I’m completely in agreement with Sam Stone about it being an utter waste to build high speed rail from Chicago to LA or something like that. For the densely packed corridors like the Northeast, though, it would be perfect.
Sam, are you opposing high speed rail pretty much anywhere in America, or only across vast empty expanses?
So you think it’s a clincher argument that in 47 years there were 118 purposeful derailments? Exactly how quick do you figure autonomous cars are going to eliminate human malice from driving? How many times do you think people dropped things off overpasses onto the highway in those 40 years?
The point is that trains are vulnerable for the entire trip, while aircraft are generally only vulnerable to terrorist attack from within the plane. Protect that, and you are safe. But any clown with a welding machine or a small explosive or a dump truck can derail a train on any part of a 3,000 mile undefended track - as well as someone on board with a bomb.
The point was to show how devastating even 124 miles per hour can be if a train derails. If an HSR went off the track at 300 mph, it would likely kill everyone on board.
A single road is vulnerable. The road system, being a large mesh of many thousands of different roads, is not. But HSR is a single track system. You aren’t building thousands of them. If there is a train disaster it will take the whole system offline.
What top speed were you thinking of for your autonomous car service?
I can imagine HSR might be good for a few corridors. As I said before, places that are highly congested and will likely remain so, and where the distances between them are too long for cars and too short for planes, may be candidates for HSR. Also, it depends on the geography. The California HSR might make sense when you just look at potential passenger counts, but the geography it has to go through are killing it. For example, the mountains they have to tunnel through are terrible for tunneling because the seismic activity in Californa makes the interiors of mountains contain gravel and sand as well as hard rock, and you need different cutters for both. Plus, environmental challenges, and NIMBYism seem mich higher in California than anywhere else.
Then there are the eminent domain issues. HSR can’t run on regular track, and needs huge, banked curves. That means taking a lot of land, which will have to be purchased from people who understand they have a captive market, or the use of eminent domain to force people off their property, which I am generally against.
But if you can get through those hurdles in a dense corridor, HSR might make sense.
Fair enough. Somnow that we’re including everything, do you agree that you’ll also need to spend extra hours stoppjng at major cities along the way?
And why would you assume there will be no TSA? A bomb in an HSR will kill just as many people as a bomb in an airplane. But unlike airplanes, there also threats outsside the train, during its entire run. It’s a security nightmare.
And what happens if a terrorist derails one of these things? Do you propose to station soldiers at checkpoints every 500m all along the route? When anyone can cause billions of dollars in damage and kill hundreds of people with little more than a crowbar and half an hour of time or a welder with some steel wedges, or a couple of sticks of dynamite, you have an extremely vulnerable system.
Hard to knock down a skyscraper with a train, though.
What happens if terrorists hack your automated car network?
Doesn’t even have to be terrorists – one lone and bored teen with sufficient skills can cause havoc on their own.
https://gcn.com/articles/2018/04/25/hacks-transportation-systems.aspx
In 2008, a 14-year-old computer whiz used a device to hack into a tram system in Poland, derailing several trains and injuring at least a dozen people.
Where are you getting that half-hour figure from? I’ve ridden the ICE in Germany and I estimate that it’s less than 15 minutes from when the train starts decelerating until it’s back to full speed. The stop in the station is only a minute or two. It’s not like an airliner where everybody has to line up to go through just one door.
You didn’t compare the vulnerability of trains with that of planes. You compared the vulnerability of rails with that of roads.
FWIW, in Taiwan just a few days ago, we had a deadly incident where someone left a truck improperly parked, which slid onto a railway track, and a train smashed into it moments later, killing 50 and wounding 200.
OK, in that case, I think we’re pretty much on the same page. Although I think you may still be overestimating the capabilities or benefits of auto-cars in this thread a bit.
Did you actually read the link? The number of attacks have been going up steadily since 1974, when there was just one attack per year or so. By 1990 that had risen to about five per year. By 2006 it had risen to 10 per year. By 2016, when the char ends, that number was up to 14 per year. If that trend held, we’re looking at roughly 20 derailment attacks per year. And U.S. HSR will be the biggest, fattest terrorist target around, while probably also being the easiest to attack because America is huge country and you can’t protect thousands of miles of track running through remote areas.
By the way, from 300 kph it takes a typical HSR train about 6 kilometers to stop. So if the conductor sees damage or an obstruction on the track, it will be too late to do anything about it.
Dropping something off an overpass doesn’t kill hundreds of people and disable a key piece of national infrastructure that cost hundreds of billions of dollars.
The road system is fault tolerant in exactly the same way as the Internet is fault tolerant. They are webs of connections, where damage to any connection can be routed around, and where changes in demand are easier to accommodate. The internet didn’t eliminate malicious people - it just has the capability to route around damage. It’s anti-fragile. And so are roads. HSR is not.
The autonomous car service is a distraction. I brought it up in the context of talking about future trends that are going to encroach on other forms of medium distance travel. It’s a side argument. If we never get autonomous vehicles, there’s still no case to be made today for nation-spanning HSR. My point was that there is no case now, and that situation will only get worse in the future do to many trends, including autonomous driving, working at home and generally telecommuting, and advances in the efficiency of rail’s competition.
I’ve also said repeatedly that the biggest risk to this type of transportation is likely to be the fact that we may not travel as much at all due to telecommuting, and that these changes create a high risk that the demand for such travel today will not look much like demand for travel 20 or 30 years from now when the train is finished, and certainly not in the 100 year lifetime of the train after it’s built. Autonomous cars as a possibility were just one example.
To directly answer the question, I don’t see autonomous cars going much faster than cars today. The real limit to car speed on public roads is not the driver or the car, but the road. For example, banked curves are designed so that the net vector of gravity and centripetal acceleration is straight downnthrough the,road so there is no skidding force. Taking that curve at a higher speed means if you break traction you are going to skid towards the edge of the curve, or off it.
Lots of other road engineerjng decisions are based on the speeds of the vehicles. There’s wiggle room if you have bettermthan average handling and traction, but Mario Andretti himself isn’t taking a 70 mph curve at 125 unless he’s inna very special car and he’s walked the curve to make sure there’s no gravel or oil slicks or potholes.
Imcould see thenaverage speed going up slightly - maybe 10 mph more or so. But we won’t be aipping aroung at 125 on current roads.
Ever stop to think about the reasons that “terror is a thing”, and how internal-combustion cars are related to it?
That is true. You can’t drive one into the Pentagon, either, because building a track to the Pentagon would be really suspicious. So I will concede the point that trains don’t make good missiles.
Um, not having designed the network, since it doesn’t yet exist, I don’t know. If I were designing such a thing, I guess I’d just have all the cars slow down and stop. Or maybe some would crash and some people would be hurt or killed. He pojnt with carsmis that it’s hard to stop the entire system or kill a lot of people. Which is why terrorists don’t spend their time droppjng rocks from overpasses, but they do like to derail trains.
It would also be a lot less damage, I imagine, than if hackers hacked the train control systems or the switching system and put two trains on the same track or caused a train to overspeed a banked curve.
And this is starting to smell suspiciously like a gish gallup, since most of the points I’ve recently had to refute are getting increasingly silly and pedantic.
This thread has completely jumped the shark.
We don’t avoid building new buildings because terrorists might attack them. We don’t avoid creating new software because hackers might hack them. Totally ridiculous discussion at this point.
It seems to me that the question is when is the optimal time to build high speed rail. If you build too early then the ridership is too low to be profitable. But if you wait until the density is high enough to be profitable then you have a harder time building it because you are surrounded by stuff.
So to some degree I think building infrastructure in anticipation of higher populations in the future is warranted.
Thanks, captain science. I was extrapolating a linear regression curve over 47 years another four years into the future. Sure, a miracle could happen and train derailments could vanish or double in four years, but for the sake of back-of-the-envelope analysis, which is what we are all doing here, it’s reasonable.
Here are some recent articles about more recent terrorist attacks or planned attacks on trains:
Would you like me to continue? Trains are clearly increasingly common targets of terrorism.