Because the actual cost is twice or more than the ticket price. Light rail is highly subsidized.
What about the 2011 crash in china. many people were killed:
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/china-train/
Wiki goes on st say that lightning struck the trail, taking it our and the signal lights down the track, that's why the other high speed train rear ended it. I didn't post that link since the source link is blocked by subscription.
What about the crash in Spain:
With our litigation system, we cannot afford any possibility of such crashes.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-12-2014 at 11:41 AM.
No.
It's the cheapskates buying online the cheapest stuff they can, forcing retailers to find the cheapest stuff they can overseas. Retailers get screwed by people shopping in their stores for what they want, then finding and ordering it online.
They needed to put our money to use somehow.
At least they created construction jobs!
"a statement made in court by the driver, Garzón Amo, that the train was travelling at 180–190 km/h (111-118 mph) at the time of the accident.[18] That was more than double the speed limit for that curve, which is 80 km/h (50 mph).[19]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santiag...ela_derailment
Spain train driver 'on phone' at time of deadly crash
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-23507348
What is your point about TGV rail for USA? do you have one?
Yes, I already knew that. High speed accidents are simply more deadly when they happen vs. a normal speed train.
Most chinese municipalities are completely bankrupt as well. They're gonna have to sell off a ton of public property to pay off all the debt they have since the Chinese central government doesn't want to refinance/reinvent the chinese banking system for the 4th time in 30 years.
jet plane accidents are more deadly when they are 35K feet high and carrying 300 people. let's stop flying
gun deaths are a very high with 300M+ guns in USA, so let's stringently regulate guns.
They are too costly to operate. Where we would want then would be places like the west coast, where cities are far away from each other. However, being in the ring of fire, tracks would have to be surveyed after every earthquake. It would be too expensive anywhere in the states with union wages and safety regulations, and excessively more expensive more on the left coast.
The frequency of plane accidents are real real rare. Our TRIMET system has maybe a dozen accidents a year, but none of them fatal except when a car or person goes in front of one.
Every time you double the speed of a rail car, the smoothness of the track must be 4 time flatter. Going from 60 MPH to 200 MPH is almost quadrupling the speed. It is 3.33 times faster which would require a track 11.1 times flatter and straighter. This is very, very expensive to maintain.
Still cheaper than building 3.3 tracks and buying 3.3 trains to carry the same amount of people/freight.
If the track capacity for train spacing was full, I might agree.
got any links proving your wild-assed claim? Like from France, about how much it costs them to maintain their TGV rail beds?
Well, I guess if we ever charged as much for licensing cars and gasoline as they do, we would have more people willing to foot the bill. as of 2/17, the price of gasoline in France was $7.82 per gallon.
http://www.eia.gov/countries/prices/gasolinewithtax.cfm
Ever see how much Europeans pay to register cars?
On relatively cheap land.
What neighborhood do you live in btw?
Track design[edit]
Main article: High-speed railway line
TGV track construction has a few key differences from normal railway lines. The radii of curves are larger so that trains can traverse them at higher speeds without increasing the centripetal acceleration felt by passengers. The radii of LGV curves have historically been greater than 4 km (2.5 mi): new lines have minimum radii of 7 km (4.3 mi) to allow for future increases in speed.
LGVs can incorporate steeper gradients than normal. This facilitates planning and reduces their cost of construction. The high power/weight and adhesive weight/total weight ratios of TGVs allow them to climb much steeper grades than conventional trains. The considerable momentum at high speeds also helps to climb these slopes very fast without greatly increasing their energy consumption. The Paris-Sud-Est LGV has grades of up to 3.5% (on the German NBS high-speed line between Cologne and Frankfurt they reach 4%). On a high-speed line it is possible to have greater superelevation (cant), since all trains are travelling at the same (high) speed and a train stopping on a curve is a very rare event. Curve radii in high-speed lines have to be large, but increasing the superelevation allows for tighter curves while supporting the same train speed. Allowance for tighter curves can reduce construction costs by reducing the number and/or length of tunnels or viaducts and the volume of earthworks.
Track alignment is more precise than on normal railway lines, and ballast is in a deeper-than-normal profile, resulting in increased load-bearing capacity and track stability. LGV track is anchored by more sleepers/ ties per kilometre than normal, and all are made of concrete, either mono- or bi-bloc, the latter consisting of two separate blocks of concrete joined by a steel bar. Heavy rail (UIC 60) is used and the rails are more upright, with an inclination of 1 in 40 as opposed to 1 in 20 on normal lines. Use of continuously welded rails in place of shorter, jointed rails yields a comfortable ride at high speed, without the "clickety-clack" vibrations induced by rail joints.
The points/switches are different from those on the lignes classiques. Every LGV set of points incorporates a swingnose crossing (coeur ŕ pointe mobile) or 'moveable point frog', which eliminates the gap in rail support as wheels of a train pass over the 'frog' of conventional points, causing shock and vibration - eliminating these makes the passage of a TGV over an LGV switch imperceptible to passengers, reduces stresses on wheels and track, and permits much higher speeds, 160 km/h (99 mph). At junctions, such as the junction on the TGV Atlantique where the line to Le Mans diverges from the line to Tours, special points designed for higher speeds are installed which permit a diverging speed of 220 km/h (137 mph).
The diameter of tunnels is greater than normally required by the size of the trains, especially at entrances. This limits the effects of air pressure changes, which could be problematic at TGV speeds.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TGV#Track_design
If a train like that can be built, there should be a way to prevent the train from going twice the speed limit.
Here is a quick link I found. It doesn't have my claim in it, but the 110 MPH high speed rail would cost the consumer as much as a plane ticket and take twice as long.
edit add;
this link was suppose to be here:
http://reason.org/blog/show/californ...-rail-2014-bus
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 03-12-2014 at 02:54 PM.
for a country as big and empty as USA, there are distance limits to the superiority of TGV rail vs air. It's at about 400 miles. And one has to figure door-to-door times, not just on-board times.
I'm not too happy about light rail to start with. The Milwaukee to Portland light rail project cost $204 million per mile to build. $1.5 billion total. It has been pointed out that the interest on this project could have paid for everyone wanting to go between Milwaukee and any other connecting place in the system, could have had their own taxi pick them up. This is such a waste of money. At $5 for a day pass, it will never be paid for. It is just a tax dollar flushing station.
Trains versus planes: Survey shows pull toward tracks
It's a debate that never dies. Between higher fuel costs pushing airfares up and President Obama's multi-billion-dollar proposal last month to improve the country's high-speed rail system, there has been no shortage of fodder recently fueling the argument of whether travelers would be better served by trains or planes.
In a survey of more than 300 North American and European travelers conducted between mid-January and mid-February by SilverRail Technologies, a rail booking technology company, 90 percent of respondents said they would like to see rail options displayed alongside flights when searching for travel; 79 percent would choose trains over planes if high-speed rail options existed; and 61 percent would choose rail over air if the cost was the same or better.
While clearly air travel has a leg-up on train travel in terms of value and convenience (let's face it, there are never going to be certain domestic rail routes available whether the Obama Administration invests $53 billion into high-speed rail or not), the SilverRail survey shows that some of the unpleasantries of flying do lend themselves to a brighter outlook on train travel.
Eighty-six percent of the respondents said they would accept having the entire time from door-to-door be longer to avoid the process of checking in, security and boarding, and 66 percent said they would willingly add an hour or more of total travel to their trip to avoid the hassles of long lines, airport security and baggage fees.
Furthermore, waiting in line was considered the single biggest air travel hassle, according to 72 percent of the respondents, and 36 percent liked the idea of family and friends being able to accompany them to their gate.
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/42270740/n.../#.UyCXST9dWkc
The US airline cartel, deregulated for decades and with most of them bankrupt or not viable AFTER deregulation, has ed up air travel so bad, nearly everybody considers air travel a huge pain in the ass.
It doesn't take long at all to board a national flight. Factoring in boarding time, it's still only 3/4 the time.
LOL...
Fuel costs...
What about electricity costs? The more demand we have on electricity, the more it costs too! these trains will normally operate during peak load also.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
