Highspeed rail is B$it

[nostalgiaquest]

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Americans make more than 405 million long-distance business trips per year. This means about 1.1 million people are traveling for business every day in the U.S.

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

But if you look at the vast majority of travel in areas where there are high speed rail, its business, no checked bags, and drivers available.

Originally Posted by Jibartik [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

I thought we were talking about countries with high speed rail. I can’t keep up with how fast you shift the goal posts.

You’ve gone full Ooloo at this point. Never go full Ooloo.

I’m guessing you have some menial desk job and have never been on a business trip.

Edit: BRO

[Danth]

Effectively all high-speeed rail service is heavily subsidized so that argument's moot.

When you're talking wheeled ground transport, you get speed or you get cost effectiveness, you don't get both. Putting those wheels on steel rails helps some, but doesn't eliminate the basic problem. Rail is absurdly good at hauling heavy loads at modest speeds. If you want to ship ten thousand tons of coal overland at thirty miles an hour, rail's unbeatable.

Train resistance, usually expressed here in the states in pounds per ton, increases with speed. Modern railroad locomotives use electric motors and have a tractive effort curve that is effectively a straight line--you go faster, you have less pull. If you want to haul a heavy passenger train at high rates of speed, you have no choice but to grossly overpower your train*. That costs money. It costs more money because safety regulations mean the equipment tends to be very heavy. Deadweight per passenger on the Northeast Corridor's "Acela" are on the order of two tons per, or roughly rivaling that of single-occupancy automobiles. If you want to run passenger trains with some semblance of efficiency, you need to run slower. To repeat: You get speed or you get cheap, you don't get both.

The same problems of course apply, to an even greater extent, to highway transport. It's why the government tried to reduce speed limits during the 70's, and part of why speeds have never reached particularly high levels. The cost is too high, both in dollars and in pollution due to increased fuel consumption.

Passenger rail has its uses, even being rather cost-inefficient. It's great for helping out with congestion in built-up cities when the air corridors are too crowded and there's little physical space for ground corridors. This seldom applies in North America due to lesser population density here than in some other regions, but that will likely change with time and continued population growth. Some air routes are already heavily congested.

----------------------------------------------

*This is why most high-speed rail uses electric locomotives rather than diesel-electrics, including all of the highest-speed lines. Either of them use electric motors, but the diesel is limited by carrying its own onboard power plant. An electric using outside transmission can be over-powered at the cost of requiring expensive infrastructure and higher route maintenance.

-----------------------------------

Short version: High speed rail has its place, but is rarely ideal in present-day North American conditions. It's frequently sold, wrongly, as a cheaper option when it seldom is, giving fuel to its detractors.

Danth

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Effectively all high-speeed rail service is heavily subsidized so that argument's moot.

When you're talking wheeled ground transport, you get speed or you get cost effectiveness, you don't get both. Putting those wheels on steel rails helps some, but doesn't eliminate the basic problem. Rail is absurdly good at hauling heavy loads at modest speeds. If you want to ship ten thousand tons of coal overland at thirty miles an hour, rail's unbeatable.

Train resistance, usually expressed here in the states in pounds per ton, increases with speed. Modern railroad locomotives use electric motors and have a tractive effort curve that is effectively a straight line--you go faster, you have less pull. If you want to haul a heavy passenger train at high rates of speed, you have no choice but to grossly overpower your train*. That costs money. It costs more money because safety regulations mean the equipment tends to be very heavy. Deadweight per passenger on the Northeast Corridor's "Acela" are on the order of two tons per, or roughly rivaling that of single-occupancy automobiles. If you want to run passenger trains with some semblance of efficiency, you need to run slower. To repeat: You get speed or you get cheap, you don't get both.

The same problems of course apply, to an even greater extent, to highway transport. It's why the government tried to reduce speed limits during the 70's, and part of why speeds have never reached particularly high levels. The cost is too high, both in dollars and in pollution due to increased fuel consumption.

Passenger rail has its uses, even being rather cost-inefficient. It's great for helping out with congestion in built-up cities when the air corridors are too crowded and there's little physical space for ground corridors. This seldom applies in North America due to lesser population density here than in some other regions, but that will likely change with time and continued population growth. Some air routes are already heavily congested.

----------------------------------------------

*This is why most high-speed rail uses electric locomotives rather than diesel-electrics, including all of the highest-speed lines. Either of them use electric motors, but the diesel is limited by carrying its own onboard power plant. An electric using outside transmission can be over-powered at the cost of requiring expensive infrastructure and higher route maintenance.

-----------------------------------

Short version: High speed rail has its place, but is rarely ideal in present-day North American conditions. It's frequently sold, wrongly, as a cheaper option when it seldom is, giving fuel to its detractors.

Danth

Why passenger trains heavy? Seems like nonsense.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Why passenger trains heavy? Seems like nonsense.

A big part of it is safety regulations. There are significant crashworthiness laws in place, and it's usually stricter for equipment expected to run high rates of speed. Most of the equipment used by tourist railroads, for example, would be illegal in high-speed service.

I do not disagree with such regulations; I don't want to be speeding around at 120 MPH in 19th century-style wood frame coaches. It goes back to the basic point, you can either be fast or you can be cheap, but you can't be both. EDIT: Look up historic rail crashes where you had coaches telescoping into each other and you'll quickly realize why such requirements are necessary.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

A big part of it is safety regulations. There are significant crashworthiness laws in place, and it's usually stricter for equipment expected to run high rates of speed. Most of the equipment used by tourist railroads, for example, would be illegal in high-speed service.

I do not disagree with such regulations; I don't want to be speeding around at 120 MPH in 19th century-style wood frame coaches. It goes back to the basic point, you can either be fast or you can be cheap, but you can't be both. EDIT: Look up historic rail crashes where you had coaches telescoping into each other and you'll quickly realize why such requirements are necessary.

Really think you can say they're heavy compared to diesel trains carrying freight?

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Really think you can say they're heavy compared to diesel trains carrying freight?

Yes, immensely so, in terms of tare weights. A typical modern coal car might weigh perhaps thirty tons or so and carry several times its own weight of paying load. A passenger coach weights upwards of seventy tons and carries only a few dozen people. From a loading standpoint, passenger rail amounts to running effectively empty trains.

Also, freight trains don't run fast. Thirty to fifty miles an hour is plenty for most freight railroads. The amount of power you need to continue accelerating at high rates of speed increases very rapidly. It takes more power to operate a 600 ton passenger train at 150 MPH and accelerate it to that speed within reasonable distances than it takes to run a 6000 ton coal drag at 25 MPH.

Don't get me wrong. I *like* rail transport. I just don't like it being sold as something it is not. It's perfect for congestion reduction and for fitting your transportation corridors underground or other places that don't matter. It's not great at being cheap. Sometimes being cheap isn't the end-all. Improving quality of life warrants some expense.

Danth

[robayon]

Trains are cleaner and safer than planes, you wear a suit on a train but you can wear your basketball shorts and thin sweater on the plane

RyanAir/Easyjet are more comparable to a sky-bus than a normal plane. I have taken the chunnel and the eurail all over and the shinkansen, they're much nicer

Except when that guy jacked off in the sleeper car from Amsterdam to Paris, but that isn't the fault of the vehicle type and it also happens in hostels

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Yes, immensely so, in terms of tare weights. A typical modern coal car might weigh perhaps thirty tons or so and carry several times its own weight of paying load. A passenger coach weights upwards of seventy tons and carries only a few dozen people. From a loading standpoint, passenger rail amounts to running effectively empty trains.

Also, freight trains don't run fast. Thirty to fifty miles an hour is plenty for most freight railroads. The amount of power you need to continue accelerating at high rates of speed increases very rapidly. It takes more power to operate a 600 ton passenger train at 150 MPH and accelerate it to that speed within reasonable distances than it takes to run a 6000 ton coal drag at 25 MPH.

Don't get me wrong. I *like* rail transport. I just don't like it being sold as something it is not. It's perfect for congestion reduction and for fitting your transportation corridors underground or other places that don't matter. It's not great at being cheap. Sometimes being cheap isn't the end-all. Improving quality of life warrants some expense.

Danth

Isn't that whole idea to not run passenger trains on the freight rails?

Oh my god shutup.

[Danth]

Originally Posted by Reiwa [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Isn't that whole idea to not run passenger trains on the freight rails?

Oh my god shutup.

Eh? Of course you run the passenger trains on separate routes, but the same physics and regulations still apply. The point is that the public usually equates rail with efficient because freight rail is very efficient, but highspeed passenger rail is an entirely different beast. It's a hard sell in North America.

[Reiwa]

Originally Posted by Danth [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Eh? Of course you run the passenger trains on separate routes, but the same physics and regulations still apply. The point is that the public usually equates rail with efficient because freight rail is very efficient, but highspeed passenger rail is an entirely different beast. It's a hard sell in North America.

Let's go back a sec. What makes either train itself, without cargo, heavier?

Why would a train designed to carry, as you say "several dozen passengers" weigh over double that of a train designed to carry freight by the tonnes?

I have to think you are arguing in bad faith, because you cannot actually be this stupid.