[ 3 / a / adv / an / asp / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / g / gd / int / jp / k / lit / m / mlp / mu / n / o / out / p / po / sci / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / v / vg / vp / vr / w / wsg / x]

/n/ - Transportation - Mayors back High-Speed Train from Dallas to Houston

<< back to board
[Delete this thread]

Mayors back High-Speed Train from Dallas to Houston Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)18:43 UTC+1 No.642998 Report

>The mayors of Dallas, Fort Worth and Houston this morning threw their support behind plans for a high-speed train route that could move Texans between the two metropolitan areas in 90 minutes.
>It’s the first time the mayors of all three cities collectively backed a private company’s plans for rail line between Dallas and Houston.
>“Not only will high-speed rail significantly reduce travel times and traffic congestion for Dallas and Houston area residents, but it will also create new, high-paying jobs and stimulate economic growth,” said Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings in a prepared statement.
>The Dallas-Houston connection is part of the U.S. High Speed Rail Association’s proposed 14,000-mile high-speed rail network that would connect dozens of major U.S. cities.

Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)19:57 UTC+1 No.643023 Report

I'll believe it when they start building it.
Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)20:13 UTC+1 No.643027 Report

>ever funding something like this
Oh boy this sure worked out in Florida.
Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)21:03 UTC+1 No.643042 Report

Maybe if they promise to mount bull horns to the front.
Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)21:50 UTC+1 No.643050 Report

I hear those things are awfully loud.
Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)21:51 UTC+1 No.643051 Report

People who want to sing, get >>>/out/
Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)21:58 UTC+1 No.643060 Report


Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)22:00 UTC+1 No.643062 Report

Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)22:30 UTC+1 No.643072 Report

They won't have to.
I'm tired of the CAHSR boondoggle. Let JR Central run the show and get something achieved within our lifetimes.
Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)23:14 UTC+1 No.643085 Report

>private companies
>building a high speed railline
>in a state filled with people who have no idea what "commuting" means
Pants-on-retarded is too kind a term for that.
Anonymous 03/28/14(Fri)23:40 UTC+1 No.643093 Report

Texas has the nation's 2nd busiest highway routes, and I-45 is a constant clusterfuck. I would think many people know what commuting means and would support something that doesn't involve tax increases or wasteful highway expansion projects.
>doubting JR Central's capability as the most experienced HSR operator
Anonymous 03/29/14(Sat)00:04 UTC+1 No.643103 Report

>Murrica (outside of the NEC)
>ever having high speed rail
this is going to fail, just like CAHSR. even if they do manage to build it, the line will be useless, as there's nothing for it to connect to. most people will have to drive for hours to reach the stations, at that point they may as well just drive all the way to Dallas/Houston
Anonymous 03/29/14(Sat)00:11 UTC+1 No.643105 Report

That's a good one, the biggest cities in Texas barely get 300,000 riders a day on their public transit systems. Even MARTA gets more riders a day then METRO does. Where the hell is it even indicated JR Central would help plan this political hailstorm anyway? They've got their own problems to worry about back in Japan, they don't need people living in the boonies screaming at them because they think HSR creates "noise pollution" or some nonsense.
Anonymous 03/29/14(Sat)01:03 UTC+1 No.643130 Report

Aren't highways awfully loud?
Anonymous 03/29/14(Sat)03:38 UTC+1 No.643205 Report

I hate the way /n/ likes to be!
Anonymous 03/29/14(Sat)03:47 UTC+1 No.643210 Report

Latios 03/29/14(Sat)03:51 UTC+1 No.643213 Report

Depends on the system really. The Shinkansen has to move in line with ever tightening noise restrictions and JNR/JR installs/ed walls near houses as well as soundproof windows and insulation if people bitch more.

And it's definitely quieter than a freight train with 9001t axle loads running at 80km/h
Anonymous 03/29/14(Sat)04:23 UTC+1 No.643227 Report

>comparing inner-city public transit to the obvious intercity transportation needs between the major Texas cities: one of the highest Average Annual Daily Traffic numbers in the US. I would think air service between the two cities is also very high.
JR Central is the private constructor and operator of the project. Believe it or not, many private operators like JR, SNCF, RENFE lobby in Congress to allow more public-private partnerships like this. Because of this private operation, most people in Texas won't be complaining as opposed to those retarded NIMBY Californians
Anonymous 03/29/14(Sat)04:31 UTC+1 No.643231 Report

>inner city numbers won't reflect intercity numbers
I'll believe it when I see Shinkansens pulling into Houston without a single cent of tax payer money subsidizing it. If JR by some miracle actually gets permission to go ahead with this they're going to have the fun time of figuring out where the hell the line is going to go, private or public the boonies are going to scream if they try to go through their precious greenspace.
Anonymous 03/29/14(Sat)04:48 UTC+1 No.643235 Report

>Cowcatcher, Texas-style
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)01:05 UTC+1 No.643569 Report

>private operators like JR, SNCF, RENFE
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)03:07 UTC+1 No.643649 Report

>private operator
pick one
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)03:25 UTC+1 No.643662 Report

That's how they would essentially function in the US,
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)04:09 UTC+1 No.643690 Report

If by "private" you mean private board of directors with large sums of cash from the government then sure. That's how they would operate in the states.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)04:28 UTC+1 No.643700 Report

>Railroads operate in the US by creating government owned holding companies to finance all of their debt.

I don't think so, man.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)07:23 UTC+1 No.643739 Report

You need rail inside Houston and Dallas first
There is no rail whatsoever
How do you get around the city
How do you get around the suburbs and to and from the suburbs and city centre?

HSR works everywhere else cause you can hop on your local commuter train, get into the city centre terminal, and on another platform waiting for you is the high speed inter-city train
simple and easy seamless flow

You cant do that in this case
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)07:27 UTC+1 No.643740 Report

>the biggest cities in Texas barely get 300,000 riders a day on their public transit systems.
cause all they have are buses and dinky little lightrail in the gentrified downtown
aim low and your achievements will be low
why cant there be government money?
aside from a pathological hysteria created by the rightwing noise machine what is the economic or logistical or engineering argument against it and what examples do you have that counter all the countless examples of public transit working?
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)07:28 UTC+1 No.643741 Report

>cause all they have are buses and dinky little lightrail in the gentrified downtown
Fun fact: DART has the largest light rail network in the country.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)07:44 UTC+1 No.643748 Report

>being proud of something this pathetic

lightrail is fine when it is treated as what it is: trams/streetcars
put it on the road, maybe on median strips, in the city centre and surrounding urban areas and thats fine

trying to put it on railways, or worse subways or elevated, or sending it far away out into the burbs just doesn't work
it does not have the range or capacity

lots of people live in the burbs right?
so why send out there a vehicle that carries few people and is slow and may have to share the road with cars??

stop trying to cheap out on public transit infrastructure
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)07:54 UTC+1 No.643751 Report

SNCF put together a proposal for the Mid West Hub that involved 47% government investment and 54% private investment
It would have been something like 70 or 80 billion
The government money would have been paid back in 15 years according to their proposal

Now SNCF do run Frances high speed rail fairly well yeah? Not unreasonable to think they might know what they're talking about and this could be a workable example
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)08:03 UTC+1 No.643753 Report

SNCF undoubtedly runs their railroad well, HOWEVER, they don't run a truly profitable railroad. They pull the same shit as the JRs, offloading their debt onto the government.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)08:04 UTC+1 No.643754 Report


>michigan central gets an HSR stop
>MDW gets an HSR stop
>ohio gets more than 0 HSR stops as though people _want_ to travel to ohio

i'm skeptical
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)08:13 UTC+1 No.643760 Report

they put their profits directly back into the network

major infrastructure is a long term low yield investment
it takes time to pay back back
The Golden Gate Bridge didn't return a profit til the 70s
The Big Dig wont be in the black til the 2030s, assuming it doesn't suffer a catastrophic fault first

A notion has developed amongst Americans that you HAVE to be profitable IMMEDIATELY
This is a dubious and unrealistic expectation
And curiously, only applied to anything beneficial to the public
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)08:14 UTC+1 No.643762 Report

There are countless proposals for the mid west
I forget who did this one but I like it cause it gives journey durations so its a good way to explain how HSR can work
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)08:15 UTC+1 No.643763 Report

Look at how much debt SNCF and the JRs shove off.

These business would NEVER be profitable without the government.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)08:16 UTC+1 No.643764 Report

Nobody expects roads, bridges, tunnels, water mains, gas mains, power lines, etc to have recouped their costs by the next financial quarter
But rail alone is expected to be profit maker instantly
Why is that?
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)08:39 UTC+1 No.643773 Report


no form of passenger transit covers its capital cost in farebox recovery. not airlines, not trains, not buses, not cars, not blimpcycles, nothing. airlines would be a complete wash if they did their own capital spending for airports instead of just renting gates from the government and piggybacking on federal ATC infrastructure. a lot of them are only profitable because they have contracts to move usps parcel freight in the baggage compartment of commercial flights (which is historically how passenger trains made their actual money). the government still throws money at it because making transportation cheaper & faster cranks up property values, frees up time & money for citizens to spend on other stuff, and therefore cranks up tax revenue.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)09:07 UTC+1 No.643781 Report

just another example of government subsidy for private air travel: government pays for airport security
amtrak has to pay for its own
>and therefore cranks up tax revenue
right, its all about getting taxes
its about crony capitalism, the fat cats get their pals in government to give them a boost
and hold back cheaper competition - public transit
Latios 03/30/14(Sun)09:25 UTC+1 No.643783 Report

The debt offloading was only at the start of JR which served as the basis of its formation.

During the JNR era, the Shinkasen turned into a political football (although you could say it was for the better since the infrastructure and corridor will now be there forever). Eventually it piled on so much debt and corruption (complete with rumoured yakuza ties) that the government decided to privatise it. That is the JR as it exists today. Granted, during the transition, the government did absorb a good chunk of the debt. However, nowadays, JR exists unto itself as a group of private entities and the two big ones are profiting.
The Chuo Shinkansen for example is being built on JR Central's own pocket money.
At the same time, the JR companies are paying off the debt it took charge of.

Of course, one must consider how JR plays the ball. Fares alone wouldn't be profitable, so they run a multitude of businesses spanning into water, general products, hotels, retail space and other things
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)09:46 UTC+1 No.643784 Report

government absorbs hundreds of billions of dollars in debt funding high tech R&D, advanced manufacturing, and establishing logistics until it can be marketed
this process is also known as the military
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)16:40 UTC+1 No.643833 Report

It's a nice rail system they run back in France but it is not profitable.
>putting an HSR stop in the middle of warzone Detroit and not in the rich boonies

The only potential viable corridors in North America are probably the NEC, California, the Windsor-Quebec corridor, the midwest and maybe even Portland-Vancouver. Anything else will just result in a lot of "boondoggle" being thrown around.
Freight also needs to be addressed if a corridor is to be built in America, if high speed lines can't be used at the very least to move goods around they'll be pretty useless and no profit from Class 1s will go towards maintaining the line.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)17:57 UTC+1 No.643857 Report


american HSR would be federal or state-owned with an operator hired to run & maintain the actual trains, even if parts of it wind up being freight accessible the class 1s would be paying for trackage rights instead of owning it. freight doesn't make sense in that context anyways since HSR lines run like a subway with sub-10-minute headways.

not to mention the logistics of high speed freight are just stupid, freight doesn't care about getting there fast.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)18:09 UTC+1 No.643858 Report

The krauts move shit at night, I don't see why this couldn't be done in the US.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)18:27 UTC+1 No.643862 Report

>american HSR would be federal or state-owned with an operator hired to run & maintain the actual trains
Nah, that's not what any of these proposals are.

Every realistic proposal is state's paying to upgrade a freight line, having Amtrak run the passenger service, and then having the freight road maintain it.

That's the reality of HSR in America.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)21:17 UTC+1 No.643900 Report

>putting an HSR stop in the middle of warzone Detroit and not in the rich boonies
HSR goes from one city to another
if you have numerous stops in between it aint going to be high speed thanks to decelerating and accelerating all the time

Freight is not moved by HSR
Freight rail is about volume not speed
There is a bizarre notion unique to America that any passenger services must use existing freight railways
New railways cannot be built
At all
Or Else!
Or else what? Why cant new be built? Is there some sort of natural law like the laws of gravity and thermodynamics that inhibits new railway infrastructure construction?
Sometimes passenger and freight can share track
Sometimes they can share right of way but need duplicated tracks
Sometimes they need their own routes

What HSR does for freight is it removes passenger services from conventional lines, freeing up capacity for more freight on them
If they share track it will not be High Speed
You can not go high speed with other traffic on the tracks
You cannot go high speed with some slow ass behemoth trundling along ahead of you or behind

What is Safety?
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)21:25 UTC+1 No.643903 Report

>Useless HSR

Who will even use it? Trinity is already useless and costly to have.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)21:52 UTC+1 No.643914 Report

Because of the very long distance we transport freight, it's 24/7. And ever minute you stop moving you're losing money.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)22:00 UTC+1 No.643921 Report

They normally use existing freight roads because freight roads already have the infrastructure to maintain them and build them. States generally don't want to get into the business of building, operating, and maintaining railroads.

It really does make sense. All you need to do is add more sidings. Look at Illinois' increasing speeds up to 110mph and 125. It costs you much less than building brand new roads.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)22:19 UTC+1 No.643932 Report

>It really does make sense.
if the destination is in close proximity to a freight railway
if not, then...?

suppose you want commuter trains to and through your burbs from a city terminal
maybe theres one freight line down in your south east you can use
but what about the rest of the burbs??
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)22:20 UTC+1 No.643933 Report

> Look at Illinois' increasing speeds up to 110mph and 125. I
regional/inter-urban services
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)22:27 UTC+1 No.643947 Report

Good thing freight roads go to every major city in the US.

Yes, I know that using freight roads are not preferable from a service stand point, but the reality is that it's MUCH cheaper.
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)23:17 UTC+1 No.643963 Report

>to cities
Again that's alright for interurban/regional
Maybe for a suburban commuter if the burbs happen to be around it
But the burbs are spread out all around the city
And there won't be freight going through all of them
Or they're too far away
Why do I need to explain such obvious things?

Further, freight and passenger may not be able to share as frequency for the passenger increases or you want to do express services, you might need to duplicate to separate services or build a new right of way
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)23:19 UTC+1 No.643964 Report

They'll just LRV it
A single unit carrying 100-200 people
On the road
For 30-40 miles
Perfect for the burbs and everyone traveling between them and to the city
Anonymous 03/30/14(Sun)23:54 UTC+1 No.643977 Report

You're missing my point, Detroit itself is dead, unless you want the trains to sit empty and get vandalized a lot you don't put one of the stations in the middle of Detroit.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)00:34 UTC+1 No.643983 Report

>If they share track it will not be High Speed
If we can get the organization and electronics together; positive train control upgrades from wayside signalling, duplicating trackage as needed, and operating tiered service levels on popular routes, then we can talk about dedicated HSR. What's the point of having high-priced HSR that only the rich can use without upgrading the status quo?
All the political Congressional talk about "HSR" was blatent lies, the plan from the beginning was upgrading existing trackage

Part of Amtrak's network. Reality is that 125 MPH track upgrades are being sought by many Amtrak-carrying states. They just ordered new Siemens locomotives designed to go 125 MPH or higher.

There can be more than "a single unit".

Because they are compared to the airline companies, who have their infrastructure capital paid by the FAA.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)00:41 UTC+1 No.643986 Report

That's only a problem for the Sunbelt cities (and they can use the Interstate ROW if they really need to have commuter rail service
Latios 03/31/14(Mon)01:53 UTC+1 No.643997 Report

The whole point of HSR was to ensure that freight stayed out of the way.
That said, the French do have 270km/h and 200km/h freight on the LGVs but they're an uncommon sight.
If freight is going to run, it has to use electric locomotives, not the diesel junk murrica is filled with and heavy fines need to be imposed for freight trains cockblocking passenger trains due to issues or plain incompetence

The Japanese were thinking of it then realised it was stupid. Although the Hokkaido Shinkansen will have freight on the Seikan Tunnel section which is expected to slow the whole system down.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)02:45 UTC+1 No.644016 Report

>the manufacturing heart of america is dead
>there is nothing to reverse this
>reversing this by manufacturing vitally needed goods would not employ countless Americans reviving the economy
>if we
You can get to 160-200kmh with in cab signalling, fault detection gear, limiting the speed of freight to 80kmh, and modernising track work
And that is okay for linking a city to not unduly far away towns
But that's not HSR
>part of amtraks network
Yes track they own and can make such decisions for
Which cannot be done for the majority of the railways owned by private freight
>There can be more than "a single unit".
Couple multiple units on the roadie traffic perfect what could go wrong
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)02:47 UTC+1 No.644019 Report

>What's the point of having high-priced HSR that only the rich can
Because its got to turn a profit immediately and so tickets have to be priced accordingly it can't take time to repay its investment no infrastructure project ever does that
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)02:49 UTC+1 No.644023 Report

>on the interstate
Yeah that's okay, i often point out thats an alright way to save money, just make sure its a train due to the distances and patronage involved
But of course just like the freight it might not go where the railway needs to go
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)02:51 UTC+1 No.644024 Report

Damn, all the retards in this thread that know absolutely nothing about how railroads work.

They happen to be the people with the most vocal opinions too. How about that...
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)02:51 UTC+1 No.644025 Report

TGV hauls the mail that's it
Freight moves through the channel tunnel at conventional speeds
The new Gottard Base Tunnel is being built for freight first and passengers second, the freight trains will apparently be move through it at 150kmh - don't forget though their freight locomotives are electrified unlike America
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)02:53 UTC+1 No.644026 Report

Proper size
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)02:56 UTC+1 No.644027 Report


>limiting the speed of freight to 80kmh

how does that help, at all
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:03 UTC+1 No.644029 Report


that's what i said, it's stupid and doesn't make sense. if you desperately need the ROW for freight, then it needs its own parallel tracks or else the disparate speeds are gonna cause operational mayhem.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:03 UTC+1 No.644030 Report

Slow down faster
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:05 UTC+1 No.644031 Report

Really all you need to do is improve signaling.

TA slows everything the fuck down.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:15 UTC+1 No.644032 Report

You have no clue how fucked Detroit is do you? There's a complete "dead zone" around the city core of what was once neighborhoods and factories, they're all out in the burbs now. The manufacturing base is practically gone within Detroit. Any economic stimulus would go where the middle class is, the burbs. Nothing short of billions in investments and complete restructuring of the municipal government is going to fix this. Do you expect people to drive in from the burbs into the city just to take a train? If you want to service middle to high income families that work in the Detroit area you put it where they live. Anyway Michigan Central has sat empty for so long you'd need a near complete rebuild of the place and then they'd have to find enough tenants to fill the place.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:21 UTC+1 No.644034 Report

Go back to /pol/
This is purely racial, it would not be left to rot were it white
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:23 UTC+1 No.644036 Report

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:24 UTC+1 No.644037 Report

>blatant racism
Maybe you should take your own advice.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:26 UTC+1 No.644038 Report

>muh habbenin
The lady doth desire chaos too much
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:28 UTC+1 No.644040 Report

>stating the situation in detroit
>ids habening
Fuck off retard.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:39 UTC+1 No.644043 Report


if there's 2 sets of traffic that travel at different speeds, go different places, and use totally incompatible equipment, then they belong on 2 separate railroads. even if those railroads just happen to be built parallel to each other. if nothing else it's a necessary step to prevent another chase-style collision without needing either side to sacrifice train speed, since there's no way for the traffic to meet each other. it also means you don't need wacky block lengths to support 2 wildly different traffic speeds, extra crossovers so trains can ninja past each other, etc.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:39 UTC+1 No.644044 Report

>Which cannot be done for the majority of the railways owned by private freight
The 125 MPH upgrades were done with cooperation by Norfolk Southern. If the company is willing and Amtrak has the money, then it can be done. Of course this model is not perfect and long-distance routes are at the mercy of the host railroad's disposition to abandon the line altogether, but fuck Amtrak long-distance anyway. Popular Amtrak routes will have the political support to allocate state DOT funding specifically towards improving that corridor.
I don't support HSR exclusively for the means to separate passenger traffic from freights, because that can be done with cheaper track duplication and PTC.
>Couple multiple units on the roadie traffic perfect what could go wrong
Not much, assuming you've got median strips, as you argue >>643748
Are you arguing for naturally high HSR prices as is the status quo in most countries?
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:44 UTC+1 No.644045 Report

Oh, you're one of those people that thinks all train lines should be electrified...
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:46 UTC+1 No.644047 Report


how do you figure that has _anything_ to do with what i said
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:47 UTC+1 No.644048 Report

>literally nothing to do with what that anon said
Good job man.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:49 UTC+1 No.644049 Report

It was pretty well implied with "incompatible equipment."

Passenger train nuts just don't understand how expensive it is to build a mainline and that passengers have never been a money earner.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:50 UTC+1 No.644050 Report

You can run diesel equipment just fine on electrified lines you retard.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:52 UTC+1 No.644051 Report

You can, but to say "incompatible equipment" would surely imply that they shouldn't be running on the same lines.

Go look at the south shore freight line and how they ripped down all catenary that was used only for freight lines.

But good job addressing the fact that passenger operations have never been a money maker.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:53 UTC+1 No.644052 Report

What the fuck does that have to do with anything? You can run diesel-electrics trains on electrified lines just fine, he was probably hinting at trains with different lengths and equipment.
You're just trying to derail the thread aren't you?
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)03:57 UTC+1 No.644053 Report


incompatible = couplers and whotnot, mostly. HSR gear is never gonna get hauled around by a GEVO in revenue service like some amtrak gear occasionally is.

also knock it off with that hippie profit talk, i'm still talking rhetorically. the benefits of even bothering with an HSR line evaporate if you sell out everything that makes it HSR, and HSR operation is incompatible with 75mph freights running extra over it.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:00 UTC+1 No.644054 Report

>>Go look at the south shore freight line and how they ripped down all centenary that was used only for freight lines.
Yeah no shit they stopped using the little joes and it was unfeasible to buy electric locomotives to serve exclusively a small corridor especially since no on in the US really sells freight hauling electric locomotives.

>But good job addressing the fact that passenger operations have never been a money maker.
Why the hell are you even bringing this up? This has nothing to do with the thread at all since this, like other pieces of infrastructures (ie: freeways and seaways) would be subsided.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:04 UTC+1 No.644055 Report

If something has no hope of ever recouping costs why on earth should we build it when there are better alternatives. i.e. air travel.

I'm not saying passenger rail doesn't have a place, but HSR is such a pipe dream in America.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:04 UTC+1 No.644056 Report

If they actually aiming low, then you'd see those existing bus and light rail routes packed to capacity every day with no way out but to scale up. That hasn't happened yet.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:06 UTC+1 No.644058 Report

Air travel, with its airport infrastructure costs largely subsidized by the FAA, is hardly a "better alternative". With Northeast and CA airspace crowded as it is, replete with constant delays, air travel has pretty much reached its capacity limit there.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:11 UTC+1 No.644060 Report

>If something has no hope of ever recouping costs why on earth should we build it when there are better alternatives
You could literally say that about any major transport infrastructure project be it roads, rails or canal. Why do we maintain public transit infrastructure, why do we have bike lanes, why do we build tunnels and bridges? Because it complements preexisting infrastructure and fills/creates demand. Notice how most countries who have built one "real" HSR corridor tend to build more after a few years? Do you think they just build them because they like blowing cash on vanity projects? I wouldn't call getting my balls inspected by the TSA and sitting in an airport for 10 hours because of bad weather a better alternative".

But thanks for ignoring how I replied to your point on the South Shore line.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:14 UTC+1 No.644063 Report


all the cheap transit corridors on the land, in the air, etc. are already built. any new growth in transportation is gonna be expensive. we're at the point where the NJ Turnpike commission is throwing money at amtrak projects because improving the NEC is still way cheaper than adding even more lanes to the jersey turnpike, it makes sense to expand proper HSR if it means we _don't_ have to spend _even more_ money making airports & highways bigger.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:16 UTC+1 No.644064 Report

It's trivial to get an electric freight locomotive. You don't have a real point.

Electrification adds significantly to property taxes of the railroad and will almost never offset the cost in diesel.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:24 UTC+1 No.644066 Report

Trivial? Really? A small line that covers what? A few hundred clicks would just happened to have the budget to go overseas and find a company willing to "Americanize" a locomotive just for them?

>Electrification adds significantly to property taxes of the railroad and will almost never offset the cost in diesel.
Then you push legislators to remove the tax. Gas is still subsidized in the US and as long as such inane policies are maintained it'll be hard to justify real change in the US. Hell having a railroad at all on a property ups taxes but having a huge parking lot doesn't. Especially since railroads are practically except from paying the gas tax since they use "heating oil" which is diesel.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:27 UTC+1 No.644067 Report

>Push legislators to lower property taxes


Again, people don't understand why running railroads is expensive as hell. You own so much fucking capital.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:32 UTC+1 No.644068 Report

>lobbies can't be formed in America
Come on man, much more retarded shit gets lobbies at the federal and state level.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:35 UTC+1 No.644070 Report

Yeah, but you'll never pass something to lower property taxes for railroads. Never.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:38 UTC+1 No.644073 Report

Given enough time, blackmailing and money I'm sure you could or at the very least add a new one for roads.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:46 UTC+1 No.644074 Report

Roads are owned by the government. Why would the county or state pay taxes to itself?
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:51 UTC+1 No.644079 Report

Roads on private property are not government owned.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:55 UTC+1 No.644081 Report

Yeah, and your point? Those roads don't take people anywhere but up and down their driveway.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:56 UTC+1 No.644082 Report

So do railspurs yet those things are taxed. So what the hell, tax the parking lot and make a few bucks more for the state.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:57 UTC+1 No.644083 Report

The parking lot is taxed as improved property.

Railroads just take a lot more property and are subject to more taxes.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)04:59 UTC+1 No.644084 Report

Then create supplementary taxes.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:07 UTC+1 No.644092 Report

I bet you're really disappointed with the lack of change brought on by Obama...
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:12 UTC+1 No.644097 Report

It was predictable.
Anyway, what does that have to do with anything?
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:13 UTC+1 No.644098 Report

Your inane talk about removing and creating taxes is typical of an ignorant person that votes democrat.

Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:15 UTC+1 No.644099 Report

Well congrats derailing the thread then.
And here's the punchline, I don't live in clapistan anyway.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:17 UTC+1 No.644101 Report


Imagine that, a non-American being ignorant of how American railroads and taxes work.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:31 UTC+1 No.644108 Report

You can say that to the Australian guy up there.

How the fuck do you think airports work? Same principle goes for HSR stations; transit hubs will be built with time.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:33 UTC+1 No.644111 Report

I'm not talking about Amtrak, I'm talking about foreign and private operators like Veolia does with MBTA
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:44 UTC+1 No.644114 Report

HSR needs shallower inclines and radii so it couldn't share right of way all the time
And of course it would use tunnels or bridges to go through stuff instead of around
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:48 UTC+1 No.644115 Report

>not much
When I lived at the end of a railway line the 6 carriage EMU trains with a capacity for 1000 people in the morning into the city would be full after the first four stops
This is why you can't LRV to burbs
And you can't put a LRV on the road for a distance of 20 or 30 miles its too slow
Diesel locomotives can run on electrified networks
What I described here >>644016 has been done for my city with DMU
High speed trains though are electric locomotives
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:49 UTC+1 No.644116 Report

>it has to make money right away!
We have been over this again and again and again
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:51 UTC+1 No.644118 Report

Because they can't its designed to nothing more than tokenism
There's no way to scale up, you can't run proper EMU commuter trains on those routes
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:51 UTC+1 No.644119 Report

Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:52 UTC+1 No.644120 Report

Acquire land
>muh taxes
Consider it a tax on stupidity for not acting sooner
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:53 UTC+1 No.644121 Report

But we have been over this before.
Multiple times.
And people still keep brining it up.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:53 UTC+1 No.644122 Report

They will NEVER make money.

It's not a matter of right away. it's a matter of ever happening.

No politician wants to create a large public works project that requires a lot of upfront capital and will never recoup the costs.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:53 UTC+1 No.644123 Report

Better public transit access also increases property value
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:55 UTC+1 No.644124 Report

Rightards like to shrilly declare hope, change, Obama, when left with nothing else
>muh pejorative
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:58 UTC+1 No.644126 Report

You mean, intelligent people that understand an industry tease those that think they can jump in and start spewing shit about increasing this, decreasing that, and looking like idiots.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)05:58 UTC+1 No.644127 Report

This message is brought to you by General Motors.
What's good for GM is good for America.
>No politician wants to create a large public works project that requires a lot of upfront capital and will never recoup the costs.
Oh you
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:00 UTC+1 No.644130 Report

>intelligent people
>Americas lunatic rightwing
Pick one
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:01 UTC+1 No.644133 Report

Interstate Highway
Military spending
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:01 UTC+1 No.644134 Report

They don't. Not when it's going to need extensive amounts of on going maintenance.

The government shouldn't get involved in running a railroad if they can hardly even deliver the mail.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:03 UTC+1 No.644136 Report

>Have a system that charges moderate fares and is also extensively funded by taxes.
>Still never even gets close to breaking even.
Yup, that's almost every transit agency in the US and their funding is always very controversial from the fare hikes to bonds.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:05 UTC+1 No.644139 Report

We've never had major reform or anything.
Nah that jsut belongs in fantasy tales with dragons and fairies.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:07 UTC+1 No.644140 Report

Golden Gate Bridge didn't return any money til the 70s
By your logic it should not have been built then
The improved productivity for farmers bringing their goods to market, opening up the region, the jobs created during the depression, etc - not factors to consider

EVERY kind of infrastructure is a long term low yield investment
It is paid of not simply through its gradual repayments but by its use and improvements it brings
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:08 UTC+1 No.644141 Report

Look at BritishRails privatisation
Look at Melbournes rail privatisation
Now look at what a puts you are
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:09 UTC+1 No.644142 Report

Yes I'll go with "interstate system" for a thousand Alex.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:13 UTC+1 No.644146 Report

>ongoing maintenance
Once built railways are as solid as a rock they don't need regular ongoing maintenance
Roads on the other hand need constant care as the crack and crumble and sink and shit
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:15 UTC+1 No.644147 Report

I back railway construction but it's a myth they're not maintenance intensive. Ballast alone is a huge pain in the ass and adding wires to the mix only makes it more painful.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:18 UTC+1 No.644150 Report

Railway construction and maintenance is highly automated
Send in a ballast plot to lift and scoop

Fault detection train checks track and overhead for cracks and drops in current
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:19 UTC+1 No.644151 Report

Oh shit, breaking news: Melbourne (yes, you live in Melbourne) isn't a small/medium sized flyover city in Midwest USA. It's one of the regional capitals of Australia. Your anecdote proves nothing about the logistic realities of smaller US cities. You argue assuming that transit technology ceased to progress past the 1970s.
I live in the 5th largest city in the US with the 5th biggest commuter rail system, 100% electrified. My end of the line receives 3-4 cars in peak hours, 2 cars the rest of the day. The thing is, though, that it's not even 100% filled most of the time.
Simply put, when smaller cities need high-capacity urban transit and appropriately scaled suburban transit, then don't break up the systems -- better to integrate as one.

>on the road for a distance of 20 or 30 miles
Pulling shit out of your ass again. LRV does 50-60 MPH on a dedicated ROW.

>There's no way to scale up
Yes there is. It's called elongating trains or buying new trains with more standing capacity. Dallas has a ways to go before they reach ridership levels of even smaller cities like Cologne or Bordeaux.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:22 UTC+1 No.644152 Report

Fuck that LRVs can break 70/80mph on dedicated RoW given enough distance between stations.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:27 UTC+1 No.644155 Report

>You argue assuming that transit technology ceased to progress past the 1970s.
One city provides high frequency high capacity transit during the peak times - and it is stuck in the past
And another city provides low frequency low capacity transit during peak times - and it is the way of the future?

You're going to have to explain that

Also, Philadelphia has 6 million people

>don't break up the systems better to integrate as one
I am always saying a comprehensive multimodal SYSTEM is required
>don't break up better to integrate
And who is always trying to break things down into arbitrary county-centric planning not looking at the wider area ensuring only low density planning fixed specific locations will be addressed
>elongating trains
Until the tiny platforms are too short for any further units or signals can't hand it
>more standing capacity
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:28 UTC+1 No.644156 Report

Except they don't because you cheap out somewhere and make it go on the road
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:31 UTC+1 No.644157 Report

Pretty sure he's pouting out how you seem to think LRVs can't serve urban centers where a full on EMU set would make no sense in terms of capacity while still maintaining low headways because hurr durr Melbourne trams use roads therefore all LRVs must at one point touch at grade.

Not every city is Melbourne m8
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:34 UTC+1 No.644160 Report

I say that because that is how lightrail is done in America
And the infrastructure cost of building lines to the burbs so a vehicle with a capacity for a mere 200 can go by once an hour don't add up
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:35 UTC+1 No.644161 Report

>high frequency high capacity transit
>low capacity transit during peak times
You're using absolute terms like "high" "low" like an absolute retard here. Both are scalable systems, one is just aimed more for the major cities and one for the smaller subregional centers

>6 million people
Ok. so 6th largest MSA. We have stats for that too.
Don't pretend that Australian demographic boundaries are any different from US.

>comprehensive multimodal SYSTEM is required
You inherently add additional transfers to the system, with two separate pieces of equipment, two separate governing rules, two separate maintenance shops, etc. Personally I don't think it's required at all for smaller cities.
>break things down etc
You're going full asspie here. We do look at the wider area, with metropolitan planning organizations.
>tiny platforms are too short for any further units or signals can't hand it
Look at Cologne, Bordeaux etc.
I know right? The capacity levels decrease as the light rail leaves the city limits, so that everyone has a place to sit down.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:36 UTC+1 No.644162 Report

Except that's not how all cities are doing it. Not every city is building a vanity line that goes around in a circle in the downtown.
Look at Portland, Seattle or Ottawa. They're building grade separated lines that go out into the suburbs and maintain a low headway wile offering capacity superior to a fleet of articulated buses and lower then a full on EMU/subway car.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:38 UTC+1 No.644163 Report

for an example
this system FFS
Mixed-traffic is only the case for new streetcar systems, which mainly serve the gentrifying district as you mention
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)06:59 UTC+1 No.644172 Report


>nothing will EVER happen if it's expensive
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)08:05 UTC+1 No.644182 Report

>Don't pretend that Australian demographic boundaries are any different from US
I've seen you people try to claim two separate cities exist a mere 24km away from one another
They are suburbs of an urban area
But your county system carves the place up 5 ways from Sunday and transit planning acts accordingly
Except roads
No trouble building networks of highways linking everything

LRV is not scalable, they are self contained single units, coupling causes all kinds of trouble and is modest at best
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)08:06 UTC+1 No.644183 Report

>The capacity levels decrease as the light rail leaves the city limits, so that everyone has a place to sit down.
Because it can't really serve the burbs so few use it
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)08:07 UTC+1 No.644184 Report

Lets send a low capacity vehicle out to where everyone lives
Ad lets limit out infrastructure to this vehicle
What could go wrong
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)12:21 UTC+1 No.644226 Report

>200 to 750 people
>low capacity
You win the baka of the year award.
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)12:58 UTC+1 No.644232 Report

a 200 people capacity vehicle on a dedicated railway, that is 30-40 miles long, is low capacity
especially as these dolts want it to run only every ~30 minutes peak times (!) and hourly off peak (!!)

commuters in countries that are not insane typically run every 5-10 minutes during the peak times and 15-30 minutes off peak

a 200 person capacity on a street/median strip tram/streetcar/lightrail, that is 10-15 miles and goes through the city and surrounding inner-urban area, is perfectly fine
Anonymous 03/31/14(Mon)20:13 UTC+1 No.644364 Report

Where did anyone say they would run at 30 minute intervals? And anyway light rail systems are extremely flexible, not enough capacity? Lower the headway, buy wider rolling stock or couple multiple sets together. You seem to have this notion that because there's the word LIGHT in front of rail that the system can only serve one very specific purpose and only use a narrow catalog of equipment and you're also only focusing on cities that are planning what amounts to eyecandy to lure business back into the downtown core, not the ones that are planing proper mass transit systems. They can and do run at low headways in several cities. They can and do run on grade separated lines that are over 30 miles long. They're not specially designed systems that can only accommodate low capacity vehicles.
Seriously, get your head out of your ass, not every city is shaped and organized like Melbourne.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)00:43 UTC+1 No.644482 Report

>They will NEVER make money
If you insist that the only possible way that they could ever make money, for ever AND EVER AND EVAR, is through fares, then yes: they're very unlikely to make money.

Which just goes to show what a foolish argument that is. The reason you have to also consider subsidies from government (which can make passenger rail very lucrative, as proved by the situation in many other countries) is that government can get the money back in other ways, such as elevated sustainable levels of property taxes caused by the land being more valuable due to the rail link.

Would the railway make all the profit? No. Would the government make all the profit? No. Would the people living there gain? Quite possibly (otherwise why would they live there?) But if you're fixated on the idea of having profits just come from fares, it won't ever make sense.

(In short, you're a dumbass faggot. I can't be bothered to argue in more depth with dumbass faggots. Why don't you fuck off to some bike thread?)
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)00:45 UTC+1 No.644484 Report

>If a company cannot survive through its own operations, we should prop it up.

Wow, I thought it was well understood that bailouts are a bad idea.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)00:45 UTC+1 No.644485 Report

>coupling causes all kinds of trouble
Yeah, STDs like AIDS and children.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:05 UTC+1 No.644493 Report

>Americas lunatic rightwing
You mean the idiotic people who consider it their god-given right to be stuck in traffic for several hours a day with nothing to do but listen to talk radio?
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:11 UTC+1 No.644501 Report

>Once built railways are as solid as a rock they don't need regular ongoing maintenance
>Roads on the other hand need constant care as the crack and crumble and sink and shit
Dude, you just went full retard. Never go full retard!

The principal problem in all cases is the axle weight of the traffic on top, with a side helping of how long it is between each axle. The mechanics of how each works is a bit different, but the major forces are the same; as things get heavier and faster/closer together, more damage gets done (and so more maintenance is needed).
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:20 UTC+1 No.644505 Report

The rail company shouldn't get something back from the government for generating huge positive externalities for the govt and the people served by rail?

I'll bet you also think roads are just fine to get gobs of money from the goverment.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:22 UTC+1 No.644507 Report

Hey, MORON! You managed to totally misunderstand what I was talking about. Anyone home in there, or are there just pigeons shitting in that hole you call your skull?

In fairly short sentences:
1. Having a good passenger rail connection stimulates the local economy.
2. A stimulated local economy naturally increases local tax take. (Farmland/forestry doesn't pay nearly so much as nearly any other use.)
3. Government knows points 1 and 2 and can see that providing a subsidy (i.e., part of the future tax take) encourages the construction and operation of the railway.
4. Railway company finds that making and running the route is now profitable.
5. Local people aren't deeply fucked over by this because their land values went up, as did the range of services available within a reasonable travel time.

Economic development tends to have many winners. Often, the main blocks to it are MORONS who think that the only person who should gain from it is themselves. Do you see anyone like that when you look in the mirror? Well, do ya, punk?
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:22 UTC+1 No.644508 Report

Roads are fine if they're not funded by taxes AND THEN tolls as well.

Just remember, passenger rail died in most of the country for a reason.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:25 UTC+1 No.644510 Report

Oh, I'm sorry, where did the Constitution say that the Federal Government should run corporations to stimulate the economy?
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:30 UTC+1 No.644513 Report

Promote the general welfare, faggot. The document means what those in power say it means.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:38 UTC+1 No.644524 Report

Do you have any examples of highways in the US that are funded without a loss to the state/fed that is funded exclusively through taxes?
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:41 UTC+1 No.644526 Report

The ones that are funded by tolls.

But why on earth should a service be funded by taxes and tolls? That's ridiculous. It's either a business or a service for the public welfare. If it cannot survive as either then it shouldn't exist at all.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:42 UTC+1 No.644528 Report

So you're fine with highways being huge drains on the government because they provide a public welfare but railroads shouldn't for the same reasons?
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:44 UTC+1 No.644531 Report

Private right of way for a private business funded by public money?
Yeah, I'm opposed to it.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:45 UTC+1 No.644534 Report

So you would prefer passenger rail with no fares and totally funded by taxes as one of your options? Am I reading this right?
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:46 UTC+1 No.644535 Report

So you'd be fine with a publicly owned and operated HSR corridor then?
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:47 UTC+1 No.644537 Report

Yup, and if cannot exist like that either financially or politically, then it shouldn't exist.

And it wouldn't.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:48 UTC+1 No.644540 Report

>a single unit LRV can carry 750 people
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:51 UTC+1 No.644544 Report

Hey guess what, just like subways you can do this magical thing called "coupling" to increase capacity.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:52 UTC+1 No.644546 Report

>Where did anyone say they would run at 30 minute intervals?
if not this thread then another
>lower headway
thats nice but on on the street it will be variable
>buy wider rolling stock
what is loading gauge, Alex?
>or couple multiple sets together.
and that will work wonders in traffic
>muh row
platforms will end up being too short or signaling cant handle it or curves or etc
>You seem to have this notion that because there's the word LIGHT in front of rail that the system can only serve one very specific purpose
it does
>and you're also only focusing on cities that are planning what amounts to eyecandy to lure business back into the downtown core, not the ones that are planing proper mass transit systems.
>trying to use LRV alone for mass transit
what is this obsession? I haven't addressed it till now cause its so surreal
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:53 UTC+1 No.644547 Report

public transportation is not a company its a public asset
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:54 UTC+1 No.644550 Report

roads need constant maintenance and upkeep
railways do not
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:56 UTC+1 No.644552 Report

until of course you find you built your stations too short, or turns and signalling cannot handle the added length
or the nightmare of such vehicles in road traffic
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:56 UTC+1 No.644553 Report

>and transit planning acts accordingly
Such ignorance, I can't even

>they are self contained single units, coupling causes all kinds of trouble and is modest at best
>still trying to argue like it's 1972
What exactly is the problem here?

>a rail line exists that travels to the burbs
>You don't specify "can't really"
>Equipment is not filled to capacity - blame the equipment

Using "low" and "high" like an absolute retard doesn't win you anything.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:56 UTC+1 No.644554 Report

Nah, it's a company, brah.

There are plenty of for profit transit services. Basically the problem of all these government run/financed train services is that you basically need to have the government build to road and then let any business run on it. At that point, freight roads are going to start getting pissed, and rightly so, why on earth are they competing with the federal government in building rail lines?
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:57 UTC+1 No.644555 Report

So in your mind, American public transit exists within the bounds of /n/ threads. ok.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:57 UTC+1 No.644556 Report

>I'm a fucking moron and have no clue what I'm talking about.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)01:59 UTC+1 No.644558 Report

>you find you built your stations too short
Where? Why?
>or turns and signalling cannot handle the added length
Why couldn't they?
> nightmare of such vehicles in road traffic
Which "nightmare", where?
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)02:02 UTC+1 No.644562 Report

>thats nice but on on the street it will be variable
>what is grade separation
Good god stop thinking LRV = STREETCAR
There are many examples of completely grade separated systems all over the world would you please stop bringing it up? Not all systems do street running.

>what is loading gauge, Alex?
Moot point if the line is designed to accommodate larger trains.
We're not talking about a 100+ year old underground system here. You could probably run full sized EMUs on modern systems if need were to arise.

>platforms will end up being too short or signaling cant handle it or curves or etc
>all systems are not designed to accommodate future capacity
Right, just look at the frogs, they run multiple sets coupled together just fine.

>trying to use LRV alone for mass transit
Or you know, as a main artery with bus lines feeding into it's stations.

>what is this obsession? I haven't addressed it till now cause its so surreal
Are you not the aussie who kept bringing it up? If so then sorry.

The only place I've heard that's having issues with station lengths is Vancouver's SkyTrain system and that's because it's elevated.
It's not hard to build/extend stations that can accommodate multiple trains, unless you're building somewhere like NYC.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)02:04 UTC+1 No.644563 Report

You "addressed" it with your little anecdote
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)02:18 UTC+1 No.644566 Report

>full sized EMUs on modern systems
Pretty much. Perhaps not a full-sized 85ft EMU, but specialized tram-trains like the Stadler GTW, custom-designed to fit any specification. This would be invaluable for the largest systems in LA, Portland, Denver, and Dallas; coupled with further grade separation projects, it would mirror what the German stadtbahns are doing.
Anonymous 04/01/14(Tue)02:25 UTC+1 No.644570 Report

Also let's not forget if the system doesn't feature any tunnels the trains could be replace by double deckers.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)00:33 UTC+1 No.645537 Report

I've never seen double-decked light rail. Wouldn't the axle loading be too great? (Or maybe it would just be plain old passenger rail without the "light".)
Ithaqua 04/03/14(Thu)00:40 UTC+1 No.645545 Report

English cities ran double decker trams. Blackpool,I think still has them.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)00:45 UTC+1 No.645548 Report

As this anon pointed out the Brits >>645545
had them. So Bombardier/Alstom/Siemens could probably work out some sort of double decker bus looking thing for street running networks and a shrunk bylevel car for grade separated networks.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)01:27 UTC+1 No.645561 Report

tram-trains are used to link regional centres and cities

LA and Dallas are major cities of millions of people spanning a vast land area
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)01:32 UTC+1 No.645565 Report

only 3 double decker trams remain, and of them only one is in revenue service the other two are strictly for tourism
Blackpool (tourism)
Alexandria (tourism)
Hong Kong (revenue)

Doubledecker tram just causes headaches for aside for overhead and bridges and etc

If you have so much demand you need to be considering such a move then you should actually, probably, be switching to, gee, I dunno, maybe?, t-t-trains!

So if its a city, its pretty simple: start looking at metro in subway or elevated (same thing, I dont want to see some autist motherfucker arguing they're different)
and if its the burbs - well ya shouldn't have been putting LRV out there should you
but now do a railway, I dont want to see any autistis arguing building new railways would cause the creation of a blackhole due to its inherent violation of the natural laws of the universe, running electric multiple units t-t-trains
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)01:34 UTC+1 No.645567 Report

>Moot point if the line is designed to accommodate larger trains.
they never are, you've got your tracks a certain width from one another, platforms a certain width from one another, etc
so yeah go ahead and get something wider and see what happens
and how much wider can it possibly be, not enough add an extra seat for sure
what you probably meant but are too tyranical to admit you are wrong would be a longer unit
or howsabout maybe doing proper train carriages
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)01:35 UTC+1 No.645569 Report

>Good god stop thinking LRV = STREETCAR
they are
>There are many examples of completely grade separated systems all over the world would you please stop bringing it up?
Few outside America
And none that work
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)01:35 UTC+1 No.645570 Report

No shit sherlock. It would be a last case scenario. And guess what some of your precious your t-t-t-trains feature. Double decker cars.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)01:38 UTC+1 No.645571 Report

Please list examples of modern systems who are designed specifically to fit on size of EMUs.

>they are
>Few outside America
>And none that work
Now you're just baiting. Come back when you've got examples of failing systems.
Awesome Funposter 04/03/14(Thu)01:41 UTC+1 No.645572 Report

I dream of a double decker train where first class is on top, like on a plane, and separated from filthy plebeians. On top we can enjoy things like dining cars, restroom and sleeper rooms. Those on the bottom will be crammed like sardines, infested with smelly beggars, and all the seats taken by disabled grandmas leaving disgruntled poor youths to stand the entire way.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)01:42 UTC+1 No.645573 Report

>Double decker cars.
because they're on a railway not on a road
that road would need everything around it rebuilt to accommodate doubledecker trams/streetcars/lrv
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)01:44 UTC+1 No.645575 Report

>Please list examples of modern systems who are designed specifically to fit on size of EMUs.
In English?
Putting LRV units with low capacity in subway tunnels that cost a lot of money did not work = supply/demand
Dockland Lightrail/LA Blue Line
Too low capacity for the demand they see
Numerous other surface level LR in America
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)02:01 UTC+1 No.645587 Report

>that are designed specifically to fit one size of EMUs.
Sorry fucked up big time on that.

Do you have any evidence that it has "failed" beyond stating the obvious point that infrastructure is expensive?

>Dockland Lightrail
The DLR stock is the same width as traditional tube stock and multiple sets can be coupled together to offer seating/standee capacity greater then traditional tube stock. How is capacity an issue here?

LA is a goddamn disaster zone no mater what transit option is chosen.

>Numerous other surface level LR in America
Like? Seattle, Portland, Calgary, Edmonton, San Diego, Salt Lake city and Denver all seem to be doing fairly well.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)02:03 UTC+1 No.645589 Report

Aside from the DLR all of those have street running sections limiting the capacity, he was asking for completely grade seperated.

The DLR did indeed make the mistake of building a completely seperated network for short trains (30 meter), as they totally misjudged the demand for the new developed area. And fixing this mistake by extending all platforms to a more subway-like 90 meters, was indeed expensive as fuck (as it also included bridges carrying longer i.e. heavier trains).

Though unlike the streetrunning lightrails, the DLR could be extended to higher capacities, as it's fully seperate.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:11 UTC+1 No.645642 Report

>complains about america not spending money on infrastructure
>calls it a long term low yield investment

>in subway tunnels that cost a lot of money
That's your biggest concern? Wow, such a double standard
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:25 UTC+1 No.645654 Report

why do people believe lightrail is the best application for everything?
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:26 UTC+1 No.645655 Report

>Do you have any evidence that it has "failed" beyond stating the obvious point that infrastructure is expensive?
patronage, lack of subway expansions, return to surface operation for subsequent developments
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:28 UTC+1 No.645656 Report

the thing about autism is that it becomes obsessed with minor trivial things

DLR cant handle the patronage the service see, it should been just another route on the aboveground or underground
but oh no no lightrail is cheaper lightrail is the future
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:29 UTC+1 No.645657 Report

>LA is a goddamn disaster zone no mater what transit option is chosen.
said the man obsessed with lrt in mixed traffic
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:31 UTC+1 No.645659 Report

subway tunnels are expensive
so you would them where there is demand
and you would operate high capacity vehicles in them
Any time I explain the various modes of rail transit I emphasis not everywhere needs metros.
That a mix of commuter trains and trams/streetcars be perfectly fine for many places and they'd have no metro element at all, or perhaps in time might add a route

Thats nothing to do with the economics of infrastructure

lrn2read not2conflate
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:33 UTC+1 No.645664 Report

LA is an example of cities trying to do the bare minimum of transit investment to get by, seemingly unaware that they're the 2nd biggest city in the country. It's not the failure of the equipment per se. They've taken a legacy 1920s system when the population was a mere fraction of today's and tried to modernize it for today. Their best solution is to build a subway-surface system like SF, Philly, Boston, and Newark.

and on and on and on. There is no "return to surface operation", they haven't suddenly abandoned their tunnels.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:42 UTC+1 No.645672 Report

>operate high capacity vehicles
Still using "high" and "low" like a retard. There's no significant difference anymore in capacity per m^2 for light rail or metros.
>trams/streetcars be perfectly fine for many places
Many times, the physical constraints of the urban grid requires tunneling, such as with Pittsburgh's hilly terrain. Does the prerequisite of tunneling necessitate the expense of heavier rapid transit equipment, requiring larger turning radii, more yard capacity, more maintenance overall? No.
Your "explaining" of the various modes of rail transit is just another iteration of Melbourne-style (or Philly style) transit: legacy, 19th century, born out of private, separate systems.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:45 UTC+1 No.645679 Report

>try to point to systems that are fully grade separated
>hurr durr you're talking about mixed traffic systems

Not necessarily. Building an LRT line on the outskirts of London makes no sense. Same with LA. It makes lots of sense in areas with 1-2 million people.
Could a britbong enlighten me as to what's stopping TFL from using tube stock on the line if demand is so high? I mean the project did start off as an expansion to a tube line, no?
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:46 UTC+1 No.645680 Report

>so yeah go ahead and get something wider and see what happens
Sure. I just give the transit manufacturer my specifications, and they'll give me an articulated light rail vehicle that can do the job. Fuck, even AnsaldoBreda can manage an articulated LRV for Boston's 117-year-old Green Line.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:49 UTC+1 No.645684 Report

Every time you try to ask this seemingly tricky question, I answer the same thing: it's for small/medium sized regional cities, not major cities.
Like here:
> small/medium sized flyover city
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)03:53 UTC+1 No.645690 Report

>this definition obviously precludes them from using the vehicle for light rail, I said so!!
Get lost.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)04:04 UTC+1 No.645692 Report

That argument can be used for double decker and articulated buses. Every type of transport requires it's own adjustments to the surrounding environment.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)07:26 UTC+1 No.645748 Report

DLR can handle bigger load just fine, you just need to build bigger stations. Which you would for "real" trains as well.

Turns out building big stations is expensive. The only cheap type of station is an at-grade glorified bus stop common with LRT. Gee, guess why LRT is usually inexpensive?
Latios 04/03/14(Thu)12:10 UTC+1 No.645843 Report

Seems to be a thing in Japan, at least for longer distance services. Though in general, you won't see a large difference in classes.
The Double Decker Shinkansen is like that. Green Cars are all upper floor. On the old 100 and 200 series, Green Cars were also double decker, as well as the restaurant and buffet/bistro.
Outer suburban/Tokkyu stock like the JR251, JR371, JR E231 (DD top and bottom Green Cars), JR E233 (same as previous).

And in Sydney back in the 70s, the V sets had first class seating up top before they killed it off

Although for regular commuter trains, it's something hard to justify. Especially on the more exorbitant stretches. If it's a journey for a day or longer, then I guess it can be justified. And really, at that point you might as well just have dedicated cars like they do already.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)15:16 UTC+1 No.645873 Report

>DLR can handle bigger load just fine, you just need to build bigger stations.
how do you do that in subway tunnels and elevated platforms
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)19:20 UTC+1 No.645923 Report

Tube and DLR are not compatible.
TechLeader 04/03/14(Thu)22:04 UTC+1 No.646008 Report


This is replacing short haul airline flights (which are actually shockingly popular, there are a LOT of people taking a lot of cheap 50-140USD roundtrip flights, it is like me flying from VA to NY because I'd rather not drive, the Acella in the Northeast killed a lot of the NY-BOS/NY-DC flights because of the distance (In the states if you think of regional high speed rail as short (sub 500 miles) airline replacements it makes sense
TechLeader 04/03/14(Thu)22:06 UTC+1 No.646009 Report

In the Northeast there is NO ROOM for new lines unless you want to demolish minority areas. Hell, for a huge popular road (I-95), there is a discontinuity in NJ because to finish it you would have either demolished trenton, demolished Summerville.
TechLeader 04/03/14(Thu)22:08 UTC+1 No.646010 Report

Coal/garbage/cars going via the Us doesn't need to go fast, there is only 1 fast cargo set in the US, that is high speed oranges going 80-100MPH from Florida to NJ, and the current 12-16 diesel electrics can do that already.
Anonymous 04/03/14(Thu)22:29 UTC+1 No.646025 Report

How? They use the same gauge and are and voltage.
Anonymous 04/04/14(Fri)00:31 UTC+1 No.646089 Report

Track gauge yes, the rest not.

The tube uses a top-contact third and fourth rail with 630 V, DLR a bottom-contact third rail with 750 V.

The loading gauge is also different, the DLR trains are narrower, but higher compared to the tube stock.

And of course the DLR platforms are only 90 meter long (for 3-car-trains), while the Tube runs 110-130 meter trains.
Anonymous 04/04/14(Fri)00:58 UTC+1 No.646097 Report

Ah. I wasn't aware the differences between the systems were that radical. Compared to a traditional subway system does the loading gauge on the DLR compare to anything?
Station length really is the stem of all the capacity issues on the DLR isn't it. All things said and done though would it have been cheaper to build the line as a proper tube line with the standard length platforms or will extending the platforms costs significantly more then if the system had been built with stations that long?
Anonymous 04/05/14(Sat)02:54 UTC+1 No.646776 Report

>All things said and done though would it have been cheaper to build the line as a proper tube line
Does the DLR even still have that many capacity problems today? The original single cars (>>645589) were obviously too small, but today's three-car trains even managed the Olympics.
Anonymous 04/05/14(Sat)14:52 UTC+1 No.646993 Report

Japanese New Shinkansen Line- Hokuriku Shinkansen will start next spring !!
From Tokyo to Kanazawa (Tokyo - Nagano have already started) , new wave of Shinkansen !!
Anonymous 04/05/14(Sat)17:25 UTC+1 No.647048 Report

>(In the states if you think of regional high speed rail as short (sub 500 miles) airline replacements it makes sense
and guess what distances HSR covers in Europe and Asia
Anonymous 04/05/14(Sat)17:28 UTC+1 No.647049 Report

>no room
find it or make it
>minority areas
how do I loading gauge
>I wasn't aware the differences between the systems were that radical.
A typical problem afflicting people who think trainguy is wrong
Anonymous 04/05/14(Sat)17:35 UTC+1 No.647054 Report

Who the hell are you and why are you trying to restart the argument? The DLR although it looks silly when 3 sets are compelled together can accommodate the capacity it needs to.
They should have probably built it as a tube line in the first place but hey, it's built and it works. No point in dwelling on could have and should have.
Anonymous 04/05/14(Sat)21:29 UTC+1 No.647141 Report


I sometimes wonder why couldn't they design the E/W7 series based on the E5 and N700 series

>Not capable of operating at 300 km/h
TechLeader 04/06/14(Sun)00:23 UTC+1 No.647216 Report

I am agreeing with you. I have been to Paris, I took the TGV from the south of France to Paris, and I went to London, took HS1 down across the chunnel.

For most people flying in the states, they usually end up either being picked up or renting a car! Even in transit friendly NY there was no direct connection between trains an airports (and for LGA there STILL is none). There is no direct need for a train to an airport for the west/midwest since people will just take their N700, go to the city center, rent a car/take a cab, and repeat.

There is a serious issue of de-acceleration from higher speeds and track congestion in Japan
Anonymous 04/06/14(Sun)00:34 UTC+1 No.647220 Report

Yeah, so what HSR line runs over 500 miles?
China is the only example, but they get away with it because their population density is strung out north to south on the entire eastern half. That doesn't exist in the US.
Anonymous 04/06/14(Sun)00:41 UTC+1 No.647229 Report


I know there are multiple reasons (scheduling, technical, and environmental) why they can't operate above 300 km/h in most tracks. However, I'm more disappointed at the fact that the E/W7s are not designed to be capable of running at 300 km/h. Then again, considering the wear the speed could put on the cars, tracks, and overhead wires it might be wise for them to up it on a gradual basis.

>JR East wants to actually run the Tohoku Shinkansen at 360 km/h in 2020 for certain stretches

Would that even be possible considering the amount of technical hurdles they have to overcome?

On the other topic, since it is the 50th Anniversary for the Tokaido Shinkansen. Do you think they will eventually have to rebuild the infrastructure due to age?
Latios 04/06/14(Sun)03:08 UTC+1 No.647288 Report

Probably a need for specification
The Nagano/Hokuriku Shinkansen is really hilly and speccing for 300 means more stringent requiremnets in other areas. The idea is that it should be able to accelerate up grades.

The only problem I see is the noise requirements since it'd be illegal in a good chunk of the Tohoku Shinkansen. Otherwise, the E5 has run at 360km/h for showoff purposes before the launch of the Hayabusa, just as the Fastech did in its day.
Anonymous 04/06/14(Sun)03:27 UTC+1 No.647294 Report

reading comprehension, do you have it?
500-600 is the max distances over there that is what the statement implied
Anonymous 04/06/14(Sun)03:28 UTC+1 No.647295 Report

>they cant
there are services now reaching 320kmh
360kmh wont be far away
Anonymous 04/06/14(Sun)04:35 UTC+1 No.647324 Report


Here's the max speed that we know they run so far

Tokaido: 270 (JR Central is apparently petitioning to up the speed to 285 next year)
Sanyo: 300 in some stretches with N700 cars, 285 with 500 and 700 series
Kyushu: 260
Tohoku: 110 between Tokyo and Omiya and Utsunomiya, 320 between Utsunomiya and Morioka, and 260 between Morioka and Shin-Aomori
Joetsu: 240
Nagano: 260

The closest one being able to do it would be Tohoku, but they will have to deal with noise as >>647288 mentioned


>The Nagano/Hokuriku Shinkansen is really hilly

I read about that and the deal with the Usui pass, how hilly is that bit of the country?

Apparently they ran even faster speed (more than 400 km/h) on the tracks for demonstration and testing purposes, but they obviously can't do it commercially for practical reasons and I can imagine riding at 360 km/h can be quite uncomfortable


Besides track congestion, if JR have to keep expanding the Shinkansen servies and add more trains per hour, they'd eventually run out of platforms in Tokyo Station as well
Latios 04/06/14(Sun)13:54 UTC+1 No.647418 Report

Not sure about the Nagano Shinkansen bit, but the Hokuriku Shinkansen will be steeply graded all over. Though as far as the line goes, the Nagano line generally slaloms around mountains rather than through them as opposed to the Joetsu Shinkansen with all its tunnels
As for records, the Joetsu Shinkansen is actually ideal for raising speeds despite currently being the slowest line. The old 200 series used to run 275km/h Tokyo bound services on it and the STAR21 did some higher speed test runs. It's probably the DD E4 series which is capping it, likely also the reason they removed it from the Tohoku Shinkansen to make way for more 320km/h runs.

Meanwhile, a bunch of E3s are probably going to face the same fate as they're phased out on the Akita Shinkansen for 320km/h E5+E6 runs from Omiya to Morioka
Anonymous 04/06/14(Sun)17:50 UTC+1 No.647481 Report


Well, JR East indicates that they will also phase out the E4s completely in the near future and they are actually scrapping some of the oldest E2 and E3 cars as we speak. And on the Tokaido/Sanyo front, even some of the oldest 700 series have been scrapped as well to make way for more N700 cars too probably due to speed and other reasons.

Considering that they are pretty much starting to scrap the sets built in the late 1990s already to make way for newer trains, isn't that a pretty big waste of capital or are they actually wear out much faster than other HSR cars due to their higher frequency runs? I know they salvage and reuse certain expensive equipment such as ATC and what not and recycle the materials, but it feels odd how some of the older series last much longer (20+ years) than some of the newer ones
Anonymous 04/07/14(Mon)00:49 UTC+1 No.647612 Report

>that road would need everything around it rebuilt to accommodate doubledecker trams/streetcars/lrv
As opposed to double-decker buses? They don't any special infrastructure, so why would trams be different. There's nothing all that special there that makes one possible but the other impossible.

(The only real issue is the increased axle loading, but how much of an issue that is also depends on the frequency of traffic.)
Anonymous 04/07/14(Mon)00:58 UTC+1 No.647618 Report

>muh overhead wires
Latios 04/07/14(Mon)04:43 UTC+1 No.647723 Report

A bit of everything I'd say.
It was really from the 300 series when they started with this short lifespan thing. I'm guessing a mix of changing customer demands for new trains, wanting the bleeding edge of hardware and also a rather strange one, but perhaps not too alien to Japan - to keep making work. The latter means that a constant stream of trains under construction results in job security and it's something JR seems to be able to afford and is willing to spend it in that way.
Though what surprises me is that nobody has tried asking them for their old trains to use as at discount for smaller scale HSR systems. I bet they'd be happy to give some provided the 'strayan government built the infrastructure for them to run on.
The service life thing also goes on to commuter trains. While things like Tokyo Metro 8000 and Tokyu 8500 have been around forever and continue to do quite well, newer trains such as the E233 are scheduled to run just 15-20 years. This would again go likely to the above where building new trains entirely would create more work and make customers happier rather than refurbishing old ones. That said, the Tokyo Metro 8000 is pretty cool, IGBT-VVVF inverter driven motors and LCD screens all round.
Anonymous 04/07/14(Mon)06:06 UTC+1 No.647739 Report


As far as export is concerned, they might have some sort of limitations on exporting used Shinkansen trains to other countries

E1 - 1994 to 2012 (last of cars built with steel)
E4 - 1997 to 2016 (planned, and apparently they are just starting to repaint them, what the fuck)
300 - 1992 to 2012
400 - 1992 to 2010
500 - 1997 to whenever they decide to build enough N700s to replace the 9 sets

>Things that are still going in Japan

485 series I am looking at you

>JR is able to afford and spend it

Aren't they still technically in shit loads of debt right now even with all the privatizition, spinning off / scrap routes, and what not?
Latios 04/07/14(Mon)06:52 UTC+1 No.647748 Report

Wikipedia quotes that the Shinkansen network was initially bought up for about 100 billion and split between the major JRs (Tokaido/Sanyo/Joetsu/Tohoku - Central/West/East). Though how the money for the continued construction of lines is financed, beats me. I guess the idea is that as long as the debt itself doesn't balloon, it'll get approval to continue running. The JRs are profitable, just that it'll take decades to pay off, albeit sustainably.
Anonymous 04/07/14(Mon)07:09 UTC+1 No.647754 Report


>Debt itself doesn't balloon

Well ... after the privatization in 1987 the debt still went up and a good chunk of that were apparently absorbed into national debt (Read the JNR Settlement Corp for a general idea).

Pic not particularly related (taken in Hakata Station a few months ago)
Anonymous 04/13/14(Sun)01:27 UTC+1 No.650113 Report

"What is a double-decker trolleybus?"
(Yes, they most certainly have been a thing in the past.)
Anonymous 04/13/14(Sun)01:38 UTC+1 No.650116 Report

London had them and Johannesburg had them.
Anonymous 04/21/14(Mon)20:36 UTC+1 No.653739 Report

It'll turn into a cash cow boondoggle for the politically connected like California's.

Also you just can't use HSR to connect two cities and leave it at that. There needs to be extensive local mass transit at each end.
Anonymous 04/21/14(Mon)20:53 UTC+1 No.653747 Report

The difference is that planning and operation isn't done from a bureaucratic and dysfunctional public agency like CAHSR. This is designed to supplant busy regional intercity air service anyway.
Anonymous 04/21/14(Mon)21:49 UTC+1 No.653764 Report

so you leave your car at home. take a taxi or a bus to the HSR. go to the other end. Then you either rent a car, get a taxi or take the bus. Given the distances. I think it would fail because most people will just drive. So they can have their car to use at the destination.

HSR works best in America if you use it to replace short airline flights. To reduce jet fuel consumption.
Anonymous 04/21/14(Mon)21:52 UTC+1 No.653766 Report

The USPostal Service would be working just fine if not for the ridiculous demand congress placed on them to kill the postal workers' union. They have to put all their profits towards making sure the pension system will still have money 75 years ahead. There are postal workers not even born yet, that they are paying for their pension.
Anonymous 04/21/14(Mon)21:53 UTC+1 No.653767 Report

These two. The NEC works so nicely since from NYC to Philadelphia for example, the trip is not too long and you're at a massive transportation hub at either end. If you end a HSR line at bum fuck middle of nowhere it will be much less useful.
Anonymous 04/21/14(Mon)21:59 UTC+1 No.653769 Report

Anonymous 04/21/14(Mon)22:42 UTC+1 No.653789 Report

>the private sector
>developing HSR
>in car happy USA
You can't be serious.
Anonymous 04/22/14(Tue)00:15 UTC+1 No.653819 Report

if they followed the Japanese business model that private rail lines use.

You build the rail line with all the stations and operate at a small loss. But you make it all back by placing other businesses the parent company owns at the stations. department stores, hotels, grocery stores, convenience stores, taxi, buses, restaurants,renting store space to other small businesses in the station complex. They more then make up the loss on the rail operation by delivering customers to their money makers.
Anonymous 04/22/14(Tue)00:26 UTC+1 No.653823 Report

Are you honestly implying they could even get the numbers necessary to recoup the money spent on the line? This is America not Japan, people don't think the same way.
You could build the most fantastic railway in the world and people would still stick to their car.
Get real, if HSR happens in America it'll be subsidized.
Anonymous 04/25/14(Fri)20:36 UTC+1 No.655621 Report


>Hurf Durf, MOAR TRAINS THROUGH CHICAGO!!!!!~!~@!!!!121124132``!!!

This can't possibly go wrong.
Anonymous 04/25/14(Fri)20:45 UTC+1 No.655627 Report


>If they share track it will not be High Speed

If you have to build your own track it will never happen.
Anonymous 04/25/14(Fri)20:48 UTC+1 No.655628 Report


>find it or make it

There's a finite amount of space. If you have some magical way of creating new land in the middle of some of the most crowded regions of the U.S, you'd be so damn rich that you'd never think about trains again.


Because the smart niggers learned from the jews and the dumb niggers hate the white man.
Anonymous 04/25/14(Fri)20:52 UTC+1 No.655630 Report

>Air travel, with its airport infrastructure costs largely subsidized by the FAA

HSRfags keep bringing this up without providing any evidence for it.

Pax rail in the US is subsidized far worse via Amtrak than any subsidies the FAA provides for airports.
Anonymous 04/25/14(Fri)20:56 UTC+1 No.655634 Report

We need to go deeper.
Anonymous 04/25/14(Fri)21:01 UTC+1 No.655642 Report


Tunnels ain't cheap, bro.

Especially when you have to build them through existing cities with poorly-documented existing construction.
Anonymous 04/25/14(Fri)21:06 UTC+1 No.655648 Report

The problem isn't recovery of the cost of capital, a massive problem in itself, but also whether ridership receipts can even pay for the very high cost of maintaining a high speed rail line.
Anonymous 04/25/14(Fri)21:17 UTC+1 No.655656 Report

Correction: one faggot does
Don't start grouping people together you faggot.
Anonymous 04/26/14(Sat)18:34 UTC+1 No.656114 Report

The Chicago area - strictly, that southern end of Lake Michigan - is a natural transit hub. It's why Chicago is there in the first place (as it's the best place to put a port on that part of the lake). What's more, you *want* HSR going into major cities; that's where the passengers are most likely to want to go.

Yeah, it'll change the pattern of what places are valuable to build. But all capital investment in infrastructure does that.

The only real constraint? They'd better avoid running freight and HSR on the same tracks; they don't mix well, as they've very different operating patterns.
Anonymous 04/26/14(Sat)19:37 UTC+1 No.656134 Report


You completely missed the point: Chicago is a terrible place to build more rail infrastructure. The existing rail is a patchwork of leftovers barely too profitable to abandon in the second half of the twentieth century. As a result, anything that doesn't run on dedicated tracks has to deal with compounding delays because the entire city is a network of interconnected choke points.

Chicago's main long-distance station (the only place it would make sense to land HSR) is terrible, suffering from a mix of affirmative-action government bureaucracy, paradoxical overcrowding, the infamous Chicago corruption, and asinine fantasies about applying airport concepts to rail.

If you want HSR to be successful in America, Chicago is the absolute last place you should start.
Anonymous 04/26/14(Sat)20:05 UTC+1 No.656137 Report

What's the reasoning behind running the train along I-45 instead of I-35? DFW and Houston are the largest metropolitan areas in Texas, but if you could serve bot Austin and San Antonio you'd be serving more people. I haven't driven down I-45 that many times, but I'm pretty sure I-35 is way busier.
Anonymous 05/01/14(Thu)01:49 UTC+1 No.658088 Report

>Chicago is a terrible place to build more rail infrastructure.
Yeah, but you're going to end up having to do it anyway. Lake Michigan isn't going away soon. It does need someone to really start busting heads to get it sorted though.
>If you want HSR to be successful in America, Chicago is the absolute last place you should start.
Oh, you start in the NEC (the most useful area) or maybe one of the states where you can put the entire route in a single state (for ease of sorting out the legal side of things).
And you remember that any major infrastructure project is likely to piss a lot of people off. You've just got to make sure that the benefits are substantially larger than the costs (especially the political costs, alas).
Anonymous 05/01/14(Thu)02:37 UTC+1 No.658106 Report

Freight and HSR services don't share track in the rest of the world
So if anyone in the USA says they're doing HSR on freight they are selling lies because it will not be able to operate at proper high speeds
Gradient, curves, signals, route, etc - don't add up

You can make upgrade to existing track, install new signals, Incan signalling, fault detection, build some new straighter track + replace old infrastructure like brides + get fast DMU and all that can add up to average speeds of 160-200kmh and that's great in places 100-300 km apart or with medium densities
But it's not HSR

And Chicagos one of the best places given everything in the midwest
Anonymous 05/01/14(Thu)02:59 UTC+1 No.658116 Report

Amtrak gets a mere 2 billion

Government pays for FAA, airport security, Air Marshals, routinely bails out air travel industry, etc
Anonymous 05/01/14(Thu)03:00 UTC+1 No.658117 Report

You find room for roads
Anonymous 05/01/14(Thu)03:36 UTC+1 No.658134 Report

It's a long term low yield investment
Golden Gate Bridge didn't return any money until the 1970s
When will the Big Dig?
Nobody complains about this for roads, water/gas mains, high tension power lines, telecommunications, etc
But rail and rail alone must instantly turn a profit, why is that?

Switzerland is building the Gottard base tunnel, Turkey the Marmaray subway line, France/Italy a HSR tunnel through the Alps to link Turin and Lyons
It is possible
These countries have much more powerful unions and tougher regulations so how can they and not america?
especially at the moment with interest rates low being ideal for infrastructure borrowing plus a need to stimulate construction/manufacturing jobs
Latios 05/01/14(Thu)14:17 UTC+1 No.658384 Report

That brings up a curiosity. JR Tokai is going to make use of a government policy called "deep underground" which involves deeper tunnels featuring less red tape and obstacles to build the Chuo Shinkansen. It's much to the displeasure of passengers, but cutting through the mountains actually ends up cheaper. It'd be interesting to see what other parts of the world can enact, especially for city bound infrastructure. The deep underground policy will really be put to the test when the line hits Tokyo in about 5-6 years.
Anonymous 05/01/14(Thu)21:15 UTC+1 No.658475 Report

It's not that simple that their unions are "more powerful" and regulations "stronger". European transit projects are relatively highly transparent to the public, especially in Switzerland where everything is pretty much approved by referendum. By contrast, American transit projects are highly secretive, rely on dubious construction firms looking for a profit, and do not take cost-effectiveness of the transit project in mind and the regulations only protect small-minded interest groups, leading to a complacent bureaucracy unconcerned with efficiency and the specific needs of the people. This is pretty much why, for example, the 2nd Ave Subway and East Side Access in NYC, are terribly overblown boondoggles and do not come close to the efficiency they should have for so much capital investment.
Anonymous 05/01/14(Thu)22:16 UTC+1 No.658489 Report

>By contrast, American transit projects are highly secretive, rely on dubious construction firms looking for a profit, and do not take cost-effectiveness of the transit project in mind and the regulations only protect small-minded interest groups, leading to a complacent bureaucracy unconcerned with efficiency and the specific needs of the people.
I think this sums up the basics of American government alogether.
Anonymous 05/02/14(Fri)00:55 UTC+1 No.658531 Report

>Oh, you start in the NEC
There's billions of dollars worth of TLC needed in the NEC, bridges, tunnels, turns, stations. It doesn't help the organization at Pensy is terrible and you'd need to smash heads together to get the current problems sorted out.
Anonymous 05/02/14(Fri)01:46 UTC+1 No.658539 Report

>you'd need to smash heads together to get the current problems
Sounds like a common theme in American passenger rail...
Anonymous 05/02/14(Fri)02:03 UTC+1 No.658540 Report

Pointless kinda like DART and CAHSR

DART has been struggling so they been asking for more money from the government. They said 'no' so now they are selling it's naming rights to stay afloat. Do not understand the point of this when we have flights in Texas that reaches those areas
Anonymous 05/02/14(Fri)06:05 UTC+1 No.658621 Report

its a common theme across every aspect of america: out of control military spending, no healthcare, taxcuts for the rich, rampant environmental destruction, etc
Anonymous 05/02/14(Fri)06:08 UTC+1 No.658623 Report

>European transit projects are relatively highly transparent to the public, especially in Switzerland where everything is pretty much approved by referendum.
You've got to vote on a ballet iniative to get shit done in America
Abroad once you vote in a government they can do what they like til the next election, you dont have a say on what they build
This is why so many projects get derailed in America, no pun intended, cause one county votes no or an insane PR campaign is carried out against it like the anti BRT law passed in Tennessee to prevent Nashville starting a BRT route
Anonymous 05/02/14(Fri)06:10 UTC+1 No.658625 Report

the point would be a 1 hour to 90 minute train ride linking Dallas/Houston/Austin departing from and arriving at the cities railway terminals allowing people to smoothly transition from one train to another

Oh wait, they dont have any rail internal to them
Anonymous 05/02/14(Fri)09:56 UTC+1 No.658655 Report

• Social media (Platform use: Facebook)
• Editing
• Publishing pdf’s as e-books
o Software use: Avana, Submittable, Sigil, Calibre, Adobe Reader and Microsoft Word
o Markup language use: HTML
Anonymous 05/03/14(Sat)00:14 UTC+1 No.658897 Report

You're a fucking retard. Voting on a ballot initiative is only just the approval to do anything at all by increased spending. Actual project proposals are far and few in between because of government bureaucracy.

>excluding bus transit, or their existing rail transit
>not considering airport-style operations
Awesome Funposter 05/03/14(Sat)00:19 UTC+1 No.658901 Report

To be fair he said ballet vote not ballot.
Anonymous 05/03/14(Sat)03:48 UTC+1 No.658987 Report

the whole point of HSR is it arrives and departs from the city terminals
you can get the regular trains to it
and use the regular trains to get around your destination

if there is no rail to begin with, you're removing a big chunk of its advantage and ease of use
>their existing rail trains
>airport style operation
what does that even mean
Anonymous 05/03/14(Sat)03:49 UTC+1 No.658989 Report

>muh bureaucracy
cause they dont have that in Europe amirite
Anonymous 05/03/14(Sat)04:20 UTC+1 No.658995 Report

>get the regular trains to it
Now this actually makes no fucking sense whatsoever. Explain why there is a prerequisite at all that requires conventional train service before HSR. "Other countries do it" isn't an explanation. The whole point of HSR is high-throughput intercity service between cities where other modes are at capacity. Localized transit and rail is a largely other matter

If transit located at airports is clearly enough to handle the intercity arrival/departure traffic, then HSR stations are no different. Also, Amtrak service does exist at all three Texas cities
Anonymous 05/03/14(Sat)04:21 UTC+1 No.658996 Report

So how is European bureaucracy a detriment to transit practices?
Anonymous 05/03/14(Sat)05:24 UTC+1 No.659005 Report

they complement one another
you catch your normal suburban commuter or city metro or regional train to the city terminal where you transfer to the the HSR
and arrive at the terminal in your destination or keep going on its commuters/metros/regional
it is an easy convenient flow on of travel
without it you remove half the convenience, it becomes little better than taking a plane that you must drive and park or bus to
Anonymous 05/03/14(Sat)05:31 UTC+1 No.659007 Report

I repeat: HSR is there for the intercity need. Where is the justification for metropolitan commuter need? The mandatory need to build all this additional infrastructure that isn't even compatible with a true HSR line? The current suburban transit systems in Texan cities aren't even close to reaching maximum ridership capacity. The vast majority of US rail commuters _already_ "park and ride" at their local station anyway, sometimes from 1/2-1 hour away.
Anonymous 05/03/14(Sat)05:41 UTC+1 No.659012 Report

You describe your version of a "perfect" system, with land zoning and urban density worthy of actual commuter systems. Nothing like that exists in Texas to that extent. Sometimes I don't know on what level you're trying to argue at: the theoretical fantasy of how entire societies should be laid out, or the physical realities that require specialized solutions.
Anonymous 05/06/14(Tue)15:13 UTC+1 No.660155 Report

It's just a natural outgrowth of one boondoggle into another. HSR can't be justified without some fancy vision of an integrated rail transit that takes you from the city center to city center within hours. So we have to build not only HSR, but also move everyone into city centers, or build city centers in cities which don't really have them, and a city metro to go with it.
TLDR; HSR is a waste of money. Just add an express service for a fraction of the cost.
Anonymous 05/06/14(Tue)19:29 UTC+1 No.660240 Report

Los Angeles already does this
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)01:22 UTC+1 No.660943 Report

>HSR is a waste of money
In other news, naysayers were recorded as saying nay.
>mfw remembering SimCity2k...
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)03:00 UTC+1 No.660985 Report

Not if HSR is replacing the short haul flights (picture related). These things fly intercity in large states like Texas, and HSR can compete with these very well since security waits and airline delays are non trivial in the sub 500 mile travel distance.
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:11 UTC+1 No.661022 Report

>get a taxi or rent a car
Then why not drive
You can't be serious
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:13 UTC+1 No.661023 Report

>if they followed the Japanese business model that private rail lines use.
Government develops HSR
Builds it for decades
Establishes networks for decades
When finally developed enough to run profita ly Hands it over to corporate ogliarchs to run

Ah yes the power of the free market
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:14 UTC+1 No.661025 Report

>far worse
A pittance, 2 billion for a network as vast and complex as Americas
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:14 UTC+1 No.661027 Report

Don't forget,
>Government keeps on picking up the check for large construction and upgrade projects.
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:16 UTC+1 No.661031 Report

To get around once you arrive
To get to it
You dense mouth breather

Think for a second: you arrive at the city and there are trains to continue traveling around on
Your towns regular trains can take you to a HSR that departs minutes after you arrive
Think about how convenient and handy all of this is how it simplifies and speeds up travel
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:17 UTC+1 No.661032 Report

>isn't compatible
HSR is backwards compatible with conventional railway lines, it just can do 300kmh on them
It is maglev that is not compatible
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:19 UTC+1 No.661035 Report

>suburban transit systems in Texas
That's a nice way to describe a few shitty little lightrail in the downtown while everyone else is stuck driving
It should exist, it is a major problem that it doesn't
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:21 UTC+1 No.661038 Report

>a competent alternative to driving
>moving everyone to city centres
>look mom I'm a retard!
Public transit means far more than subways inside a dense city
Commuter trains go to and through suburbia from a city centre terminal
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:22 UTC+1 No.661040 Report

No they do that with lightrail
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:23 UTC+1 No.661041 Report

With much of the bridges and tunnels dating back to the depression
And even railways from the civil war still in use
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:39 UTC+1 No.661053 Report

Lol no, planes are much faster and cheaper than HSR.

Only reason people push HSR is because some countries built them. That is a retarded reason to spent billions
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:41 UTC+1 No.661057 Report

Yeah so just don't make HSR in the first place if they can't do high speed.
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:54 UTC+1 No.661070 Report

I doubt it'll happen. If there is resistance in California, there will be even more in Texas.
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)04:59 UTC+1 No.661074 Report

HSR is time competitive with short haul air travel when you factor in required time at the airport.
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)06:58 UTC+1 No.661155 Report

Not to mention you can fit more people in trains than you can on planes. Even if it's slower, actually having seats to sell is great.
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)10:04 UTC+1 No.661203 Report

for 100-600 miles HSR is a decent alternative
and its favorability increases with all the regular rail an area has because of the convenient access and ease of transer
>hurr others does its
is a shit meme, you're like a petulant little child just grasping at straws desperate to avoid action
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)10:05 UTC+1 No.661204 Report

they will on their highspeed railways
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)10:06 UTC+1 No.661205 Report

>if it cant be high speed on every single railway dont do it
Anonymous 05/08/14(Thu)10:08 UTC+1 No.661206 Report

>nooo im happy this way.jpg
thats basically the dudes argument
Latios 05/08/14(Thu)11:17 UTC+1 No.661219 Report

Some stats from about 10 years ago, found in the 48th issue of JRTR

It'd be interesting to gather similar stats from Europe and other parts of Asia like Taipei-Kaohsiung.
It should be said that Japan alone is a little unfair due to high rail takeup but it gives an insight on how the landscape has changed.
All the content on this website comes from 4chan.org. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster. 4chanArchive is not affiliated with 4chan.