186 MPH, about the cruising speed of a Douglas DC-3, or the 1:1 scale equivalent speed of an Athearn Hustler.
Andre
Match and raise 20KPH.
Tohoku Shinkansen has one stretch scheduled at 320kph.
On the original Tokyo-Osaka route 16 car trains operate on peak time headway of 3 minutes - comparable to subway rush hour, but with twice the passenger capacity.
By comparison, US 'high speed rail' is an ox cart in a chariot race.
Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - without Shinkansen)
Going one better than that, the Shanghai Maglev train does a max speed of about 431kph (268 mph) and an average speed of about 250 kph over its 30 km (18.6 mile) run. I wonder how fast it would go if it got away from the city for a long run through the countryside???
George In Midcoast Maine, 'bout halfway up the Rockland branch
I dunno, I see an American flag in that image. I guess even going 300km/h doesn't deliver freedom and bald eagles like an All-American Amtrak train can ;)
Try to top that:
574.8 kph equal 357.2 mph!
And it´s a real train!
574.8 kph!
Scary.
Dave
Post edited April 23. Got a little outside the rules.
I'm just a dude with a bad back having a lot of fun with model trains, and finally building a layout!
I guess the amount of money necessary to establish a highspeed line capable of 500 + kph wiil never prove to be economically viable - not in Europe at least. Maybe in China or the US, where distances are much greater.
hon30critter 574.8 kph! Quite frankly, I don't see the point. Do we really need to go that fast (and spend all the money needed to do it) when there are so many people in need of healthy meals and decent medical care? I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade but sometimes we need to re-think our priorities. The sermon is officially over! Dave
Quite frankly, I don't see the point. Do we really need to go that fast (and spend all the money needed to do it) when there are so many people in need of healthy meals and decent medical care?
I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade but sometimes we need to re-think our priorities.
The sermon is officially over!
I originally had a different reply to your social/political comment, but decided instead to delete as to not further derail the OP's subject.
"The true sign of intelligence is not knowledge but imagination."-Albert Einstein
http://gearedsteam.blogspot.com/
Sir Madog Try to top that: 574.8 kph equal 357.2 mph! And it´s a real train!
Engineering like that is nothing short of remarkable. To get these kind of speeds they have to have some really high voltages. And with the currents required, when there's even the smallest of breaks from the pantograph wire, it results in some very very hot arcs which damage components quickly.But despite all this, I wonder what will happen if it hits a dear. Here in the states, train lines will often stop and inspect the train and have to remove any dead carcus which might be still on the track for fear of damaging components. Yes that seems silly, but a carcus could comprimise a hose or cable.
Don - Specializing in layout DC->DCC conversions
Modeling C&O transition era and steel industries There's Nothing Like Big Steam!
Don,
they did a number of modifications to existing stock, catenary, track voltage and track to be able to go that fast.
Here is a link explaing a little more : Project V 150
Sir Madog I guess the amount of money necessary to establish a highspeed line capable of 500 + kph wiil never prove to be economically viable - not in Europe at least. Maybe in China or the US, where distances are much greater.
But over those distances, an airliner still wins. Especially if the advances in low boom supersonics bear appliable fruit.
New York to Chicago takes about 1 hour 55 minutes flying time. Even a hypothetical air-line railroad from New York to Chicago would take you two and a half hours at 500 kph. Is that worth the trillions you'd need to build that monster?
NittanyLionNew York to Chicago takes about 1 hour 55 minutes flying time. Even a hypothetical air-line railroad from New York to Chicago would take you two and a half hours at 500 kph.
You may be comparing apples with pears. If you add the time for driving to the airport, parking your car, checking in, security check and getting from the airport to downtown at your destination, the time actually required may be well over those 2 1/2 hrs.
The ultimate would be an evacuated tube shaped to allow twice orbital velocity at its (probably subterranean) altitude. Passengers would feel one G, but would be inverted relative to Earth surface. The start and end convolutes would be an interesting design challenge - and an even more interesting construction challenge. Not worth trying to model - you can't see the tube capsule.
With that, New York - Chicago start to stop would probably take about as long as the walk from parking to the ticket counter at O'Hare...
Chuck (Occasional SF author)
Geared Steam hon30critter 574.8 kph! Quite frankly, I don't see the point. Do we really need to go that fast (and spend all the money needed to do it) when there are so many people in need of healthy meals and decent medical care? I'm not trying to rain on anybody's parade but sometimes we need to re-think our priorities. The sermon is officially over! Dave I originally had a different reply to your social/political comment, but decided instead to delete as to not further derail the OP's subject.
Ditto, I too was temped to comment on the off topic political comments.......
As to the topic - so what? I'm only interested in my real world portal to portal travel times, from my door to my final destination.
I live 30 minutes from the nearest AMTRAK station, and it goes nowhere I need or want to go........but even if it did, the 88 MPH speed limit of the Northeast Corridor seems fast enough to me. They have a tough enough time keeping the people and cars off the tracks and the trains on the tracks as it is now.
Sheldon
Sir Madog NittanyLion New York to Chicago takes about 1 hour 55 minutes flying time. Even a hypothetical air-line railroad from New York to Chicago would take you two and a half hours at 500 kph. You may be comparing apples with pears. If you add the time for driving to the airport, parking your car, checking in, security check and getting from the airport to downtown at your destination, the time actually required may be well over those 2 1/2 hrs.
NittanyLion New York to Chicago takes about 1 hour 55 minutes flying time. Even a hypothetical air-line railroad from New York to Chicago would take you two and a half hours at 500 kph.
In the US, there's not really any difference between the two. For instance, Amtrak requires checked baggage to arrive 45 minutes before departure. But you have to have your ticket before you can check the bag. On a busy day, where you know there will be a line at the ticket kiosks, padding the schedule a bit so you're not dropping the bag with seconds to spare or if you need to deal with an error at the kiosk, you're arriving at the station just as far ahead of schedule as if you were flying. While those are procedural issues, so are the airline's time delays.
We just spent $6 billion (assuming it even comes in at that price in the end) to build 19km of elevated subway line here in DC. Only a few kilometers are underground and most of it is in freeway medians. It required no major earth moving, unlike burrowing and bridging through the Poconos, Appalachians, and Alleghenies would take to get from New York to Chicago. Using that example of cost per kilometer, it would cost $382 trillion to build. The entire US only has an asset value of around $190 trillion in the first place. Not sure that's worth it, even in a hypothetical level, to save even two hour's travel time.
NittanyLion Sir Madog NittanyLion New York to Chicago takes about 1 hour 55 minutes flying time. Even a hypothetical air-line railroad from New York to Chicago would take you two and a half hours at 500 kph. You may be comparing apples with pears. If you add the time for driving to the airport, parking your car, checking in, security check and getting from the airport to downtown at your destination, the time actually required may be well over those 2 1/2 hrs. In the US, there's not really any difference between the two. For instance, Amtrak requires checked baggage to arrive 45 minutes before departure. But you have to have your ticket before you can check the bag. On a busy day, where you know there will be a line at the ticket kiosks, padding the schedule a bit so you're not dropping the bag with seconds to spare or if you need to deal with an error at the kiosk, you're arriving at the station just as far ahead of schedule as if you were flying. While those are procedural issues, so are the airline's time delays. We just spent $6 billion (assuming it even comes in at that price in the end) to build 19km of elevated subway line here in DC. Only a few kilometers are underground and most of it is in freeway medians. It required no major earth moving, unlike burrowing and bridging through the Poconos, Appalachians, and Alleghenies would take to get from New York to Chicago. Using that example of cost per kilometer, it would cost $382 trillion to build. The entire US only has an asset value of around $190 trillion in the first place. Not sure that's worth it, even in a hypothetical level, to save even two hour's travel time.
Last time I checked, here in the US, we measure distance in miles and speed in MPH. 19km is meaningless to me.......
Once again, from my house in the northern rural suburbs of Baltimore, drive to the nearest airport (on the south side of Baltimore), go through security, get on the plane, fly to Detroit (where we have relatives), get off the plane, rent a car, drive to their suburban Detroit home - 8 hrs.
OR,
Jump in my 365 HP, twin turbo 213 cu inch V6 (3.5 liters), FORD FLEX LIMITED, with power everything that gets 24 MPG highway and drive directly to their home - 8 hrs.
I can carry more stuff to or from (a FORD FLEX is a full sized station wagon - or "crossover" for those of you who are politically correct) than I can on the plane and it will cost a lot less.
So why would I want to get strip searched, x-rayed and herded like cattle?
Geared Steam and Sheldon:
You guys were right. I went a little overboard. I deleated the bulk of the post.
tomikawaTT Match and raise 20KPH. Tohoku Shinkansen has one stretch scheduled at 320kph. On the original Tokyo-Osaka route 16 car trains operate on peak time headway of 3 minutes - comparable to subway rush hour, but with twice the passenger capacity. By comparison, US 'high speed rail' is an ox cart in a chariot race. Chuck (Modeling Central Japan in September, 1964 - without Shinkansen)
And your point? The equipment for this particular train has been tested at over 400 KPH, and is certified for 350 KPH. Spain is about 1/3 bigger than Japan in land area and has less than half the population. Japan is a long, narrow country, where Spain is not (obviating the need for headways approximating a subway). While the Japanese led the way with high speed rail with the original Shinkansen, they're no longer the only game in town.
Top speed is not the gating factor in point to point transportation, it's average speed. Our trip from Madrid to Barcelona (roughly 390) miles took 3 hours flat from start to stop. We had 2 intermediate stops, Zaragoza and Lleida. There are trains that make 3 stops for the same distance, and they use up an additional 10 minutes. The trains that run non-stop between Madrid and Barcelona take 2.5 hours. This increases the average speed to 252 KPH from the 210 we experienced.
I understand your loyalty to the railways of Japan. They were the first and they have a lot of which to be proud.
In the US, there's not really any difference between the two. For instance, Amtrak requires checked baggage to arrive 45 minutes before departure. But you have to have your ticket before you can check the bag. But you have to have your ticket before you can check the bag.
Who checks baggage for a train trip? In 2006, I took AMTRAK from the Tasman St. station (more like an open platform) in Santa Clara, CA to Boston, South Station. The only time baggage was "checked" was when my bag was loaded into the under storage of a Concord Coach Lines bus from South Station to the Portland, ME transportation center.
Come to think of it, I've never checked baggage for any train trip I've ever taken and that encompasses 10 countries over a span of 30+ years on trains ranging from commuter locals to high speed trains (where, incidentally, there IS NO CHECKED LUGGAGE due to really short station stops).
As for having to have a ticket, I can't remember the last time I (or we) used anything other than an electronic ticket. So, to add another question, who buys tickets at the station (or the airport or the bus station)?
andrechapelon In the US, there's not really any difference between the two. For instance, Amtrak requires checked baggage to arrive 45 minutes before departure. But you have to have your ticket before you can check the bag. But you have to have your ticket before you can check the bag. Who checks baggage for a train trip? In 2006, I took AMTRAK from the Tasman St. station (more like an open platform) in Santa Clara, CA to Boston, South Station. The only time baggage was "checked" was when my bag was loaded into the under storage of a Concord Coach Lines bus from South Station to the Portland, ME transportation center. Come to think of it, I've never checked baggage for any train trip I've ever taken and that encompasses 10 countries over a span of 30+ years on trains ranging from commuter locals to high speed trains (where, incidentally, there IS NO CHECKED LUGGAGE due to really short station stops). As for having to have a ticket, I can't remember the last time I (or we) used anything other than an electronic ticket. So, to add another question, who buys tickets at the station (or the airport or the bus station)? Andre
So if you are going somewhere for an extended trip you schlep big bags onto the train with you and take them to your seat?
That's why I own a station wagon...........
I will try to resist my urge to bash Amtrak. As for high speed service here in Illinois they are working on it. I was told there is now a 10 mile stretch of the Chicago-St Louis line that is complete although they have a permanent 90 mph slow order on it.
By my calculations that works out to somewhere around 3% of the distance. Looks like if you consider the rate at which St Louis is loosing population, there won't be anywhere to go once the upgrade is complete.
Charlie.
I seriously doubt a high speed line capable of that speed over long distances would use flanged wheel on steel rail technology.
As for distances in the US, here's some info (all distances are driving distances via shortest route):
San Francisco to San Diego is 737 kilometers (458 miles). This actually involves going down the San Joaquin Valley on Interstate 5 rather than the more or less coastal highway (US 101). This is 10 km shorter than Zurich to Vienna.
San Francisco to Salt Lake City is 1,184 km (736 miles) or about 40 km less than Vienna to Paris.
Chicago to NYC is 1280 km (790 miles). This is roughly the distance from Madrid to Paris.
Boston to Washington, DC is 711 km (439 miles). This is 50 km less than the distance from Paris to Nuremburg.
Where you get into the really long distances are in the underpopulated areas of the Western US. For example, from Salt Lake City, UT to Omaha, NE, the next nearest good sized population center on I-80, it's 1503 km or (934 miles).
You really haven't ridden trains much of anywhere, have you?
Between Madrid and Barcelona, our bags were in baggage racks at one end of the coach (there were racks at both ends). On the Amtrak trips I've taken (including my wife's and my honeymoon trip from Oakland to Denver to ride behind what was then 8444), the baggage was in the baggage racks next to the car entry. You don't need to check luggage and you don't need to schlepp it all to your seat.
My wife and I are seasoned travelers on all major forms of transport both within and outside the US. We travel light. As a matter of fact, in 2014, we drove a Toyota Corolla from Monterey, CA to Belfast, ME with two dogs, a cat and everything we actually needed (as opposed to what we could have fantasized we needed). BTW, our average fuel consumption exceeded 35 mpg. I half expected the trip to be brutal, but it was surprisingly comfortable.
andrechapelon So if you are going somewhere for an extended trip you schlep big bags onto the train with you and take them to your seat? That's why I own a station wagon........... Sheldon You really haven't ridden trains much of anywhere, have you? Between Madrid and Barcelona, our bags were in baggage racks at one end of the coach (there were racks at both ends). On the Amtrak trips I've taken (including my wife's and my honeymoon trip from Oakland to Denver to ride behind what was then 8444), the baggage was in the baggage racks next to the car entry. You don't need to check luggage and you don't need to schlepp it all to your seat. My wife and I are seasoned travelers on all major forms of transport both within and outside the US. We travel light. As a matter of fact, in 2014, we drove a Toyota Corolla from Monterey, CA to Belfast, ME with two dogs, a cat and everything we actually needed (as opposed to what we could have fantasized we needed). BTW, our average fuel consumption exceeded 35 mpg. I half expected the trip to be brutal, but it was surprisingly comfortable. Andre
Trains - Not recently, not for actual travel. Railfan trips, yes.
A Toyota Corolla, respectfully, no thank you. Animals, again respectfully, don't have any - raised 5 kids, that was enough care giving.....
Andre, I get it, but it just does not suit our needs. The places we travel for fun are no where near major rail routes.
Small cars - in 43 years of driving and car ownership, the smallest two cars I ever owned were a 1983 Dodge K car station wagon and a 1963 Chevy Nova SS convertible:
I restored and hot rodded this from the ground up at age 19, drove it for eight years. It was powered by a 300 hp 283 with a 4 speed stick, but still got over 20 mpg on the highway - 0 to 60 in 5 sec, 1/4 mile in 14 sec, 135 mph top speed - it had a 160 mph Corvette speedometer......
I learned to drive in one just like this:
1969 Checher wagon, owned several Checkers in my lifetime - now that was a car.
So in 2012 after a 2008 Taurus saved out lives in a crash, we bought this:
FORD FLEX LIMITED, 3.5 liter eccoboost twin turbo, etc.
Last October it saved the lives of my wife and grandchildren in a head on collision. So we bought a 2015 FLEX LIMITED with the same features - sorry no photos uploaded.
My work and child transport duties require this:
It gets 12 mpg.......
The value of a car is not only measured in fuel consumption:
Do SUV's guzzle gas?
Neither are a number of places we travel to in the US. That's why we have a small class A motor home (11 MPG), Ford V10. It doesn't suit our needs, but it suits our wants.
I understand your preference for the country gentleman lifestyle. Unfortunately, for most people, it's not really an option. We could do it and actually have done it (as retirees), but we're both getting too old for the maintenance it requires.
I don´t know whether I shall just be amused or turn away in disgust. We have had this discussion about the sense or nonsense of highspeed rail transportation a number of times with Sheldon and the only point we could agree upon is that we all wholeheartedly agree to disagree.
I am inclined to change my mind and concur with Sheldon´s opinion. The US are not a country for highspeed train travel! Why? It´s not the distances required to cover which make the nation unfit for that, it´s the attitude, combined with the fact that there is a gap of 50 years of experience in highspeed train engineering (and operation) between Europe/Japan and the US. As long as freight trains enjoy priority over passenger services, as long as train stations are in the rather dark and dingy parts of town and as long people calculate the consumption of fossil fuels per mile and multiply the result by the number of seats available in the car, although only one or two are actually occupied, there is no chance for passenger trains, let alone highspeed trains in the US, unless some wise person undertakes a bold move - just like in California.
VIA Rail in Canada has just made a proposal to upgrade the rail service in the Windsor to Montreal corridor. They are suggesting a price tag of $2 billion Cdn.
It will be interesting to see where that goes. I don't know what sort of speeds they are contemplating.
hon30critter VIA Rail in Canada has just made a proposal to upgrade the rail service in the Windsor to Montreal corridor. They are suggesting a price tag of $2 billion Cdn. It will be interesting to see where that goes. I don't know what sort of speeds they are contemplating. Dave
Some intersting pages on this subject:
http://www.hsl-canada.net/en/canada.php
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/windsor/ontario-government-wants-high-speed-rail-proposal-by-october-mp-says-1.3440700
Thanks Ulrich.
I hadn't bothered to bookmark any of the reports I saw but I do know that the latest one talked about Windsor to Montreal. I saw it in the last few days so apparently the Ontario Government is looking to expand the project from the February 9 report that you linked to.
Andre,
First, agreed, large or small, the performance and economy of many new vehicles is amazing.
You are welcome to call how we live on our one acre "the country gentlemen lifestyle", but I get up everyday and work with my hands to make a living........
And I agree there comes a time when for many it becomes too much work. We do plan to down size at some point - but not to an apartment in a city......
Ulrich and Andre,
Yes, seat miles only count when someone is in the seat. We spend a lot of time helping care for two of our grandchildren. And for whatever reasons it seems we are always moving/caring "stuff".
My wife is now retired, but when she worked, even in this rural setting, she only worked 6 miles from home. No long distance, sitting traffic, wasting time and gas commute.
When I'm not phsyically building someones home, I work from home. How exactly does one use mass transit to go to work as a carpenter, plumber, electrcian, construction project manager?
Both of the above facts negate the typical "negatives" of the suburban or "country gentlemen" life style.
Yes I know people who live here and drive 40 minutes everyday into the big city - I think they are nuts............I'm a big believer in living where you work when it is at all possible.
You have a motor home, along with other vehicles I suppose? I have never seen the economy of motorhomes vs staying in motels (I grew up in a family of RV campers, done with that) and I have never liked the idea of owning multiple motor vehicles that get minimal use per year - insurance, place to store, and most all "sitting" is not good for vehicles. We have two drivers and just two vehicles - that are big enough for our largest typical needs.