dispute my take on HSR on the NEC. By your avoidance of the question you also admit that you condone the waste of taxpayer dollars so that you and folks like you can pay more money to ride in a bright shiny 'tube' with all the bells and whistles that accomplishes nothing more than the present service.
Your lack of an argument(s) is obvious as you and the desk jockey (payback) choose to sit back and launch insults and snide remarks rather than dispute my opinion on HSR.
243129 So you admit that you cannot dispute my take on HSR on the NEC. By your avoidance of the question you also admit that you condone the waste of taxpayer dollars so that you and folks like you can pay more money to ride in a bright shiny 'tube' with all the bells and whistles that accomplishes nothing more than the present service. Your lack of an argument(s) is obvious as you and the desk jockey (payback) choose to sit back and launch insults and snide remarks rather than dispute my opinion on HSR.
1. One cannot dispute another's "take" or "opinion". They can only disagree; which several have done.
2. If the new trainsets cost more but produce more revenue, depending on the ratios (which none of us are privy to) of expenses vs. revenue, then it might not be a waste of taxpayer dollars. IOW--If the new trains cost $1/passenger more than the older ones, but fares are $1.15/passenger more, then it's actually producing enough revenue to cover the costs.
Backshop If the new trainsets cost more but produce more revenue, depending on the ratios (which none of us are privy to) of expenses vs. revenue, then it might not be a waste of taxpayer dollars. IOW--If the new trains cost $1/passenger more than the older ones, but fares are $1.15/passenger more, then it's actually producing enough revenue to cover the costs.
HSR is subsidized by the taxpayers. What is the point of purchasing these ultra expensive glitzy 'all hat no cattle' type trainsets which provide no more expediency than the less expensive regional equipment? HSR on the NEC is a sham on the traveling public.
The question is--is the increased cost offset by the increased revenue? Neither one of us knows. What we do know is that there are passengers willing to pay for the service.
There are plenty of government programs that lose money. The question is whether they help a sizable part of the population. Roads are subsidized, air traffic control is subsidized, etc.
BackshopWhat we do know is that there are passengers willing to pay for the service.
There were passengers willing to pay for the SST also.
BackshopThere are plenty of government programs that lose money. The question is whether they help a sizable part of the population.
I think a sizable part of the population, were they informed, would opt for paying less money for the same result.
243129 There were passengers willing to pay for the SST also.
Backshop The question is--is the increased cost offset by the increased revenue? Neither one of us knows. What we do know is that there are passengers willing to pay for the service. There are plenty of government programs that lose money. The question is whether they help a sizable part of the population. Roads are subsidized, air traffic control is subsidized, etc.
As the articles have stated clearly, the new equipment has 25% greater passenger capacity than Acela. That translates to a greater revenue margin. It's not about the faux argument some have repeated. And I have respect for the informed choices of the current, satisfied riders. They aren't the ignorant ones.
charlie hebdoAs the articles have stated clearly, the new equipment has 25% greater passenger capacity than Acela. That translates to a greater revenue margin.
Again, with respect, he's not discussing costs related to the additional revenue capacity, which is in a sense comparable to the earlier arguments about adding cars to the existing Acela sets ... note where that effort went, on more or less a pure-cost basis ... but the whole cost of the HSR-grade trains vs. their 'equivalent' capacity in 125mph sets.
The argument that the faster trainsets have a greater per diem revenue capacity since they can provide more 'trips' per day at the higher speed (as in the airline industry) is not really relevant here, as both on the existing corridor and in the prospective medium-term future there is little practical speed difference between the alternatives, except perhaps between certain origin-destination pairs that little affect when the trainsets are 'turned' for redispatch.
With all due respect, you are missing the point. The trainsets hold 25% more people comfortably than the Acelas in the same platform space, even more than Regional equipment. One more time, it's not about being a little faster. It's about a desired comfort level that millions have been willing to pay for over the past decades. You can choose to ride Regionals or even commuter trains - your choice.
Do you have links to the data sheets that show the new trainsets cost significantly more per passenger seat mile than new loose-car equipment + new engines and then compare that data on a revenue per seat mile basis?
Exactly. I'm flying to Amsterdam tomorrow for a cruise (I'll be MIA for 2.5 weeks). We upgraded to Delta Premium Select seats for the extra room. We don't get there any faster, but with it being an overnight flight, the room, recline and comfort makes for better sleeping conditions.
charlie hebdoThe trainsets hold 25% more people comfortably than the Acelas in the same platform space, even more than Regional equipment.
Explain how the trainsets hold more people than the Regionals.
charlie hebdo it's not about being a little faster.
Then there is no need for HSR.
charlie hebdoIt's about a desired comfort level that millions have been willing to pay for over the past decades.
More Business Class style cars with the same bells and whistles as the trainsets at considerably less cost for those who wish to be pampered.
What part of High Speed Rail (150 MPH+) is not feasible on the existing ROW on the NEC don't you get?
Backshop Exactly. I'm flying to Amsterdam tomorrow for a cruise (I'll be MIA for 2.5 weeks). We upgraded to Delta Premium Select seats for the extra room. We don't get there any faster, but with it being an overnight flight, the room, recline and comfort makes for better sleeping conditions.
Two years ago, I made a first class round trip from Washington to Boston and back, It was a comfortable ride--but was not greatly impressed by the meal service (lunch and dinner going north, and breakfast and lunch going south).
Johnny
Candidates for the junk pile.
243129 243129 wrote the following post 18 days ago: charlie hebdo The trainsets hold 25% more people comfortably than the Acelas in the same platform space, even more than Regional equipment. Explain how the trainsets hold more people than the Regionals.
243129 wrote the following post 18 days ago:
charlie hebdo The trainsets hold 25% more people comfortably than the Acelas in the same platform space, even more than Regional equipment.
It's what several articles, the manufacturer and Amtrak have said. If you dispute that information, let's see the evidence, not just your assertion.
243129 charlie hebdo It's about a desired comfort level that millions have been willing to pay for over the past decades. More Business Class style cars with the same bells and whistles as the trainsets at considerably less cost for those who wish to be pampered.
charlie hebdo It's about a desired comfort level that millions have been willing to pay for over the past decades.
Again, it is what the hard data shows. If you have data that disputes it, show us the numbers.
243129
Paul Malenkovic might have some real background on those units, as his father had some involvement as I recall his saying some time back..
charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo: The trainsets hold 25% more people comfortably than the Acelas in the same platform space, even more than Regional equipment. Explain how the trainsets hold more people than the Regionals. It's what several articles, the manufacturer and Amtrak have said. If you dispute that information, let's see the evidence, not just your assertion.
243129 charlie hebdo: The trainsets hold 25% more people comfortably than the Acelas in the same platform space, even more than Regional equipment. Explain how the trainsets hold more people than the Regionals.
charlie hebdo: The trainsets hold 25% more people comfortably than the Acelas in the same platform space, even more than Regional equipment.
ACELA/HSR trains are unitized Regionals are not. Comprenez vous?
charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo It's about a desired comfort level that millions have been willing to pay for over the past decades. More Business Class style cars with the same bells and whistles as the trainsets at considerably less cost for those who wish to be pampered. Again, it is what the hard data shows. If you have data that disputes it, show us the numbers.
More Business Class style cars with the same bells and whistles as the trainsets at less cost for those who wish to be pampered and more importantly LESS COST TO THE TAXPAYERS!
charlie hebdo 243129 Paul Malenkovic might have some real background on those units, as his father had some involvement as I recall his saying some time back..
I have 'real' background on these units I operated them between Grand Central and Boston. Junk.
243129 charlie hebdo 243129 charlie hebdo It's about a desired comfort level that millions have been willing to pay for over the past decades. More Business Class style cars with the same bells and whistles as the trainsets at considerably less cost for those who wish to be pampered. Again, it is what the hard data shows. If you have data that disputes it, show us the numbers. More Business Class style cars with the same bells and whistles as the trainsets at less cost for those who wish to be pampered and more importantly LESS COST TO THE TAXPAYERS!
As usual, your responses lack any data or even a citation with data to back up your opinion, which differs from what the sources mentioned say. Your other demeaning reply is not worth a response.
charlie hebdoWith all due respect, you are missing the point. The trainsets hold 25% more people comfortably than the Acelas in the same platform space, even more than Regional equipment.
ACELA/HST's are unitized trainsets. Regionals are not.
charlie hebdo One more time, it's not about being a little faster.
I agree. So why do we spend all this money on useless unitized trains?
charlie hebdoAs usual, your responses lack any data or even a citation with data to back up your opinion, which differs from what the sources mentioned say. Your other demeaning reply is not worth a response.
As usual? Shall I post all the questions that you have run from? When confronted for proof of your allegations you flee.
Data you say? Common sense and economics are my "data". The same end being achieved for less money.
Keep in mind that there were two general statistics about these trains when they were 'approved for production': the seating capacity for a given 'trainset' as-built was something around 30% greater than for the original (and frankly limited) capacity of the same set of Acela equipment, and it was supposed to be possible to 'add' three cars to the nine-car sets without having to replace the rest of the train -- this obviously giving "25% greater capacity" for a modified new trainset over whatever it replaced... bjturon, in particular, has distinctive competence about this, and hopefully he'll start reading and comment.
One more time, it's not about being a little faster. It's about a desired comfort level that millions have been willing to pay for over the past decades.
Which is precisely his point, and has been right from the original letter that started all this 'controversy'.
It's very obvious that achieving 'the desired comfort level that millions have been willing to pay for' is easier to accomplish in less-complex equipment with all the expensive engineering considerations needed to reach practical high speed. It's also obvious that a properly-designed 125mph shell with any version of the actually-useful customer-valued capability or amenities designed into the Avelia Liberty would involve less cost; in fact, I suspect some of the 'cost dividend' of less-expensive structure could be 'reinvested' into things like true high-bandwidth WiFi for all riders, or better seating, to give far better band for the buck than 220mph trains that will spend almost their whole lives under half that speed...
The only common-sense 'difference' that matters here is that much of the engineering used to develop the American single-level technology was leveraged off previous work and production, meaning (as, famously, for things like the Avro Arrow or the Grumman F-5) you can get something better-performing but ultimately 'cheaper' when the expensive parts of the engineering have been done in other contexts. Not sure even so that the cost of the much superior Avelia Liberty trainsets is sufficiently 'low' to overcome Joe's fundamental contention that a cheaper trainset with the capacity and amenities installed in the Liberty trains would represent better 'bang for the buck'...
First, it doesn't require Kelly-Johnson-level knowledge to see that a structure with optimized suspension, composite construction, CEM, etc. for high speed is both more expensive and more finicky to maintain than the 'equivalent' for lower speed. Even with Government money, perceptions, and perhaps politically-motivated inefficiencies (as for the CAF plant here and its ridiculous overruns) adding to the real-world design-build for the less expensive comparable capacity. I'm tempted to say by analogy that any airframe involving honeycomb fabrication in titanium will be more expensive per seat-mile than something with the same cabin volume and seat tracking built with, say, common methods of aluminum or even steel fabrication. Much of the overall technology and fabrication difference is comparable in order of magnitude, even with modern computer-assisted design and testing capacity.
RE: Japan were bombed in to rubble in WW II and the Marshall Plan and SCAP rebuilt their infrastructures with an eye on the future
It should be noted tho, that Japan built their HSR long after the war on completely new alignments, and standard gauge. And, while European railroads were rebuilt after being bombed the existing alignments were rebuilt. The first "modern" European HSR (Paris - Leon) was done with a mix of old and new alignments, but the real speed was on the new track. Which is also true on the rest of the French HSR lines. You leave a city on an 1880 alignment at (say) 60-80 mph, but as soon as you're out of the suburbs the train is on the new 1990's+ alignments.
I don't see that happening in the US tho (with government loot anyway). Regardless of what one thinks of either party, the US government is too crippled to do anything except keeping the current looting-scams funded (military, police-state, roads, transit, and airports). And those scammers aren't going to give-up any loot for HSR (I know I wouldn't). If HSR is going to be funding by the US government, it will have to be with a brand new group of scammers (somewhat how transit accomplished their scam over the last 30 years).
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.