The long awaited Spanish high speed line from Madrid to Barcelona debuts this month. Using the German designed S103 Velaro trains (a derivitive of the ICE-3 used on German Railways, the trains will cover 410 miles in 2 hours 35 minutes at a maximum speed of 220mph (350kph). This will make it the fastest commercial conventional train service in the world (exceeding the French TGV Est line which runs at 200mph (320kph)). And, they expect it to be profitable by 2010, running without subsidies.
Here's the full article from the British 'Guardian' newspaper (link and below).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/spain/article/0,,2251264,00.html
Train in Spain sets out to beat the plane
Madrid-Barcelona link is part of 220mph network taking on the airlines Paul Hamilos in MadridSaturday February 2, 2008The Guardian
'Delays and disruption, disgruntled passengers left standing on platforms, accusations of political incompetence and financial mismanagement: the development of the Spanish railway system has a number of things in common with its British counterpart. But when the new high-speed link between Madrid and Barcelona sets off later this month, those complaints will be set aside as the super-slick Ave S103 service carves its way through the Spanish countryside at speeds of nearly 220mph.
The Ave S103 is the kind of train that British commuters can only dream of, and forms the centrepiece of plans to make Spain a model for the rest of Europe, and the world leader in high-speed trains by 2010.
Its 200-metre aluminium chassis carries 404 passengers, whose reclining chairs - which can swivel to face the direction of travel - are fitted with video and music players.
"They are the future of travel in Spain and show that the train is anything but obsolete," said Aberlado Carrillo, the director general of the state rail operator Renfe's high-speed service. "Trains will again be the dominant mode of transport in this country."
In its first term in office, the socialist government of José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has spent €21bn (£15.7bn) as part of a 15-year €108bn project to transform the rail network. Around 70% of this will be spent on the Ave (short for Alta Velocidad Española, or Spanish high speed).
The aim is to have 10,000km (6,200 miles) of high-speed track in Spain by 2020, meaning that 90% of the population will be no more than 30 miles from a station through which the train passes.
The Barcelona line is to be extended to Perpignan in France, making the Catalan capital just four-and-a-half hours from Paris. Work to join Madrid and Lisbon is under way.
December saw the opening of lines connecting Madrid to Valladolid and to Málaga, which have slashed journey times and proved hugely popular. Carrillo describes the success of these two lines as "unprecedented and well ahead of what we expected. Traffic has doubled on the Málaga line, and grown by 75% on the Valladolid line."
The distinction between the Spanish and British models of investment, says Christian Wolmar, the author of a history of Britain's railways, comes from conflicting philosophies of rail's worth.
"We ignore the social values of trains," he says. "Just as we don't expect motorways to pay their own way, we shouldn't expect trains to.
"All the recent legislation in the UK, with privatisation, franchising and the complex structures of investment, has meant that it is impossible to have a rational transport policy to maximise the use of trains for environmental and economic reasons."
But, says Carrillo: "The Ave has to be profitable. From 2010, it will not receive any public subsidies. Our experience of the Madrid-Seville line is that it will be profitable."
The success of the Madrid-Seville corridor - the first high-speed link, which opened in 1992 - is partly a result of its pricing policy, with affordable tickets that help to keep demand high and trains full. The 290-mile journey takes two-and-a-half hours, and costs between €28.90 (£21.60) and €72.20 (£53.95) - prices that might make British travellers green with envy.
It will be the Madrid-Barcelona connection, though, that will test the high-speed service. Business people in Spain's two largest cities, with a combined population of 10 million, have been crying out for the Ave for decades. But its development has not been without problems. The inauguration was delayed by landslides that brought chaos to Barcelona's commuter service, as contractors rushed to finish the line at the end of last year.
When it finally gets running, the S103 will cover the 410 miles to Barcelona in two hours and 35 minutes, taking two hours off the journey time. But it will face stiff competition from the highly successful air-shuttle, with a route that is one of the busiest in the world.
The "air bridge" operated by Iberia airlines allows passengers to turn up at the airport, buy a ticket, and board, within 20 minutes. Iberia alone has 60 flights a day, carrying 8,000 people.
Antonio Mayo, who is in charge of the service, is not worried by the train. "We have faced competition from other airlines before, and we welcome the fight with the Ave," he says.
"We can offer one thing they cannot - time. In normal circumstances, a businessman can get from his house in Madrid to a meeting in Barcelona in under two-and-a-half hours. The train cannot do this."
Mayo accepts that Iberia will take a hit in the first few months, but he believes that an executive who needs to be in a meeting at 9am will always choose to fly.
Carrillo argues that the comparison between train and plane is a false one. "Time spent in a train is time won, while in a plane it is wasted," he says. "In a train you can work, read, talk, use the internet, eat, or simply relax and enjoy the journey. With a plane, the only objective is to arrive.
"Personally, I am not bothered if the plane arrives 20 minutes earlier than the train. The question is how that time has been used."
The fact that more than 80% of travellers choose the Ave over the plane on the route between Madrid and Seville supports his argument.
There is also the environmental question: trains produce at least four times less carbon dioxide per mile than planes, and even less when compared with short-haul flights. Spain is preparing itself for a future in which there may be limits on the number of flights a person is allowed to take, particularly within the EU.
In the end, says Carrillo, it will come down to the quality of the service: "What we are offering is unavailable in the rest of Europe in terms of comfort, speed and punctuality."
Look away now if you are a British commuter used to mind-numbing delays: if an Ave train arrives more than five minutes late, passengers are reimbursed the full price of their ticket. And the only problem for those hoping to get their money back is that the trains are nearly 98% reliable.'
I guess the Spainards and everyone else has the honor of showing us young colonials how to go the way of high speed. By the way I dont consider the Corridor true high speed. It is a technological monument to a rusting and failing infrastructure still dominated by the B737.
Falls Valley RR wrote: I guess the Spainards and everyone else has the honor of showing us young colonials how to go the way of high speed. By the way I dont consider the Corridor true high speed. It is a technological monument to a rusting and failing infrastructure still dominated by the B737.
They show us Brits how to do it as well!
Countries like Spain and France have vision - which when it comes to high speed rail seems to be totally lacking in the English speaking nations. These decisions will pay off in 20 -30 years time when oil supplies are scarce and global warming takes effect.
OK you shame-mongers, here is the breakdown of travel by passenger miles in the enlightened E.U. (European Union) in contrast with the benighted E.-U. (Etats-Unis, or United States to those who can't speak the Academy's French).
Europe
85% auto passenger miles
5% air passenger miles
5% rail passenger miles
5% bus passenger miles
That's right, as many people take the bus "over there" (a mode held in low regard on these pages) as take those fancy trains.
U.S.
89% auto
10% air
1% bus
.1% Amtrak
Oh, and based on the appendices of the Vision report, those forward-thinking Europeans get that 5 percent share for trains by spending on trains a per-capita amount comparable to the U.S. Federal Highway Budget.
Yes, we could have those nice things here in the U.S. if we spent a large fraction of what we spend on a certain foreign military adventure right here at home, to replace some small percentage of total passenger miles with trains and save a percent or two of the oil that we import. Instead of wasting money overseas, we could waste the money right here on our own shores.
By the way, trains and buses have a flat-line market share but air has been gaining -- in Europe.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
air has been gaining -- in Europe
Incidentally, you chose to cite the entire European Union rather than stick to the nations that actually have high-speed rail. In many former Eastern Bloc countries, and in other countries in that union where spending is greater on politicians than on infrastructure, there is no high-speed rail, which this thread is about, in case you didn't notice, so it's not about all modes competing against each other in all markets.And when are you going to learn to keep emotional arguments out of your posts (words like "enlightened" and "benighted"), or is that the only way you think you can get your point across? The US still drinks over 6 million barrels of oil more per day than the EU (or 141 percent the amount of oil the EU consumes), which makes the EU look far more frugal in that respect for an entity with 163 percent of the USA's population (EU estimated 490 million versus USA estimated 301 million).
Since you want to drag military expenditure into this (off-topic, BTW), the EU is second only to the USA in military spending, even though it is less than half ($301 trillion per year versus the USA's $623 trillion). But the thing is, the EU doesn't have to borrow like it's going out of style in order to maintain that level of military spending, and they are well situated to expand such spending without resorting to the kind of borrowing the USA's been engaged in, including the rail mode. (And yes, the EU is in plenty of overseas military ventures presently.) It's not breaking them at all. There is no tradeoff in spending, whether for military, airports, highways or rail.
Yes, thanks for reminding me about the source -- I forgot to include the link
http://ec.europa.eu/dgs/energy_transport/figures/pocketbook/doc/2006/2006_transport_en.pdf
p 3.3.1 has the graph in question showing the relation between bus, air, and rail passenger miles, with bus being the leading of the three modes but with air making substantial gains to the level of bus with rail being steady.
My point with these statistics is to counter the notion that we should be ashamed or think of ourselves as 2nd class relative to our European trading partners on account of HSR. The statistics show that if Europe is the model for replacing cars with common carrier modes, we can spend a great deal of money on trains, HSR or otherwise and autos will retain the overwhelming share of passenger miles. The U.S. and Europe are not that far apart when it comes to common-carrier share, but the dominant common carrier mode in the U.S. is the airplane while until recently, the leading common carrier mode in Europe is the bus.
I think there is a market for HSR in the U.S. and at some point we will have it if the advocacy community is open-minded and flexible enough in its thinking to support where this will work. But it is not the energy-saving mobility-enhancing answer to every transportation problem, and the national shame argument is thoroughly unpersuasive outside the circle of foamerdom.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: ....the dominant common carrier mode in the U.S. is the airplane.....
Which over 400 miles produces 26kg of CO2 per passenger compared with 7kg of CO2 per passenger for an electric train travelling at 125mph or 14kg of CO2 per passenger for a high speed electric train travelling at 200mph (figures from the UK Department for Transport)
You know? I dont wrap myself in the nationalism. But when Nations overseas with the GDP that equals the annual budget of anyone of our bloated government agencies put up a modern functioning HST with a clear sense of mission to move people from A to B with the intent on putting airlines out of the route has to be doing something right.
I would like for once the USA to get up, get out of the fantasy land of auto/air travel and get serious about moving people between cities. Amtrack isnt going to be around forever you know.
Maybe the overseas people build the HST here in the USA and we pay them money to ride it.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:OK you shame-mongers, here is the breakdown of travel by passenger miles in the enlightened E.U. (European Union) in contrast with the benighted E.-U. (Etats-Unis, or United States to those who can't speak the Academy's French).Europe 85% auto passenger miles 5% air passenger miles 5% rail passenger miles 5% bus passenger miles That's right, as many people take the bus "over there" (a mode held in low regard on these pages) as take those fancy trains.U.S. 89% auto 10% air 1% bus .1% Amtrak Oh, and based on the appendices of the Vision report, those forward-thinking Europeans get that 5 percent share for trains by spending on trains a per-capita amount comparable to the U.S. Federal Highway Budget.Yes, we could have those nice things here in the U.S. if we spent a large fraction of what we spend on a certain foreign military adventure right here at home, to replace some small percentage of total passenger miles with trains and save a percent or two of the oil that we import. Instead of wasting money overseas, we could waste the money right here on our own shores. By the way, trains and buses have a flat-line market share but air has been gaining -- in Europe.
I am curious as to where you got these figures. Here are the official EU figures from Eurostat the Statistics Agency of the EU, for 2004 the most recent year for which final figures are available, based on Passenger-kilometers.
Automobiles 73.5%
Motorcycles & Scooters 2.4%
Buses 8.3%
Rail 5.8%
Tram & Metro 1.2%
Air 8.0%
Sea 0.8%
The figures are for travel between points in the EU
Here is a link to the publication
Panorama of Transportation
Falls Valley RR wrote: I would like for once the USA to get up, get out of the fantasy land of auto/air travel and get serious about moving people between cities.
Like the French who announced their new 'AGV' high speed train today - 360kph or 225mph. The French President was at the unveiling.
http://www.railwaygazette.com/news_view/article/2008/02/8165/alstom_unveils_agv_prototype_train.html
There are some concerns about those numbers. If the air transport was 26 kg of carbon for 400 miles, the air transport is getting about 40 MPG or about 3000 BTU/passenger-mile, which sounds about right. The accounting of AGW carbon emissions is commonly expressed in terms of weight of carbon in scientific literature -- environmental activists often report the weight of CO2 which will be more than three times as great, and by that accounting, the airliner is getting 120 passenger-miles/gallon, which I seriously doubt on that stage length.
The proportional figures for the 125 MPH train do not make any sense either. They work out to 807 BTU/passenger-mile, and I have not seen any published figures putting anybody's train in that range when you take load factors into account. My guess is that the trains are 800 BTU/seat-mile or 1600 BTU/passenger-mile at 50 percent load factor. Intercity buses are reported to be in the 1000 BTU/passenger-mile range, both here and overseas, and intercity buses edge out trains overseas and beat out our Amtrak (about 2700 BTU/passenger-mile) by a large factor.
As to automobile passenger miles in Europe being more in the 70-percent range for intercity trips, you see the same effect her in the U.S., where the longer the trip length the greater the air market share. Is comparing all auto miles to intercity common-carrier miles apples and oranges? Not really. If the policy choice is to spend a large amount of money on rail or HSR to mitigate CO2, you are replacing a small percentage of total passenger miles and getting minor reductions in CO2. To have meaningful contributions to preventing climate change, you have to have wholesale reductions in CO2, not single-digit percent reductions.
My argument is not against trains -- I think there are places where trains would be very helpful in terms of giving people mobility in an environmentally-friendly way. My argument is with the "national shame" argument that we are a nation of polluters and oil wasters for not having trains on the European scale. If we were to adopt European-style train budgets, spending the amount of our current Federal highway budget to support trains, it would nibble around the edges of the CO2 and oil import concerns.
A solid economic, social, and environmental case needs to be made for these trains. Overstating the benefits will definitely not work towards getting these things built -- otherwise we would have them by now.
Economic = LaGuardia Airport Closed Down in a winter storm. Lots of people wanting to go to chicago which happens to be fogged in. HST or maglev to rescue.
Social = No more jammed like sardines on a Greyhound visiting every single little burg for 20 hours. I for one will never ever again set foot on another greybarf bus in my lifetime.
Environmental = All Maglev or HST elevated and away from any interaction with surface traffic, wildlife etc and probably fired by Nuke plants which really only boil water at massive rates; the fuel spent goes to yucca and/or fired into the sun itself.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Which over 400 miles produces 26kg of CO2 per passenger compared with 7kg of CO2 per passenger for an electric train travelling at 125mph or 14kg of CO2 per passenger for a high speed electric train travelling at 200mph (figures from the UK Department for Transport) As to automobile passenger miles in Europe being more in the 70-percent range for intercity trips, you see the same effect her in the U.S., where the longer the trip length the greater the air market share. Is comparing all auto miles to intercity common-carrier miles apples and oranges? Not really. If the policy choice is to spend a large amount of money on rail or HSR to mitigate CO2, you are replacing a small percentage of total passenger miles and getting minor reductions in CO2. To have meaningful contributions to preventing climate change, you have to have wholesale reductions in CO2, not single-digit percent reductions.
The EU doesn't use Intercity figures, although for Air you can take them to be only Intercity. For all other modes they are all inclusive (commuter, driving to the Mall etc.)
Economic = LaGuardia Airport Closed Down in a winter storm. Lots of people wanting to go to chicago which happens to be fogged in. HST or maglev to rescue.Social = No more jammed like sardines on a Greyhound visiting every single little burg for 20 hours. I for one will never ever again set foot on another greybarf bus in my lifetime.Environmental = All Maglev or HST elevated and away from any interaction with surface traffic, wildlife etc and probably fired by Nuke plants which really only boil water at massive rates; the fuel spent goes to yucca and/or fired into the sun itself.
There is the non all-weather aspect to air transportation, but given the situation on the Donner Pass, rail isn't completely all-weather either. While the Donner Pass is historically famous for not being all-weather and trains generally have an edge, there are other weather conditions in other places that can shut trains down.
As to the complaining about being jammed like sardines on an intercity bus, there is a very strong intercity bus component to how they get people out of automobiles in Europe, and the vaunted California Capitol Corridor relies on a feeder bus network. People in the train advocacy community need to get a better outlook on buses as part of an integrated public transportation system if we are to move in the direction of Europe in terms of providing alternatives to cars.
On the subject of sardine packing, the New Tokaido Line runs 5-across seating in coach. When people think of space as an amenity on trains, thoughts run to a Sunset Limited consist described on another thread, where there were 2 locomotives, 8 cars, and 50 passengers have the run of the train with a diner and lounge car. A fuel-efficient environmentally-friendly HSR will not operate at those seating densities and load factors.
Finally, there are good things to be said about nuclear power, but whether we build nuclear power, continue to rely on coal, or continue the policy of rising electric rates to finance renewables and spur conservation will be decided on issues among which electric HSR will be one voice among thousands in the debate.
I am not a very good or strong debator but you have made a point about people density and Donner Pass.
1- Donner. If I have personally never been to that area I will not know of the land, terrain, weather and other facts of life on that particular spot. However I have seen Donner, Emigrant, Syskiyou and other passes in the northwest and it aint the Corridor Dorthy!
If one could actually weather proof Donner, it will be a engineering achivement.
2- People density.
I recall the Intercity of the late 80's in the east of England while riding to and from London. At the time it was considered high speed and it had a great impact on my thinking towards HST. We had a passenger car that featured 4 people seating around a table and in the middle of the train was a drink car. Beverage, coffee or whatnot... That car had a bit of open space to serve a dozen people or so at a time without overcrowding.
I would spend a week in and out of London towards Suffolk, Ely, Mildenhall etc on that train and in the Tube downtown London and didnt feel overly crowded. But the Tube certainly was small and required some patience compared to say.. the Washington DC Metro that had huge amounts of space.
The worst over crowding that I have ever seen was that where a million or so people wanted OUT of washington DC in the 90's after the Fireworks/Concerts events down at the Mall. Metro Center would be so packed as you did not have much room to expand your ribcage to breathe. The 13 car train that showed up was filled to full volume in about 15 seconds and standing room only with overloaded traction motors cooking for 5 stops or so.
Metro did a good job that night but normal travels on trains dont see too many people because of the dominance of the Auto or Plane.
Little Rock has about 6 arrivals and/or departures per hour. Usually 737's These planes came from.. one example.. southwest... had one that was San Fran, Las Vegas, Little Rock, Baltimore. And then Baltimore, Midway, Little Rock, Vegas etc. There were several of these in assigned routes and schedules.
Call it about 100 people per plane. You need to spend a great deal of energy lifting those people several miles above the earth and conveying them safely (And alive) to thier destination. It is a achievement for aviation to make people step into a aluminum tube and accept a 8000 foot atmosphere with hardly any humidity for a few hours at a time.
Now overbooking and cattle calls? You tell me.
What if a train was presented to board at Little Rock and take 100 people? Such a train would have a social car, a business area and perhaps one where people can tend to thier needs without having to deal with one bathroom that will overflow or stink like it will do on greyhound after 10 hours.
That train could have internet service allowing the people to stay in touch in real time, conduct meetings etc... corridor style while they are riding to.. Vegas without the hassle of airport security and flying.
Cost benefit analysis - the fudge for the knowing the price of everything against the value of nothing.
The UK Dft and the Treasury reckoned that Oil prices will start falling from 2012 and will be $25/ barrel because of fuel efficency....hmmm....that has to be factored into any CBA analysis of new electrification/ lines in the UK.
Also what people miss is of course is that for every person taken off the roads then the roads will become statistically safer; a fatal accident in the Uk costs appx £1m in ambulance, fire brigade and police call out - how much it costs if time was to notionally valued in delay to the drivers journey - not sure though the latter is applied to railway journey's in the UK.
Never seems to be factored in. On occasions you wonder if those who start pointing out to study x and study y showing why a line is not value for money are like Nero; fiddling whilst all around burns. Sure build more roads; but look at the cost of land use and the environment; sure pay cash for for airlines but look at the cost in emissions and - wait - the roads needed to transport those passengers.
I know, rather socialist. Sorry!
Paul Milenkovic wrote:Economic = LaGuardia Airport Closed Down in a winter storm. Lots of people wanting to go to chicago which happens to be fogged in. HST or maglev to rescue.Social = No more jammed like sardines on a Greyhound visiting every single little burg for 20 hours. I for one will never ever again set foot on another greybarf bus in my lifetime.Environmental = All Maglev or HST elevated and away from any interaction with surface traffic, wildlife etc and probably fired by Nuke plants which really only boil water at massive rates; the fuel spent goes to yucca and/or fired into the sun itself.There is the non all-weather aspect to air transportation, but given the situation on the Donner Pass, rail isn't completely all-weather either. While the Donner Pass is historically famous for not being all-weather and trains generally have an edge, there are other weather conditions in other places that can shut trains down
As to the complaining about being jammed like sardines on an intercity bus, there is a very strong intercity bus component to how they get people out of automobiles in Europe, and the vaunted California Capitol Corridor relies on a feeder bus network. People in the train advocacy community need to get a better outlook on buses as part of an integrated public transportation system if we are to move in the direction of Europe in terms of providing alternatives to cars
On the subject of sardine packing, the New Tokaido Line runs 5-across seating in coach. When people think of space as an amenity on trains, thoughts run to a Sunset Limited consist described on another thread, where there were 2 locomotives, 8 cars, and 50 passengers have the run of the train with a diner and lounge car. A fuel-efficient environmentally-friendly HSR will not operate at those seating densities and load factors
Finally, there are good things to be said about nuclear power, but whether we build nuclear power, continue to rely on coal, or continue the policy of rising electric rates to finance renewables and spur conservation will be decided on issues among which electric HSR will be one voice among thousands in the debate
The point of these three pictures being that for people who are not foamers, those three common-carrier modes (HSR, bus, and airliner) are pretty much the same thing: a lot of seats packed into a small cabin where you get to sit an extended period of time next to strangers with colds. The HSR mode has you in those seats for a shorter period of time, and the airliner has you in them for shorter time yet in exchange for taking your shoes and belt off and offering a smiling face to the TSA dude who mimes how you have your thumbs through the belt loops so the pants you bought big enough in the hips with the oversized waist doesn't slide down as you walk through the metal detector.
Effective HSR may require integration with feeder networks, requiring a feeder infrastructure including all modes of common-carrier transportation, including transit and intercity buses and especially the air transportation network. To follow the European model of substituting less energy intensive common carrier transportation for those energy intensive cars, we have to get as many people to ride those awful cramped buses as we get to ride those nice comfy trains.
HSR is a common-carrier mode of transportation, and to the extent that people find common carrier transportation does not serve their needs, they will select cars, as they do in the U.S. and do almost as much in Europe. Many of us are tired of airplanes, especially since they have become long-distance mass transportation rather than a specialty service catering to an elite group of travelers or "jet set"; when HSR gets adopted, there will be initial excitement but eventually it will have all of the glamor of jet travel. We need to emphasize how trains can serve specific transportation needs rather than the foamer-cool factor of riding trains. The diner-lounge-sleeper room-to-stretch-your-legs mode of train transportation that is so popular in the foamer community is not what you are going to get for corridor-congestion relief-energy saving trains.
The reason we don't have HSR in the U.S. is that airplanes provide common-carrier transportation at lower cost, especially for the route densities and trip lengths in the U.S.. HSR could provide a net energy saving or at least substitution of liquid fuel for coal or nuclear, but the effect on "carbon footprint" or oil imports would be in the low single digits, even after an expenditure of the magnitude of the Interstate Highways.
I am not anti-HSR. I just think we need to build up to it as Don Oltmann had suggested, I think we need to take a deep breath that we don't have it doesn't mean we are at the level of Argentina in the aftermath of the Perons or of Spain after the Spanish Civil War.
Oh sure, let's make trains to move people in assigned seats and roll em, packed to the max with little legroom and no defense against the seat mate with bad cold or flu.
I started off with trucks built around the late 50's early 60's and boy.... to go to California wasnt going to happen in those rigs. Some of those cabs give you just enough room to do your job.
The newer rigs feature human space, sleeper, table, desk, chairs, storage space etc etc etc. With thought towards the human that must occupy this space for extended times provides for a happier human.
I still like the older rigs and have to recall how to drive them from time to time at work. Maybe I can teach a new driver who only understands automatic transmissions how a double under actually worked or the 13 speed reverse gears are set up. (Dont get me started on 50 mph reversing games)
Yes I still remain with the Tavern Car, Beverage Car and whatever that goes into a train. It will make the ride a bit easier and maybe more productive with other features.
The pictures comparing the 737 to the other modes are quite striking. The bus does not have to suffer altitude, temperature and humidity changes and the Train does not really need consideration against aircraft construction.
It is a goal of travel to become routine, safe, day in and day out without a thought towards accidents or weather. When people want to go from A to B they want to go without worrying about it.
Yes bus drivers speed. That is another reason I dont ride buses anymore. I prefer to drive myself. Part of that problem is that Desiel engine on the bus. I have totally cannot sleep if that engine is going through it's power band very aggressively due to a speeding driver. I follow the wheels and frame every single moment until I get there and boy am I tired.
Once in a while I get a stable and happy driver content to set the vehicle up at a steady speed and keep it there. zzzzzzzzzzzzzz. Dreamland for me. Most of the time, the driver has 50 people who are irritable, tired, over exhausted, dirty from days without hygene, etc. No wonder they speed.
Paul Milenkovic wrote:The point of these three pictures being that for people who are not foamers, those three common-carrier modes (HSR, bus, and airliner) are pretty much the same thing: a lot of seats packed into a small cabin where you get to sit an extended period of time next to strangers with colds. The HSR mode has you in those seats for a shorter period of time, and the airliner has you in them for shorter time yet in exchange for taking your shoes and belt off and offering a smiling face to the TSA dude who mimes how you have your thumbs through the belt loops so the pants you bought big enough in the hips with the oversized waist doesn't slide down as you walk through the metal detector
Effective HSR may require integration with feeder networks, requiring a feeder infrastructure including all modes of common-carrier transportation, including transit and intercity buses and especially the air transportation network. To follow the European model of substituting less energy intensive common carrier transportation for those energy intensive cars, we have to get as many people to ride those awful cramped buses as we get to ride those nice comfy trains
HSR is a common-carrier mode of transportation, and to the extent that people find common carrier transportation does not serve their needs, they will select cars, as they do in the U.S. and do almost as much in Europe
Many of us are tired of airplanes, especially since they have become long-distance mass transportation rather than a specialty service catering to an elite group of travelers or "jet set"; when HSR gets adopted, there will be initial excitement but eventually it will have all of the glamor of jet travel
We need to emphasize how trains can serve specific transportation needs rather than the foamer-cool factor of riding trains. The diner-lounge-sleeper room-to-stretch-your-legs mode of train transportation that is so popular in the foamer community is not what you are going to get for corridor-congestion relief-energy saving trains
The reason we don't have HSR in the U.S. is that airplanes provide common-carrier transportation at lower cost, especially for the route densities and trip lengths in the U.S.
HSR could provide a net energy saving or at least substitution of liquid fuel for coal or nuclear, but the effect on "carbon footprint" or oil imports would be in the low single digits, even after an expenditure of the magnitude of the Interstate Highways
I am not anti-HSR. I just think we need to build up to it as Don Oltmann had suggested, I think we need to take a deep breath that we don't have it doesn't mean we are at the level of Argentina in the aftermath of the Perons or of Spain after the Spanish Civil War
I really don't know my epithets from my epitaphs either. Foamer is a widely-used term on these pages for someone who is enthusiastic about trains -- a railfan, a railroad enthusiast. About 99.9 percent of the people here, including myself, have some form of train enthusiasm, we freely use the term foamer about ourselves, and I am sorry that you take offense at it.
Many of us are passenger train advocates because we are also train enthusiasts. Many hate the traffic-fighting experience of driving and find a car confining and would prefer one of the coach seats in your pictures; many people who drive when there is a rail alternative (Wall Street Journal interviewed some car commuters forced on to the trains by the Dan Ryan lane closures) because they treasure the solitude and control over their personal space of their car. Yes there should be transportation choices, but there are also those who take umbrage that people enjoy their cars, at least in the brick-and-morter advocacy circles I associate with.
I had ridden the New Tokaido line 20 years ago when they still had the (narrower) 1st gen equipment -- I rode it one way in 5-across coach and the other way in 4-across business class on account of coach being booked. The 5-across coach had seat width and seat pitch comparable to a DC-9 airliner, and the ride was just fine, just as a DC-9 jet on a short-haul flight is an OK experience. Ten years ago I was in Japan and I didn't ride the New Tokaido line because I took a jet straight from Chicago to Osaka, and I took an intercity bus to get to my destination. That bus had typical bus narrow seats and seat pitch, but the bus was comfortable, quiet, clean, had video on board, and was equally comfortable.
There is this implicit assumption that everyone will find trains so much nicer than other modes if trains are made available to them. No they won't. For most people the train will be a means of getting from point A to point B, which will be utilized if it offers any advantage in terms of convenience or trip time. A cost-effective energy-effective HSR train may not have all of the amenities -- leg room, walking around space, cafe car -- that many in the advocacy consider to be intrinsic features of trains. A lot of the LD train amenities are there because people wouldn't otherwise ride the train, subsidies are required to pay for the amenities, and the energy efficiency suffers (Amtrak's average is not different enough from cars to make an energy policy difference).
The original companies that laid that station, tracks and stuff to support passenger ops have been dead for years. Amtrack owns a little bit of stuff but as long as they continue to be fed scraps from Congress's table they will NEVER be allowed to mature into a true national railroad.
In the past I have advocated using two to three cities in corridor groups as a means of expanding Amtrack nationwide. It will be a very long time before that happens.
I worked with cars part time, thousand cars per week, maybe more. Alot of those cars are merely toys and will not provide long distance support. Some cars are true long haul vehicles and will be very nice for trips. The rest well... they are junk.
Last year I had an oppertunity to buy a Toyota. It was about 17K for very good quality but rather small. ok.. brand new. I ended up with a Buick with the V6 and much bigger space for half the price and only 18 months used. And still have handling and giddy up go should aggressive highway manuvers be necessary in rush hour. (Usually is...)
When that buick dies, Im buying another buick because when I finish driving on these crappy arkansas concrete or gravel I feel pretty good. In the smaller cars, they just beat you to death and tear up not being built robust enough.
I pine for the days of 50's and 60's cars that were bigger than houses and had it all including a good ride. But manuvering these yachts will prove very expensive and difficult today.
I used cars as a example of space, luxury versus fatique and time travelling.
I personally prefer a Freightliner XL with everything behind a 600 CAT... but we cannot have everything.
The service has started at 'only' 186mph (300kph) but top speeds will be increased to 217mph (350kph) once upgraded signalling is in place, hopefully by this summer. There are currently over 900 flights per week between Madrid and Barcelona, so the chances of commercial success are high. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article3406118.ece
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.