Trains.com

What would the founding fathers think about this.

7831 views
195 replies
1 rating 2 rating 3 rating 4 rating 5 rating
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:40 PM
Dave, how much shipping could be shipped through one? You still couldn't replace a lot of the overnight air traffic with HSL; even capitols like Boise have a large airport would, most likely, not warrant a HSL line.


Does it have to be an open access line?[(-D] Sorry, couldn't help myself.
  • Member since
    May 2005
  • From: S.E. South Dakota
  • 13,569 posts
Posted by Murphy Siding on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:40 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Lotus - RE: Your statement "Only a (sadly) slender amount of the population would use a HSL" is true for passenger HSR, but we all benefit from freight transportation expediency, so a freight HSR system would have societal benefits not seen in a passenger HSR system.

Murphy, I ain't eatin popcorn, I'm munching Cheez-It's. Get your own box!


The white parmesan cheese type? I suppose you're washing them down with a beer too! Tsk! Tsk![:)]

Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by TomDiehl

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

How much more blasted proof do you need, a mushroom cloud over your home town? He use the gosh-darn things ten time before we invaded. All of those people could see the proof, man since those people aren't very smart you must even less smart.
WARNING BIG FACT AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998. HERE IS YOUR PROOF! http://www.sundayherald.com/39252
[I]



Oh, I don't know. Maybe since we've occupied the country for a few years, if we FOUND SOME.
Tom,
Read the article. Just read it, we did. HE USED THEM. WE FOUND THEM. He destroyed the rest when we threatened to invade. Open your eyes boy. Considering your attempt to keep us off track, maybe you can't read. Now back to trains, please.
  • Member since
    October 2003
  • From: Buffalo NY USA
  • 452 posts
Posted by edkowal on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:44 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098


As to a HSL being viewed similar to a road, you may be thinking along the lines of a false premise. Everyone uses roads.


That was not my thinking. One aspect of my thinking: Congress was empowered to create postal roads. So, if you carry the mails on it, a railroad is a postal road.

That is not the primary thrust though. Provision of a high speed link can be seen as providing for the general welfare when freight is carried, in the same way that the federal highway system is used by everybody at a slight remove. While everybody may not themselves travel on a highway or a railroad, if the goods that you buy are transported from the factory using that system, then you benefit from it whether you yourself travel on it or not. So, by buying those goods, you would in fact be using that high speed link, whether you bought a train ticket or not.

-Ed

Five out of four people have trouble with fractions. -Anonymous
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. -Benjamin Franklin
"You don't have to be Jeeves to love butlers, but it helps." (Followers of Levi's Real Jewish Rye will get this one) -Ed K
 "A potted watch never boils." -Ed Kowal
If it's not fun, why do it ? -Ben & Jerry

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 8:46 PM
So what kind of goods can be shipped, other than mail, on HSL?
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 9:03 PM
Tom and others. What you have to understand is that James has a little problem with the concept of before and after.

It seems like everybody agreed that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and so we invaded Iraq. Apparently Saddam must have seen us coming and flushed them all down the toilet, because after spending tens of millions of dollars looking all over the place we could not find any WMD's. Either that or Saddam now has his WMD's hidden somewhere in his jail cell.

At any rate if we start spending government money on HSR, we will never find the WMD's and before we know it Idaho will be blown up.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    October 2003
  • From: Buffalo NY USA
  • 452 posts
Posted by edkowal on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 9:21 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

So what kind of goods can be shipped, other than mail, on HSL?


Any sort of goods, except probably high tonnage items like coal. Although it might be possible, it might not be economic for coal.

Once HSL was in place, it would be possible for entrepreneurs to develop freight carrying capacity to take advantage of the asset. Remember, from a certain viewpoint, people are animate freight that have the benefit of loading and unloading themselves ! [:D]

By the way, I'm not arguing for or against HSL. You wanted to know what the Founding Fathers thought. Via the Constitution, they told us that Congress should decide.

-Ed





Five out of four people have trouble with fractions. -Anonymous
Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead. -Benjamin Franklin
"You don't have to be Jeeves to love butlers, but it helps." (Followers of Levi's Real Jewish Rye will get this one) -Ed K
 "A potted watch never boils." -Ed Kowal
If it's not fun, why do it ? -Ben & Jerry

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Wednesday, November 9, 2005 9:43 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Tom and others. What you have to understand is that James has a little problem with the concept of before and after.

It seems like everybody agreed that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and so we invaded Iraq. Apparently Saddam must have seen us coming and flushed them all down the toilet, because after spending tens of millions of dollars looking all over the place we could not find any WMD's. Either that or Saddam now has his WMD's hidden somewhere in his jail cell.

At any rate if we start spending government money on HSR, we will never find the WMD's and before we know it Idaho will be blown up.
YES. I showed plenty of proof he had them. We weren't expecting to stroll in and ask for them, he wasn’t that stupid, we looked and if you read the article, found some. We didn't known he had destroyed most of it before we invaded, so we had to look. Other reasons for going in were presented, but were forgotten.

This cricket keeps telling me to stick to railroads.
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Bottom Left Corner, USA
  • 3,420 posts
Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:36 AM
What would the founding fathers think about HSR.....well I'd frame it this way.....and I am a strong believer in the wording and intent of the Constitution.

There are many issues in the two hundred plus years that have changed the country and tested the Constitution and it's intent. that the signers never envisioned.....at the the time freedom of the press was the paper, and speech was just that...not cable TV, satellite reporting, internet, radio, etc. Personal firearms were muzzle loading rifles and handguns. Ships were powered by sail and the economy was supported by moving goods to market on wagons. Social security was what you and your family had and saved and life expectancy wasn't real long by and large. Enterprise was encouraged to make up for what a weak central government could not achieve on it's own.....

However, in spite of this, they made investment in the future...Lewis and Clark, land grants, etc....so how would they look upon government funding of HSR? If they felt it was in the best interest of the people, and had been the current technology of the time, they probably would have supported some measure of it, to at least get it going. But it wasn't so now it's similiar to what was the framers intent on the right to bear arms? As many opinions as people.

Dan
  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, November 10, 2005 12:02 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Tom and others. What you have to understand is that James has a little problem with the concept of before and after.

It seems like everybody agreed that Saddam Hussein has weapons of mass destruction and so we invaded Iraq. Apparently Saddam must have seen us coming and flushed them all down the toilet, because after spending tens of millions of dollars looking all over the place we could not find any WMD's. Either that or Saddam now has his WMD's hidden somewhere in his jail cell.

At any rate if we start spending government money on HSR, we will never find the WMD's and before we know it Idaho will be blown up.
YES. I showed plenty of proof he had them. We weren't expecting to stroll in and ask for them, he wasn’t that stupid, we looked and if you read the article, found some. We didn't known he had destroyed most of it before we invaded, so we had to look. Other reasons for going in were presented, but were forgotten.

This cricket keeps telling me to stick to railroads.


We invaded because Hussein had 36 of the 120mm (just under 5 inches) mortar rounds? Large for a mortar, but hardly heavy artillery. Their paylod is around 2 pounds of HE.

And they were buried for at least 10 years?
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Thursday, November 10, 2005 3:40 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

How much more blasted proof do you need, a mushroom cloud over your home town? He use the gosh-darn things ten time before we invaded. All of those people could see the proof, man since those people aren't very smart you must even less smart.
WARNING BIG FACT AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998. HERE IS YOUR PROOF! http://www.sundayherald.com/39252
[I]



Since 1983? that was 22 years ago, and we invaded in 1993, he didnt use them. We go again in 2002 and they find nothing. Again all your facts are based on pre-invasion intelligence that was openly criticized for being flawed by our allies. the facts of how and why have changed now. If our fearless leader had waited two more month until Hans Blicks (my spelling) report was released I wonder how much support congress or the public would have given him.

Saddam had them, used them, got his nose bloodied in 93 and dumped them. But keep up all appearances to his nieghbors and the UN to keep the apperance of a threat so he could the US and the UN off balance and remain in power. The truth of this was becoming known, so Bush had to act before they could risk a public change of opinion.

If your worried about a mushroom cloud, why the hell are they not doing something about North Korea? Iran? they are MUCH greater risks. Yet we are now stuck up to our knees in Iraq with no real way out.

PS ...Bin Boy is still giving us the finger every day he remains free, and thats my principle beef with Bush-Boy!


Anyway this topic is going all over the place, I've stated my last post of this as the original topic is now irrelevant...there will be no HSR in this country, we wont have Amtrack for much longer. Bush and his cadre of idiots are dooming America to air-cattle and freeway schlepping. Maybe we will see some of these soon to be ex-Amtrack Genesis units hauling double-stacks or triple-crowns in the near future....[}:)]

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    February 2001
  • From: Poconos, PA
  • 3,948 posts
Posted by TomDiehl on Thursday, November 10, 2005 4:36 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by vsmith

QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

How much more blasted proof do you need, a mushroom cloud over your home town? He use the gosh-darn things ten time before we invaded. All of those people could see the proof, man since those people aren't very smart you must even less smart.
WARNING BIG FACT AHEAD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



“He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983.”
Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18,1998. HERE IS YOUR PROOF! http://www.sundayherald.com/39252
[I]



Since 1983? that was 22 years ago, and we invaded in 1993, he didnt use them. We go again in 2002 and they find nothing. Again all your facts are based on pre-invasion intelligence that was openly criticized for being flawed by our allies. the facts of how and why have changed now. If our fearless leader had waited two more month until Hans Blicks (my spelling) report was released I wonder how much support congress or the public would have given him.

Saddam had them, used them, got his nose bloodied in 93 and dumped them. But keep up all appearances to his nieghbors and the UN to keep the apperance of a threat so he could the US and the UN off balance and remain in power. The truth of this was becoming known, so Bush had to act before they could risk a public change of opinion.

If your worried about a mushroom cloud, why the hell are they not doing something about North Korea? Iran? they are MUCH greater risks. Yet we are now stuck up to our knees in Iraq with no real way out.

PS ...Bin Boy is still giving us the finger every day he remains free, and thats my principle beef with Bush-Boy!


Anyway this topic is going all over the place, I've stated my last post of this as the original topic is now irrelevant...there will be no HSR in this country, we wont have Amtrack for much longer. Bush and his cadre of idiots are dooming America to air-cattle and freeway schlepping. Maybe we will see some of these soon to be ex-Amtrack Genesis units hauling double-stacks or triple-crowns in the near future....[}:)]


Minor date correction: the first Gulf War was 1990/91. I know, I was activated.

Minor logistics point: We didn't invade Iraq then, we stopped after we pushed him out of Kuwait.

Also, to add to the speculation about his WMD's: there's also other theories that Hussein was "rattling sabres" not so much at us, but at Syria, which he felt was a greater threat to him. Possibly worried that if we proved he had no WMD's there'd be nothing left to stop Syria from invading Iraq. Sort of like they're trying to do now.

There were also rumors that he tried to arrange a meeting with Bush before the US invaded. What he wanted to discuss, I guess we'll never know.
Smile, it makes people wonder what you're up to. Chief of Sanitation; Clowntown
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Thursday, November 10, 2005 4:45 PM
Aside from the Genesis engines hauling stacks or triple crowns, I like the idea of getting the Superliner sleepers real cheap. Take out some walls between the rooms and you've got a lot better accomidations than a string of old cabooses.

THE SUPERLINER MOTEL!

Even the founding fathers would like that.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:02 PM

Sheeman eee, man, I pitty your poor keyboard



  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:39 PM
Amen to that anit gaites, I am getting my manure spreader started to clean this thing up, hold on.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 10, 2005 7:56 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

So what kind of goods can be shipped, other than mail, on HSL?


Everything that doesn't have to go across the country in two days or less. HSR for freight can move bags of mail as well as bags of cat litter. High value or low value, it can move. Coal? Why not? Just because we're hauling 10,000 tons doesn't mean it can't move at 100 mph. Isn't it all about horsepower to ton ratios? And before you say "you'd have to charge a higher per ton rate for coal using HSR rather than LSR (aka the current 25 mph average Class I system)", remember two things: 1. By moving all goods at 100+ mph, you can reduce the inventory costs of the product in question, perhaps enough that the reduced inventory costs might offset a higher per ton rate, not to mention a far greater number of car utilization cycles per year. 2. You can also apply the differential pricing concept to HSR, with the time sensitive goods being charged the higher rates and not-so-time sensitive goods being charged the lower rate.

Get the coal to the utility and dump it out, and let them worry about storing it. Warehousing is much more efficient when done at an actual warehouse than on a set of railcars.

The analogy I've used before is this: On our Interstate Highway system, all the trucks run at 60-70 mph, it doesn't matter what they are hauling. The lowly gravel truck is moving at 70 mph, the same speed as the time sensitive produce truck. The gravel doesn't need to move at 70 mph, but the system works optimal when all the participants move at the highest possible speed.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:03 PM
As for the whole WMD/Saddam thing, Bush did what any responsible President would have done. The CIA et al, made a reasonable argument that they were there, and after 9-11 it became paramount that if Saddam indeed had these weapons, he would use them while the US was vunerable. The decision to go to war is never easy, doesn't matter if you're a hawk or a dove, but when faced with the choice of using war to avert a potential attack vs not going to war and hoping the antagonist doesn't make THE MOVE, we are all better off assuming the worst rather than hoping for the best.

Bush did the right thing, and every American should be grateful to him rather than attacking and slandering him.
  • Member since
    September 2002
  • From: Rockton, IL
  • 4,821 posts
Posted by jeaton on Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:13 PM
Futuremodal

I understand there is a big job opening with offices in Wahington Union Station. You should apply for the job. You will fit right in.

"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics

  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:41 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by jeaton

Futuremodal

I understand there is a big job opening with offices in Wahington Union Station. You should apply for the job. You will fit right in.


I like the job I have now.

Besides, I have no idea what you are infering.
  • Member since
    August 2003
  • From: Bottom Left Corner, USA
  • 3,420 posts
Posted by dharmon on Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:44 PM
I thought we invaded Iraq so UP could absorb the Iraqi Railways......
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:48 PM
Democrats, this is your conscience. WAS IT WRONG TO OVER-THROW A DICATOR WHO MURDERED THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE A YEAR?!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2854019.stm Ahem, ahem.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline3.htm The proof is in the pudding, these violations alone, are strong indicators he was hiding something; and reason enough o invade! Why so you suppose he wouldn’t allow inspections. SO THEY WOULDN’T FIND THE WEAPONS.

Saddam implied, according to the former Presidential Secretary, that Iraq would resume WMD programs after sanctions in order to restore the “strategic balance” within the region and, particularly, against Israel.


Following Husayn Kamil’s defection, Saddam took steps to better manage Iraqi industry, and with the creation of the Iraqi Industrial Committee (IIC) in September 1995, the stage was set for a renewal of Iraq’s chemical industry. The IIC coordinated a range of projects aimed at developing an indigenous chemical production capability for strategically important chemicals that were difficult to import under UN sanctions, according to reporting.


Between 1996 and 2003, the IIC coordinated large and important projects for the indigenous production of chemicals.
· A written order from Saddam established the National Project for Pharmaceuticals and Pesticides (NPPP). NPPP focused on the synthesis of drugs and pesticides, for which Iraq in the past relied heavily on foreign suppliers.
· The IIC examined over 1,000 chemicals for initial R&D to determine the feasibility of scaled-up production. ISG notes that two chemicals on this list were compounds that are consistent with an experimental VX pathway.
· The process for vetting the 1,000 chemicals for economic feasibility and large-scale production was intensive and formalized. The IIC leadership built in several layers of review, research, and justification before compounds were selected for scale-up, raising further suspicion about the three compounds, particularly dicyclocarbodiimide (DCC)—a dehydrating agent that can be used as a VX stabilizer
· Dr. Ja’far Dhia Ja’far, and IIC member, could not recall which projects were accepted for scale-up but he knew that some compounds were dual-use and declarable to the UN, and that the National Monitoring Directorate (NMD) did not declare all of the chemicals.

Reports of an unexplained discovery of VX traces on missile warhead fragments in April 1997 led to further tension between UNSCOM and Iraq. The uneasy relationship escalated with the discovery of the ‘Air Force Document’ (see RSI chapter) in July 1998, which indicated further Iraqi deception and obfuscation over its CW disclosures. Iraq’s anger about these two major issues was a contributing factor to Saddam’s decisions to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA.
· The lack of inspectors allowed further dual-use infrastructure to be developed. The lack of effective monitoring emboldened Saddam and his illicit procurement activities.
Concurrently, Iraq continued to upgrade its indigenous manufacturing capability, pursuing glass-lining technology and manufacturing its own multipurpose controllers.
Scientists from the former CW program formulated agent simulants such as concentrated Malathion, a pesticide, and locally manufactured a copy of a system to disperse the simulant in 2001 and 2002.

Thionyl chloride, a controlled CW precursor that Iraq had used as a chlorinating agent in its sulfur mustard and nerve agent production processes up until 1990, was part of the program for the indigenous production of chemicals. The IIC tasked the Jaber Bin Hayan State Company between 1996 and 1998 to research the small-scale production of thionyl chloride, according to reporting. According to official reporting, thionyl chloride production was reported to Iraq’s National Monitoring Directorate.

Iraq began research on VX in the 1980s but failed to declare any production or attempts to produce VX until August 1995.


Excerpts from: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0
Why look at what your beloved Al Gore said in 1998. “
"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people."
Only look here if not convinced the war is and was worth it. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/images/ch5_img00.jpg

QUOTE: Again all your facts are based on pre-invasion intelligence that was openly criticized for being flawed by our allies.
A little proof please! Wasn’t it British intelligence information that helped get us started?
QUOTE: I've stated my last post of this as the original topic is now irrelevant.
Aren’t you proud of yourself for doing that! Well I don’t plan on having this thread derailed. Back to the subject!
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:56 PM
Moving on from the windbags.

I am not so sure that it would make sense to move freight on a HSL. This might make since if it ran on regular track, not a Maglev or anything. Most goods have more problems with lack of freight cars not the speed of delivery. You still are going to have freight trains slowing down passenger trains, since freight trains would have to make more stops to pick up and drop of cars. You also might have problems getting both shippers for a commodity the HSL route, or having the right type of freight car loaded.

Another issue not brought up is grade crossing safety. People complain freight trains come out of nowhere, a 250mph train would come even faster. Because of the more spread out us suburbs and rural roads, we couldn’t build over passes for every crossing. If any experts are out there, I would love to here from them about the idea of freight on a HSL.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:07 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Moving on from the windbags.

I am not so sure that it would make sense to move freight on a HSL. This might make since if it ran on regular track, not a Maglev or anything. Most goods have more problems with lack of freight cars not the speed of delivery. You still are going to have freight trains slowing down passenger trains, since freight trains would have to make more stops to pick up and drop of cars. You also might have problems getting both shippers for a commodity the HSL route, or having the right type of freight car loaded.

Another issue not brought up is grade crossing safety. People complain freight trains come out of nowhere, a 250mph train would come even faster. Because of the more spread out us suburbs and rural roads, we couldn’t build over passes for every crossing. If any experts are out there, I would love to here from them about the idea of freight on a HSL.



A whole new rail system would probably be a beneficiary of whole new car sets, cars designed for HSR. Stop thinking boxcars and classification yards, and start thinking unit trains and bi-modal. That's where HSR would excell.

Crossings? It is my belief a HSR system would be devoid of crossings, similar to an interstate freeway. Which is one reason many freeway median strips would make excellent ROW for a HSR system.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 11, 2005 12:15 AM
Crossings? It is my belief a HSR system would be devoid of crossings, similar to an interstate freeway. Which is one reason many freeway median strips would make excellent ROW for a HSR system.

This is a very intriguing idea. I understand that freeways have maximum grades and turns radiuses, could a HSL follow these? I think you might run into some trouble, if the median is persevered for lane expansions. This could solve a whole lot of the problem of land, if it is plausible.
  • Member since
    July 2005
  • From: Bath, England, UK
  • 712 posts
Posted by Tulyar15 on Friday, November 11, 2005 7:01 AM
Certainly in France they build High Speed lines alongside motorways. Like wise the existing bit of the Channel Tunnel Rail link mostly follows the M20 motorway between Ashford (Kent) and Maidstone then the M2 from there to Darford. Given how close it runs to the motorways and how little visual impact it makes compared with the motorway I fail to understand why the people of Kent kicked up such a fuss about it being built. (Mind you from my own, brief experience of living in that county, I'd say its residents were the most mean spirited people in Britian. As a rule, in Britain people get friendlier the further north or west you get away from London!).

All new high speed lines in Europe are built without level crossings; indeed on exisiting lines they are trying to phase them out wherever possible. A friend on another forum related an incident which happened over a 100 years ago in Wales where a run away loco demolished no less than 17 sets of level crossing gates. Luckly no one was injured.
  • Member since
    April 2003
  • 305,205 posts
Posted by Anonymous on Friday, November 11, 2005 8:49 AM
England is smaller than Idaho; the US has a lot more roads to avoid, and a lot more distance. That alone makes the cost ridiculously high.
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Friday, November 11, 2005 1:14 PM
Did I make you scream at your computer? Good. I love it when a plan comes together....Just a final word on the politics and I'll quit my political comments.

I NEVER stated anywhere that taking out Saddam was wrong, all I said was that the evidence used was flawed (remember the Downey St memo? Blair, Bush's allie, looked the other way when Germany and France questioned the data).

I stated my primary point that Bush should have FIRST taken car of Bin Laden and Al Quida in Afghanistan then and there! Instead of changing horses mid-stream and going into Iraq, before the Al Quida top leadership was eliminated. His strategy allowed high ranking Al Quida leaders to flee and go to other nations, now well be dealing with this for decades.

I love trying to discuss things with people who go into a flying rage withever someone criticizes the rebublicans, yet I'm expected to sit quietly by when dem's are kicked around. Sorry but I'm glad if that ticks you off. Bush is not Jesus. Just keep in mind that they put themselves into the position their in, they put their own approval ratings into the toilet! I really wonder just who they will find to run in 2008 that wont have Bush-stink on him...it is going to be a real problem for them.



WHY continue this topic?

No matter what anyones says in favor, your comments are always negative. Its clear to anyone reading this that no matter what anyone says, you've already clearly made up your mind against HSR and are going to continue to criticize anyone who disagree with you, so whats the point? Is this just a soap box to stand on?

I live in the largest metropolitan area of the country, I commute daily via freeway or light rail, I have experienced the benifits of a well planned transit system in England and France, have you?

You live in Idaho? Not exactly a state know for inter-city transit problems.

I'd like to know what experience you have with commuting, mass transit, or inter-city travel. Basicly what experience have you had to get from point A to point B by car bus or train? Have you lived in a large city in the past where you actually had to use the transit systems?

I think those of us who live in areas that would have see a positive impact from a well planned HSR system might have a better perspective on this subject. All I see so far is someone upset by the idea of his tax dollars might be used to build a transit system for people in another state in another part of the county...

Please....enlighten us.

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Friday, November 11, 2005 1:17 PM
QUOTE: Originally posted by Lotus098

Democrats, this is your conscience. WAS IT WRONG TO OVER-THROW A DICATOR WHO MURDERED THOUSANDS OF HIS OWN PEOPLE A YEAR?!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2854019.stm Ahem, ahem.

http://www.state.gov/p/nea/rls/01fs/14906.htm http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/iraq/timeline3.htm The proof is in the pudding, these violations alone, are strong indicators he was hiding something; and reason enough o invade! Why so you suppose he wouldn’t allow inspections. SO THEY WOULDN’T FIND THE WEAPONS.

Saddam implied, according to the former Presidential Secretary, that Iraq would resume WMD programs after sanctions in order to restore the “strategic balance” within the region and, particularly, against Israel.


Following Husayn Kamil’s defection, Saddam took steps to better manage Iraqi industry, and with the creation of the Iraqi Industrial Committee (IIC) in September 1995, the stage was set for a renewal of Iraq’s chemical industry. The IIC coordinated a range of projects aimed at developing an indigenous chemical production capability for strategically important chemicals that were difficult to import under UN sanctions, according to reporting.


Between 1996 and 2003, the IIC coordinated large and important projects for the indigenous production of chemicals.
· A written order from Saddam established the National Project for Pharmaceuticals and Pesticides (NPPP). NPPP focused on the synthesis of drugs and pesticides, for which Iraq in the past relied heavily on foreign suppliers.
· The IIC examined over 1,000 chemicals for initial R&D to determine the feasibility of scaled-up production. ISG notes that two chemicals on this list were compounds that are consistent with an experimental VX pathway.
· The process for vetting the 1,000 chemicals for economic feasibility and large-scale production was intensive and formalized. The IIC leadership built in several layers of review, research, and justification before compounds were selected for scale-up, raising further suspicion about the three compounds, particularly dicyclocarbodiimide (DCC)—a dehydrating agent that can be used as a VX stabilizer
· Dr. Ja’far Dhia Ja’far, and IIC member, could not recall which projects were accepted for scale-up but he knew that some compounds were dual-use and declarable to the UN, and that the National Monitoring Directorate (NMD) did not declare all of the chemicals.

Reports of an unexplained discovery of VX traces on missile warhead fragments in April 1997 led to further tension between UNSCOM and Iraq. The uneasy relationship escalated with the discovery of the ‘Air Force Document’ (see RSI chapter) in July 1998, which indicated further Iraqi deception and obfuscation over its CW disclosures. Iraq’s anger about these two major issues was a contributing factor to Saddam’s decisions to suspend cooperation with UNSCOM and IAEA.
· The lack of inspectors allowed further dual-use infrastructure to be developed. The lack of effective monitoring emboldened Saddam and his illicit procurement activities.
Concurrently, Iraq continued to upgrade its indigenous manufacturing capability, pursuing glass-lining technology and manufacturing its own multipurpose controllers.
Scientists from the former CW program formulated agent simulants such as concentrated Malathion, a pesticide, and locally manufactured a copy of a system to disperse the simulant in 2001 and 2002.

Thionyl chloride, a controlled CW precursor that Iraq had used as a chlorinating agent in its sulfur mustard and nerve agent production processes up until 1990, was part of the program for the indigenous production of chemicals. The IIC tasked the Jaber Bin Hayan State Company between 1996 and 1998 to research the small-scale production of thionyl chloride, according to reporting. According to official reporting, thionyl chloride production was reported to Iraq’s National Monitoring Directorate.

Iraq began research on VX in the 1980s but failed to declare any production or attempts to produce VX until August 1995.


Excerpts from: http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/chap5.html#sect0
Why look at what your beloved Al Gore said in 1998. “
"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people."
Only look here if not convinced the war is and was worth it. http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/images/ch5_img00.jpg

QUOTE: Again all your facts are based on pre-invasion intelligence that was openly criticized for being flawed by our allies.
A little proof please! Wasn’t it British intelligence information that helped get us started?
QUOTE: I've stated my last post of this as the original topic is now irrelevant.
Aren’t you proud of yourself for doing that! Well I don’t plan on having this thread derailed. Back to the subject!



you post all this hoopla and you have the kahona's to call me a windbag? Sheeee-it!

I think we know WHO the windbag is...[;)]

   Have fun with your trains

  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Cambridge, UK
  • 419 posts
Posted by owlsroost on Friday, November 11, 2005 1:49 PM
QUOTE: the US has a lot more roads to avoid


James,

Have you ever been to the UK (or anywhere else in Europe) ?

Europe in general is densely populated and has a road network to match (including a modern motorway (interstate) network), most of which existed in some form or other before railways were invented. The safety hazards of grade crossings were an issue here 150 years ago, let alone today.

High speed passenger rail (150 - 200 mph) makes sense up to around 500 miles or so between major population centres - much beyond that aircraft have the journey time advantage, but this is offset by modern trains being regarded as nicer, less stressful way to travel, so even if trains take a bit longer overall many people still prefer it to air travel. Eurostar has a dominant market share of London-Paris passenger traffic, and the original Paris-Lyon TGV line pretty much wiped out the air service between those points soon after it opened - they now have to run double-deck trains at close headways to cope with the demand.....

Modern high speed trains don't have a problem with 3%-4% gradients, so following motorways/interstates isn't that much of a problem provided the curvature is OK (parts of the Paris-Lyon TGV line in the mountains feel a bit like a roller-coaster ride at 170mph !).

Building trans-continental high speed passenger rail lines in the US wouldn't make economic sense - the overall population densities are too low for the most part, but in the right corridors I think it would work.

Tony
  • Member since
    December 2001
  • From: Smoggy L.A.
  • 10,743 posts
Posted by vsmith on Friday, November 11, 2005 3:41 PM
I'm really surprised no one has set up the popcorn machine yet....[;)]

   Have fun with your trains

Join our Community!

Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.

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