Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote user="schlimm"] Since electrification is the goal, mobile turbines are complicated and probably poor on fuel consumption, and fuel prices are soaring and much higher than when the SNCF moved away from them, why not bite the bullet and move forward now?  Costs per mile for elctrification on a new ROW are probably nowhere near as high as updating the NEC.  Additionally, a while back someone linked an article on current electrification costs per mile in the UK, which were considerably lower than figures thrown around for the California HSR.  I've never seen an explanation for that. [/quote] Passenger trains make sense in relatively short, high density corridors where the cost of expanding highways and airways is prohibitive. Before the U.S. builds any 220 mile per hour rail corridors, it should upgrade existing facilities, as it did with the NEC, to enable higher average speeds.  It should walk before it runs, irrespective of what other countries have done.  By starting slowly, with moderate investments, the proponents of passenger rail will be able to determine if there truly is a self-sustaining market for it.  It strikes me that it could get significant upgrades to existing facilities without electrification. Governments should facilitate investment in passenger rail infrastructure.  It would be nice if they could get some private market players to join the party, but given the paucity of returns for passenger rail, even in those environments where the operators claim to be earning a profit, it is unlikely.  Governments should only invest in projects that have a high probability of covering their operating costs and, ideally, paying back the capital invested.  By starting with a modest improvement of existing facilities, governments can determine if there is a market for better passenger rail service at moderate speeds.  If there is then it can look to developing higher speed capabilities.  However, if Americans don't go for high speed trains, which is a possibility, a go slow process is likely to lose less money.  For a nation with federal and local government debt in excess of 100 per cent of GDP, this is an important consideration.  Or at least it should be!  How much did it cost to electrify the NEC from Boston to New Haven?  The most common answer from several searches on Google and Wikipedia is $2.3 million per mile.  Adjusting this figure for inflation, the cost in today's environment would be in the neighborhood of $3.1 million per mile.  This is for the poles, wires, substations, etc.  It does not cover the roadbed, rail, signals, etc.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag