in Re the high speed rail prospect

[occsafmedic]

I do construction safety on rail projects (among others)-- 1.1 billion will not build a high speed rail line-- that will barely cover infrastructure for a standard line-- also, part of the problem with Amtrak high speed (and it is my understanding that it is Amtrak that is supposedly building the high speed lines) is how the catenary and trolley structures interact (the catenaries are the overhead power systems, and the trolleys are the bridgey looking things atop Amtrak trains that connect to the overhead power)-- so far, from what I've seen of the drawings and feasibility studies, this is merely pumping more money into the bloated and broken coffers of Amtrak.

[md2000]

Huh?

I assume the technology works in Europe (or, are all the TGV-type trains diesel?). If so, all they need to do is copy Europe's technology. Sad that we need to, but that's gotta be cheaper than reinventing the wheel (or the bogey).

If I were in charge of the money, and Amtrak says "we want to do research", I would tell them to give me some written paper on why their bright new idea could possibly be at least 50% faster than what Europe already does, and why Europe does not do whatever they are proposing already? Otherwise, license it from Europe and start building.

Yeah, a billion probably won't do much; but if they can give the Washington-NYC or LA-Frisco run a boost of speed, then I'm sure there's money to improve the rest. ("Proof of concept") I know one administration member would give them support if they boost the Washington-Delaware speed.

Just curious though - do the Europeans have as many level-crossing collisions or are the North American drivers notoriously stupid? Or do they ensure the TGV has no level crossings?

[Exapno Mapcase]

The trains are not the issue. The tracks are the issue.

You cannot use the same tracks for true high-speed rail that are used today for regular trains and freight. Every inch of new rail will have to be built from scratch, requiring usually new and wider right-of-ways along the most heavily traveled and highly priced land in the country. Where the land comes from is another good question, since the freight lines need to stay - freight is many, many times more important than passenger rail in this country - and there is no land to even start the building of the new tracks.

You couldn't simply lay all the track alongside old track if you wanted to. High speed trains need larger curves and wider tunnels than currently tracks are set for.

The federal government cannot mandate taking land for tracks in the way that European governments normally do. Local landowners carry too much power.

You may be able to run lines along Interstates - I think that's Florida's plan - but in many cities there is no room to connect into the city center that way.

Some of these obstacles can be overcome. Some I'm totally skeptical of. But the trains themselves are barely a detail. It's all about the tracks.

[Civil Guy]

Link http://chicago.straightdope.com/sdc20100211.php

[TubaDiva]

Moved to "Straight Dope Chicago."

[Lumpy]

Can't find the thread, but wasn't there a discussion about why no one's built a high-speed rail line between LA and Los Vegas? If that corridor couldn't support high-speed rail, I don't know where in the US could.