Home
»
Trains Magazine
»
Forums
»
Passenger
»
California Senate approves funds for HSR

Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
<p>[quote user="schlimm"]</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <div><img src="/TRCCS/Themes/trc/images/icon-quote.gif" /> <strong>Paul Milenkovic:</strong></div> <div> <p> </p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <div>map <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2011.svg">ttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:High_Speed_Railroad_Map_Europe_2011.svg</a> suggests that the only European countries with 200 MPH+ trains are France and Spain.</div> </blockquote> <p> </p> </div> </blockquote> <p> </p> <p>Although you are technically correct, the highest speed ICE trains on the DB in Germany reach <span>198.84 mph (320 km/h), only 1 mph shy of the 200 mph threshold. </span>[/quote]</p> <p>Why should we care about matching the speeds achieved in Germany or Spain or France or Japan?  The key question is what speeds should we be able to achieve that meet the needs of the United States?</p> <p>The top speed for the Acela is 150 mph.  It will increase to 160 mph when they straightened out some of the kinks (rail and wire) in the New York to Washington line. Why incur the incremental cost to achieve 180 to 200 mph if 160 mph would do the trick?  Last time I checked the Germans, French, Spanish or Japanese are not going to pick-up the incremental cost to boost the speed beyond 160 mph. </p> <p>For most travelers the key is not the top speed. It is the time required to travel from point A to point B. If the overall speed is raised to reduce the trip time to what the public wants, the top speed is irrelevant. </p>
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