The Hyperloop

[PapaSmurf2k3]

the only place ACELA can hit their advertised 150+MPH speeds is a small 20(?) mile stretch of track in Rhode Island.

Yeah I knew a kid that jumped out in front of one. It did not end well for him.

Drugs are bad, mmmkay?

[IBCoupe]

Thanks Isaac, for minimizing the decades worth of experience I have in the rail industry, which includes service design and costing. But that's okay, you and your in-laws have ridden a couple fast trains in China, so that's equivalent.

Hey, no problem, Bubbsy. I see end result of better service, better performance, and lower cost. I have no doubt in my mind that your years of involvement give you all kinds of excuses for the plainly visible American inferiority.

As far as fare differences between AMTRAK and Chinese bullet trains? Those bullet trains in China are heavily subsidized by their government, which means the government covers almost all of the operating/infrastucture costs enabling fares to be dirt cheap. They are not operated for profit. AMTRAK, on the other hand, is operated as a for-profit company, and although it does receive funding by the US government , it's a small fraction of what the Chinese invest (even when scaled equivalently).

Like that. Which'd be pretty compelling if you weren't also on record in this thread as being opposed to any hyperloop-like product because of the cost to government.

Plus AMTRAK has to deal with higher labor/benefit costs.

Than China, sure. But in Shanghai, the minimum wage is $202/month. To justify the price difference on that basis alone, you'd have a minimum wage in the U.S. of $2202/month, or $13/hr. So that ain't it. And while it certainly plays a role, even on an American salary I wouldn't shell out $164 for a regular Amtrak ticket (I was mistaken before). I wouldn't shell out $180 for an Acela ticket, either.

Evidently, you are unaware that the US government has been actively trying to wean itself off passenger rail funding for the last 30 years, and funding has been steadily reducing during that period, not increasing. so It's not surprising that AMTRAK's fares are significantly higher.

Excellent excuse for s*** performance.

You also are unaware that AMTRAK also does not own all their own tracks.

I worked with CT DOT's legal office; I'm well-aware that Amtrak owns only the CT track north of New Haven. I was surprised to learn that it owned any of its track.

They have work out special deals for "service windows" (meaning periods of track time) with the major freight railroads on many of the tracks they use, which impacts costs/schedules/speeds. Plus those freight rail tracks/infrastucture were designed to handle mostly slower freight traffic, not triple digit speed bullet trains, which is huge problem for programs like ACELA.

I agree that American rail is s***.

You also probably didn't know that the only place ACELA can hit their advertised 150+MPH speeds is a small 20(?) mile stretch of track in Rhode Island.

Didn't know the state, but I knew the fact. I agree that American rail is s***.

Otherwise they must operate at about the same speed as the old cheaper Metroliner (up to maybe 100mph depending on the area). ACELA is able to shave more time by making fewer stops and priority routing (meaning other trains hold periodically in order to let it pass) .

IMHO anyone riding ACELA is wasting money as the old Metroliner northeast regional service is cheaper, performs better, is as comfortable and is not much slower.

Again, I agree that American rail is s***.

AMTRAK (including ACELA) has been "sh!tty" but it's not for the reasons you cited.

Which were, incidentally, most of the reasons you just listed, but go on.

It's actually a combination of some mismanagement over the years, but mostly US government interference, grossly insufficient government funding, crowded tracks (lots of trains using them) soaring fuel/benefits costs, and an aging, incompatible infrastructure.

So let's fix it.

To be fair to AMTRAK, the US government expects AMTRAK to operate a national network on a regional budget, and that ain't easy. Given what they have to work with, they do a pretty good job, and in the northeast corridor, I would say extremely good. I doubt the Chinese railroads could operate with such cheap fares if they had as little funding as AMTRAK gets.

So let's fix it.

Creating a real bullet train service in this country equivalent to the Chinese or Europeans, would require all new infrastructure, and that cost would be staggering. And being $17 trillion dollars (and growing) in debt, our government (who's already unwilling to invest in rail, despite its many virtues ) really doesn't have the money to invest in something that doesn't utilize the existing infrastructure, and the larger distances between cities as you move west makes trains less competitive than planes, which makes the funding less likely to happen on national level. The northeast corridor works well mainly because of combination of several big cities relatively close and a dense population along all the stops.

I'm gonna paste the final paragraph of my last comment again, for your benefit:

Whether you want to go with Musk's idea or not, American rail needs improvement. It'll come at a cost to American airlines (American Airlines, included), but not really to American citizens. And there are arguments for going with Musk's proposal or some other radical alternative: getting American society back into the swing of chasing technological and scientific leaps for the sake of technological and scientific progress.

As much umbrage as you appear to have taken (in fairness to you: in response to a friendly poke by me), Bubbers, you didn't actually disagree with me. I said American rail was s***. You provided a whole bunch of reasons why American rail is s***, which is great - don't get me wrong - but it doesn't actually dispute what I've said. You said that there would only be an "initial buzz" and that society didn't really need this. I beg to differ: to the extent that any of that is true, it's a result of how s*** American rail has been to date, and for all the reasons you've stated. Europe can do it well. Asia can do it even better. What's stopping Americans from being even better than them? Nothing except ourselves and our own sense of inadequacy.

[Bubba1]

Oi. I agree we're not that far apart, we both agree passenger rail is a great mode of transportation, and that the current US national passenger rail system is in need of improvement. We seem to differ in two areas. First is that what you dismiss simply as sh**, I view as the result of how much of a priority we (via our elected officials) have put into its infrastructure, which is almost nothing, as compared to what's spent on highways/airports. . Since this is a car forum, I'll make an appropriate analogy. It's akin to you driving a badly maintained, ratty 40 yr old gas guzzling Jeep Grand Wagoneer and whining it sucks because its expensive to run and unreliable as compared to your neighbors brand new Infiniti. The other way we seem differ is that you appear to feel a way to fix this problem is to invest in whole new infrastructure and I feel a better fix would be to address the present infrastructure.

The other countries with successful intercity passenger rail could only achieve their success thru large and non-waivering government support/investment without the pressure of turning a profit. That's not the case in the country, and it's not a sense of inadequacy, it's a choice. Big difference. We Americans love our cars and planes more than trains and that's where the infrastructure investment money goes. If we put as much money into rail infrastructure as Europe and China, our service would be just as good.

The $6Billion hypertube money represents waaaay more than what AMTRAK gets (AMTRAK got maybe $650 million last year in government money to operate/maintain a national network). That's chump change, and then you wonder why fares are high and service is bad? To me, if we Americans want to improve, hi speed intercity passenger rail like ACELA, which handles more passengers in more cities with just one train than the hypertube, and ACELA is not located along a stinkin' fault line . that $6Billion would be better spent on things like upgrading the rails themselves to actual handle the speeds of bullet trains like ACELA (which they are not now), or upgrading the power stations that currently cannot provide enough electricity to properly run trains (like acela) at full power at certain points. (it's true, the system was designed for 40yr Metroliners which require less power).

We're in debt to our eyeballs. Given that curveball, which is a big factor, I say the borrowed taxpayer money would be much better spent maintaining/improving the giant working infrastructure we have now rather than creating a whole one for an niche experiment in an earthquake zone. Is that so crazy?

[IBCoupe]

First is that what you dismiss simply as sh**, I view as the result of how much of a priority we (via our elected officials) have put into its infrastructure, which is almost nothing, as compared to what's spent on highways/airports.

I dismiss it as s*** because it is s***. You provide the reason for why it is s***, and I fail to disagree with you. That's not a difference.

The other way we seem differ is that you appear to feel a way to fix this problem is to invest in whole new infrastructure and I feel a better fix would be to address the present infrastructure.

I don't think you'll find me disagreeing with you on that, either.

We Americans love our cars and planes more than trains and that's where the infrastructure investment money goes.

But we Americans love our cars and planes more than the s*** trains we have available to us. That may mean it's a vicious cycle, but I don't think that Americans are less likely to take a GOOD train than anyone else on the planet. The problem is they don't have any.

that $6Billion would be better spent on things like upgrading the rails themselves to actual handle the speeds of bullet trains like ACELA (which they are not now), or upgrading the power stations that currently cannot provide enough electricity to properly run trains (like acela) at full power at certain points.

Sure, let's do that, but it doesn't have the advantage of being the next "put a man on the moon" event. It might be totally necessary, but it won't inspire people, it won't lead to new technologies or new discoveries, and while it might do well to make American rail better, it won't necessarily make it remarkable, or remarkably good.

[Bubba1]

Dang man, I thought my car analogy would have provided at least a yuck. And Americans do have a GOOD intercity train service, Nick Negative . It's called the northeast corridor. I'm one of the hundreds of thousands of folks who prefer to use trains to NYC or Philly instead of driving. Costs me $9 to use SEPTA to Philly, and $15 to use NJTransit to NYC.

[IBCoupe]

Dang man, I thought my car analogy would have provided at least a yuck. And relatively few Americans do have a GOOD intercity train service, Nick Negative . It's called the northeast corridor. I'm one of the hundreds of thousands of folks who prefer to use trains to NYC or Philly instead of driving. Costs me $9 to use SEPTA to Philly, and $15 to use NJTransit to NYC.

FTFY.

[PapaSmurf2k3]

So anyway...
Hyperloop?

[Dattebayo]

Kinda sounds like a Hot Wheels loop thing my parents bought for me when I was a kid...

[sx moneypit]

Kinda sounds like a Hot Wheels loop thing my parents bought for me when I was a kid...

LOL Dave.