345mph!

[Modelcar]

.....I don't know the figures precisely for safety in Japan re: the Bullet Train but , I believe they have a rather great safety record over the years with no catastrophic accidents.

[Modelcar]

.....I don't know the figures precisely for safety in Japan re: the Bullet Train but , I believe they have a rather great safety record over the years with no catastrophic accidents.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

.....I don't know the figures precisely for safety in Japan re: the Bullet Train but , I believe they have a rather great safety record over the years with no catastrophic accidents.

None that we know of, but I'll guarantee you there have been accidents. Remember these trains are the pride of their countries and governments.[:(][:(][:(]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

.....I don't know the figures precisely for safety in Japan re: the Bullet Train but , I believe they have a rather great safety record over the years with no catastrophic accidents.

None that we know of, but I'll guarantee you there have been accidents. Remember these trains are the pride of their countries and governments.[:(][:(][:(]

[zardoz]

The safety record for the Shinkansen is ZERO fatalities for over two BILLION miles travelled! Japanese Rail (not the dedicated Shinkansen) has had a few minor accidents, but all of those have been on lines that share space with other types of trains operating at different speeds.

fyi: If memory serves, it takes the French TGV about five miles to make a stop from its top operating speed.

I wonder how long (distance & time) it would take to stop from over 300mph?

[zardoz]

The safety record for the Shinkansen is ZERO fatalities for over two BILLION miles travelled! Japanese Rail (not the dedicated Shinkansen) has had a few minor accidents, but all of those have been on lines that share space with other types of trains operating at different speeds.

fyi: If memory serves, it takes the French TGV about five miles to make a stop from its top operating speed.

I wonder how long (distance & time) it would take to stop from over 300mph?

[Anonymous]

Not long, after it left the track[V]. If for some reason it did stay on the track, probably take 10 miles to come to a dead stop. By then who cares[?][?]

[Anonymous]

Not long, after it left the track[V]. If for some reason it did stay on the track, probably take 10 miles to come to a dead stop. By then who cares[?][?]

[Modelcar]

...I understand you're concern as we or anyone is bound to think about such....but when anything goes wrong in an airliner we don't have too many second chances of survival either and people fly every day.

Over all world wide I believe the record is pretty good re: high speed rail. Even if a train leaves the rail at speed the couplers are so designed to hold the train together and if it doesn't hit anything substantial, I would suppose one's chance of survival is still pretty good.

[Modelcar]

...I understand you're concern as we or anyone is bound to think about such....but when anything goes wrong in an airliner we don't have too many second chances of survival either and people fly every day.

Over all world wide I believe the record is pretty good re: high speed rail. Even if a train leaves the rail at speed the couplers are so designed to hold the train together and if it doesn't hit anything substantial, I would suppose one's chance of survival is still pretty good.

[Anonymous]

The other problem with high speed is that the track ribbons infront of the train, ie it waves with the rails actually lifting the ties out of the road bed.

The road bed would have to be completely concrete to have 250+mph revenue service.

[Anonymous]

The other problem with high speed is that the track ribbons infront of the train, ie it waves with the rails actually lifting the ties out of the road bed.

The road bed would have to be completely concrete to have 250+mph revenue service.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

.....I don't know the figures precisely for safety in Japan re: the Bullet Train but , I believe they have a rather great safety record over the years with no catastrophic accidents.

One reason for this is that Japanese railway workers have to live with some of the strictest rules and safety regulations you can imagine. One example I can think of specifically is that all Japanese railway workers must stop before crossing any track and point with their finger in both directions to see if there is a train coming, even when off duty. I remeber seeing this on TV and there was a scene showing probably 20 or more guys walking across a yard and each one of them having to do this at each track they crossed. Not doing so would probably have very negative consequences. Rules like this may seem to be a bit overboard, but I suppose it must work. I wonder how railroaders over here would react to the type of regulations the Japanese have?

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Modelcar

.....I don't know the figures precisely for safety in Japan re: the Bullet Train but , I believe they have a rather great safety record over the years with no catastrophic accidents.

One reason for this is that Japanese railway workers have to live with some of the strictest rules and safety regulations you can imagine. One example I can think of specifically is that all Japanese railway workers must stop before crossing any track and point with their finger in both directions to see if there is a train coming, even when off duty. I remeber seeing this on TV and there was a scene showing probably 20 or more guys walking across a yard and each one of them having to do this at each track they crossed. Not doing so would probably have very negative consequences. Rules like this may seem to be a bit overboard, but I suppose it must work. I wonder how railroaders over here would react to the type of regulations the Japanese have?

[Anonymous]

I still stay with flying, much safer.

[Anonymous]

I still stay with flying, much safer.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with those that say Amtrak has no vision- I think Amtrak has two visions- a vision of what it would like to be ( higher speeds in a doxen corridors around the country) AND a vision that is more realistic in what it can really be with the dollars it has. Gunn has a vision of a well maintained , nation wide system, that is politically viable. Those of you who say that Amtrak just needs to build a 150 mph system, say in Dallas, or Minnesota have no reality to the situation in this country, with an Administration that would like nothing better then to see amtrak and all passenger trains disappear, and powerful senators like Mr. McCain who will dog amtrak and ANY federally supported system until it is no more.

As for rebuilding europes railways after the war, our last spending on them was in the early 1950's -- it has all been there money since then-- and they spend real money, government tax money-- and I mean billions every year in capital and operations- and we cant come up with $1.8 for BOTH capital and operations- tgough we are spending that each week in Iraq.

Sorry, Mr. Gunn has a vision and its a real vision of what can be done in the short term.

[Anonymous]

I disagree with those that say Amtrak has no vision- I think Amtrak has two visions- a vision of what it would like to be ( higher speeds in a doxen corridors around the country) AND a vision that is more realistic in what it can really be with the dollars it has. Gunn has a vision of a well maintained , nation wide system, that is politically viable. Those of you who say that Amtrak just needs to build a 150 mph system, say in Dallas, or Minnesota have no reality to the situation in this country, with an Administration that would like nothing better then to see amtrak and all passenger trains disappear, and powerful senators like Mr. McCain who will dog amtrak and ANY federally supported system until it is no more.

As for rebuilding europes railways after the war, our last spending on them was in the early 1950's -- it has all been there money since then-- and they spend real money, government tax money-- and I mean billions every year in capital and operations- and we cant come up with $1.8 for BOTH capital and operations- tgough we are spending that each week in Iraq.

Sorry, Mr. Gunn has a vision and its a real vision of what can be done in the short term.

[zardoz]

No disrespect was intended by me towards Mr. Gunn; he is one of the best things to happen to Amtrak in quite a while: a person with leadership qualities as well as down-to-earth understanding of railroad operations. My observations were directed more towards the attitude of the government and it's short-sightedness.

Back in the 50's the government somehow came up with enough money to build the now-decaying interstate highway system. How could we afford to build all those roads back then, whereas today we cannot even afford to repair them, much less build new, even though back then the population of the country was only around 150 million, compared with today's total of about 275 million. All those new workers working, paying taxes; new companies, paying taxes; where is it all going? Not only can this country not afford to invest in the future, thank to certain political leaders (i.e. dubya), we are incurring such a national debt that our kids will not even be able to pay it off.

9/11: planes fly into building killing many people.
post 9/11: many will now not fly, too dangerous;
governments answer: give FIVE BILLION to the poor, strugling airline industry. Why not some money for railroad improvements so they can compete with airlines in certain markets, allowing the "free enterprise" system of competition to work itself out.

[zardoz]

No disrespect was intended by me towards Mr. Gunn; he is one of the best things to happen to Amtrak in quite a while: a person with leadership qualities as well as down-to-earth understanding of railroad operations. My observations were directed more towards the attitude of the government and it's short-sightedness.

Back in the 50's the government somehow came up with enough money to build the now-decaying interstate highway system. How could we afford to build all those roads back then, whereas today we cannot even afford to repair them, much less build new, even though back then the population of the country was only around 150 million, compared with today's total of about 275 million. All those new workers working, paying taxes; new companies, paying taxes; where is it all going? Not only can this country not afford to invest in the future, thank to certain political leaders (i.e. dubya), we are incurring such a national debt that our kids will not even be able to pay it off.

9/11: planes fly into building killing many people.
post 9/11: many will now not fly, too dangerous;
governments answer: give FIVE BILLION to the poor, strugling airline industry. Why not some money for railroad improvements so they can compete with airlines in certain markets, allowing the "free enterprise" system of competition to work itself out.

[Anonymous]

You are correct. The Europeans use concrete as part of their roadbeds. But the question remains: how much concrete is used to build a four lane, six lane, eight lane interstate, and how much concrete is used to build a double track high speed railway? The answer for the railway is the same as a two lane highway without shoulders. In fact, since the passenger trainsets are so much lighter than a tractor trailer truck and its load, the concrete does not have to be so strong or as expensive.....

[Anonymous]

You are correct. The Europeans use concrete as part of their roadbeds. But the question remains: how much concrete is used to build a four lane, six lane, eight lane interstate, and how much concrete is used to build a double track high speed railway? The answer for the railway is the same as a two lane highway without shoulders. In fact, since the passenger trainsets are so much lighter than a tractor trailer truck and its load, the concrete does not have to be so strong or as expensive.....

[Anonymous]

As for Amtrak service in Texas, and lack of any improvements by Mr. Gunn. Our great senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a tireless worker for Amtrak on the Transportation committee, sought to get improved service to Texas. As the Texas Eagle was improved to daily service, from trice a week service, the timetables were changed to improve ridership in Texas. Three years later, the timetable looks as if it never changed, still getting into San Antonio after midnight, too late to rent a room at any hotel/motel.

She sought to change the route of the Sunset Limited from Cactus Jack territory near Big Bend to Dallas, Abilene, Midland, & Odessa so that there would at least be trice a week service between Houston and Dallas. We are still waiting.

She sought to expand the Crescent with a branch from Meridian Mississippi to Dallas thru Jackson and Shreveport similar to what the Southern Railroad did before Amtrak. We are still waiting. Back during the glory days more people rode the train to Dallas than to New Orleans. Oh, well. I guess Amtrak has not realized that Texas is the second largest state in population in the Union.....

I can name ONLY two cities of over 5 million in metropolitan population in America 245 miles apart that does not have Amtrak railway service daily. Yep, Dallas and Houston....

But Amtrak did put in a service daily from Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. Sorry Amtrak, you went in the wrong direction....

But Amtrak does run a bus service from Dallas to Houston to catch the Sunset Limited going east to New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, and Orlando. Catch the Greyhound at 2 am and catch the Sunset Limited in Houston at 6 am..... Or leave Houston at 1 am and get to Dallas at 5 am..... Sorry, most TEXANS sleep during those hours.....

Of course, you could go west to El Paso, Tucson, Los Angeles. Pull into San Antonio at 1 am and get switched to the Sunset Limited leaving San Antonio at 7 am. It also works the other way, pull into San Antonio at 3 am and get switched to the Texas Eagle that leaves at 9 am.

But there is no swithing of cars going eastbound in San Antonio. You are supposed to take Greyhound after midnight. You can take the train, but the station is closed. If it rains, there is no cover. Of course, you'll get no sleep that night, being on the east side of downtown San Antonio in the warehouse district....

Then there is the slow track. Amtrak averages less than 30 mph from Dallas to San Antonio and vice a versa. Too slow for most.... I hate to admit it, but you actually hope the Sunset Limited is so late pulling into San Antonio, it misses the Eagle and Amtrak buses you home to Dallas.....

NOT ANYWHERE NEAR GOOD ENOUGH FOR A STATE WITH OVER 22 MILLION IN POPULATION, WHICH IS EXPECTED TO DOUBLE IN THE NEXT 25 YEARS TO 50 MILLION! There is no border.....

[Anonymous]

As for Amtrak service in Texas, and lack of any improvements by Mr. Gunn. Our great senator, Kay Bailey Hutchinson, a tireless worker for Amtrak on the Transportation committee, sought to get improved service to Texas. As the Texas Eagle was improved to daily service, from trice a week service, the timetables were changed to improve ridership in Texas. Three years later, the timetable looks as if it never changed, still getting into San Antonio after midnight, too late to rent a room at any hotel/motel.

She sought to change the route of the Sunset Limited from Cactus Jack territory near Big Bend to Dallas, Abilene, Midland, & Odessa so that there would at least be trice a week service between Houston and Dallas. We are still waiting.

She sought to expand the Crescent with a branch from Meridian Mississippi to Dallas thru Jackson and Shreveport similar to what the Southern Railroad did before Amtrak. We are still waiting. Back during the glory days more people rode the train to Dallas than to New Orleans. Oh, well. I guess Amtrak has not realized that Texas is the second largest state in population in the Union.....

I can name ONLY two cities of over 5 million in metropolitan population in America 245 miles apart that does not have Amtrak railway service daily. Yep, Dallas and Houston....

But Amtrak did put in a service daily from Oklahoma City and Fort Worth. Sorry Amtrak, you went in the wrong direction....

But Amtrak does run a bus service from Dallas to Houston to catch the Sunset Limited going east to New Orleans, Mobile, Tallahassee, Jacksonville, and Orlando. Catch the Greyhound at 2 am and catch the Sunset Limited in Houston at 6 am..... Or leave Houston at 1 am and get to Dallas at 5 am..... Sorry, most TEXANS sleep during those hours.....

Of course, you could go west to El Paso, Tucson, Los Angeles. Pull into San Antonio at 1 am and get switched to the Sunset Limited leaving San Antonio at 7 am. It also works the other way, pull into San Antonio at 3 am and get switched to the Texas Eagle that leaves at 9 am.

But there is no swithing of cars going eastbound in San Antonio. You are supposed to take Greyhound after midnight. You can take the train, but the station is closed. If it rains, there is no cover. Of course, you'll get no sleep that night, being on the east side of downtown San Antonio in the warehouse district....

Then there is the slow track. Amtrak averages less than 30 mph from Dallas to San Antonio and vice a versa. Too slow for most.... I hate to admit it, but you actually hope the Sunset Limited is so late pulling into San Antonio, it misses the Eagle and Amtrak buses you home to Dallas.....

NOT ANYWHERE NEAR GOOD ENOUGH FOR A STATE WITH OVER 22 MILLION IN POPULATION, WHICH IS EXPECTED TO DOUBLE IN THE NEXT 25 YEARS TO 50 MILLION! There is no border.....

[starwardude]

If anyone here,who I think there is, lives near railroad tracks, You'll Know what I mean.
I live about 1 Mile from a freight yard, and a mile from a 4-track mainline used by Amtrak, CSX, and Metro North RR. It would be pretty dumb to redo a 4 track bridge so that ALL New York - bound trains would go up along the Housatonic, west to Danbury,then back south and probably end up in Norwalk when you want to go to Bridgeport. If you're wondering, I live in Stratford.

I'm just saying that.This Probably isn't even related to the posted subject.

[starwardude]

If anyone here,who I think there is, lives near railroad tracks, You'll Know what I mean.
I live about 1 Mile from a freight yard, and a mile from a 4-track mainline used by Amtrak, CSX, and Metro North RR. It would be pretty dumb to redo a 4 track bridge so that ALL New York - bound trains would go up along the Housatonic, west to Danbury,then back south and probably end up in Norwalk when you want to go to Bridgeport. If you're wondering, I live in Stratford.

I'm just saying that.This Probably isn't even related to the posted subject.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by starwardude

If anyone here,who I think there is, lives near railroad tracks, You'll Know what I mean.
I live about 1 Mile from a freight yard, and a mile from a 4-track mainline used by Amtrak, CSX, and Metro North RR. It would be pretty dumb to redo a 4 track bridge so that ALL New York - bound trains would go up along the Housatonic, west to Danbury,then back south and probably end up in Norwalk when you want to go to Bridgeport. If you're wondering, I live in Stratford.

I'm just saying that.This Probably isn't even related to the posted subject.

No sweat, all opinions are welcome here[:)][:)]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by starwardude

If anyone here,who I think there is, lives near railroad tracks, You'll Know what I mean.
I live about 1 Mile from a freight yard, and a mile from a 4-track mainline used by Amtrak, CSX, and Metro North RR. It would be pretty dumb to redo a 4 track bridge so that ALL New York - bound trains would go up along the Housatonic, west to Danbury,then back south and probably end up in Norwalk when you want to go to Bridgeport. If you're wondering, I live in Stratford.

I'm just saying that.This Probably isn't even related to the posted subject.

No sweat, all opinions are welcome here[:)][:)]

[Anonymous]

Henry Ford once tried mounting railroad ties into concrete. That old genius thought he knew more about railroads than railroaders. He built the track into concrete and sent the locomotive on its way...it derailed. He had his technicians rerail the locomotive and the same thing happened again. Setting the rails in concrete completely defeats the purpose of the railroad. Setting the ties in concrete makes the rails rigid. What Henry Ford learned the hard way is that the rails have to be flexible because the axles and the bogies are not flexible. In order for a 4-wheel bogie to round a curve, the rails must spread a bit and then return to their original gauge once the rear axle passes. The vibration of the prime mover and other aspects of the train's motion are absorbed by the ballast in order to prevent the rails from breaking and to give the passengers and freight a smoother ride. A train running on rails set in concrete would have about the same ride quality as a car driving the interstate on rims. There has to be flexibility somewhere, and that flexibility comes from setting the railroad ties in ballast.

Revenue service in excess of 200 MPH is possible today. It would require a completely new signal system, and the maintenance bill would be astronomical. Maglev and Aircraft are the only practical means of transportation faster than 200 MPH. The reason for aircraft is obvious...the atmosphere is the flexibility needed to ensure a smooth ride. Maglev has a different system to provide the necessary flexibility or suspension for a smooth ride. Magnetic fields hold the train in midair. The train wraps around the guideway to make derailment impossible. The train does not touch the guideway. The ride is kept smooth by the magnetic fields which support the train. Furthermore, since the train does not touch the guideway, the maintenance bill is extremely low. Incidentally, Siemens and Thyssenkrup (The parent companies for the German "Transrapid" maglev system) have built guideway sections out of concrete, steel, and other materials to test the viability thereof.

[Anonymous]

Henry Ford once tried mounting railroad ties into concrete. That old genius thought he knew more about railroads than railroaders. He built the track into concrete and sent the locomotive on its way...it derailed. He had his technicians rerail the locomotive and the same thing happened again. Setting the rails in concrete completely defeats the purpose of the railroad. Setting the ties in concrete makes the rails rigid. What Henry Ford learned the hard way is that the rails have to be flexible because the axles and the bogies are not flexible. In order for a 4-wheel bogie to round a curve, the rails must spread a bit and then return to their original gauge once the rear axle passes. The vibration of the prime mover and other aspects of the train's motion are absorbed by the ballast in order to prevent the rails from breaking and to give the passengers and freight a smoother ride. A train running on rails set in concrete would have about the same ride quality as a car driving the interstate on rims. There has to be flexibility somewhere, and that flexibility comes from setting the railroad ties in ballast.

Revenue service in excess of 200 MPH is possible today. It would require a completely new signal system, and the maintenance bill would be astronomical. Maglev and Aircraft are the only practical means of transportation faster than 200 MPH. The reason for aircraft is obvious...the atmosphere is the flexibility needed to ensure a smooth ride. Maglev has a different system to provide the necessary flexibility or suspension for a smooth ride. Magnetic fields hold the train in midair. The train wraps around the guideway to make derailment impossible. The train does not touch the guideway. The ride is kept smooth by the magnetic fields which support the train. Furthermore, since the train does not touch the guideway, the maintenance bill is extremely low. Incidentally, Siemens and Thyssenkrup (The parent companies for the German "Transrapid" maglev system) have built guideway sections out of concrete, steel, and other materials to test the viability thereof.