That's crazy. I've been on the KTX and it hit 295 kmph while I was on it and that was fast.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/45789448/ns/world_news-asia_pacific/#.TviDpNVKR5c
QuoteBEIJING — China launched a super-rapid test train over the weekend which is capable of travelling 310-miles per hour (500 kilometers per hour), state media said on Monday, as the country moves ahead with its railway ambitions despite serious problems on its high-speed network.
The train, made by a subsidiary of CSR Corp Ltd , China's largest train maker, is designed to resemble an ancient Chinese sword, the official Xinhua news agency reported.
It "will provide useful reference for current high-speed railway operations", it quoted train expert Shen Zhiyun as saying.
Read more from China in Behind the Wall
But future Chinese trains will not necessarily run at such high speeds, CSR chairman Zhao Xiaogang told the Beijing Morning News.
"We aims to ensure the safety of trains operation," he said.
China's railway industry has had a tough year, highlighted by a collision between two high-speed trains in July which killed at least 40 people. Construction of new high-speed trains in China has since been a near halt.
In February, the railways minister, Liu Zhijun, a key figure behind the boom in the sector, was dismissed over corruption charges that have not yet been tried in court.
The French TGV went faster than that in record runs. But it is pointless as it isn't economical at all to operate a train at that speed.
Stolen technology no doubt
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2011, 11:08:04 AM
Stolen technology no doubt
Oh, God! They've stolen the secret of RAILROAD!
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2011, 11:08:04 AM
Stolen technology no doubt
Oh, God! They've stolen the secret of RAILROAD!
One of the few technologies that they haven't stolen is Democracy.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2011, 11:08:04 AM
Stolen technology no doubt
Oh, God! They've stolen the secret of RAILROAD!
It will allow them to move armies from Guangzhou to North Korea in one turn. :mad:
Without the secret of BRAKES I feel that they will yet be buggered :hmm:
Quote from: dps on December 26, 2011, 02:43:12 PM
One of the few technologies that they haven't stolen is Democracy.
Another is the secret of GOOD HAIRCUT.
By creating unprofitable, state-backed railway routes, China is certainly in good first-world company.
Quote from: Warspite on December 27, 2011, 01:41:02 PM
By creating unprofitable, state-backed railway routes, China is certainly in good first-world company.
Yes these people should be forced onto flights, which in no way have any sort of state subsidy or benefit. <_<
Quote from: dps on December 26, 2011, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2011, 11:08:04 AM
Stolen technology no doubt
Oh, God! They've stolen the secret of RAILROAD!
One of the few technologies that they haven't stolen is Democracy.
Nah, its the social policies. They went with Tradition, Commerce and Order, and you cannot select policies from the Order and Freedom policy trees at the same time.
I'd tend to think 300mph trains (or Maglec) would be more capable of competing with air travel, though obviously the start-up infrastructure costs, with no way to forsee demand, makes it a sketchy proposition.
Next, they will build the Totally Important Magnetic Space Elevator.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 27, 2011, 02:51:30 PM
I'd tend to think 300mph trains (or Maglec) would be more capable of competing with air travel, though obviously the start-up infrastructure costs, with no way to forsee demand, makes it a sketchy proposition.
The problem with trains is that they can't go 300 miles per hour for very long. They have to slow down in towns and make stops.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 27, 2011, 02:51:30 PM
I'd tend to think 300mph trains (or Maglec) would be more capable of competing with air travel, though obviously the start-up infrastructure costs, with no way to forsee demand, makes it a sketchy proposition.
The problem with trains is that they can't go 300 miles per hour for very long. They have to slow down in towns and make stops.
Yeah, which is why they would only be useful for inter-city routes (major city stops only, i.e. Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego), not for local commuters.
Even better would be a service where you drive your car onto such a train, and fling it, and you, at 300mph between major cities...lose the need to rent a local car.
But as said, infrastructure and paranoid fear of terrorists around every corner make such things impossible these days.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 27, 2011, 10:12:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 27, 2011, 02:51:30 PM
I'd tend to think 300mph trains (or Maglec) would be more capable of competing with air travel, though obviously the start-up infrastructure costs, with no way to forsee demand, makes it a sketchy proposition.
The problem with trains is that they can't go 300 miles per hour for very long. They have to slow down in towns and make stops.
Yeah, which is why they would only be useful for inter-city routes (major city stops only, i.e. Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego), not for local commuters.
Even better would be a service where you drive your car onto such a train, and fling it, and you, at 300mph between major cities...lose the need to rent a local car.
Holy shit, that's actually a great idea.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 27, 2011, 02:51:30 PM
I'd tend to think 300mph trains (or Maglec) would be more capable of competing with air travel, though obviously the start-up infrastructure costs, with no way to forsee demand, makes it a sketchy proposition.
The problem with trains is that they can't go 300 miles per hour for very long. They have to slow down in towns and make stops.
For conventional trains thats a PITA yeah.
For the maglev apparently though that's not such an issue, it has amazing acceleration.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 10:13:03 PM
Holy shit, that's actually a great idea.
I had that idea for a long time. :mad: Seriously, the biggest impediment to Americans using trains for distances that can be covered by cars is that you still need a car after disembarking from the destination station. Few of our cities are designed to be navigated on foot.
Well, fine, you can have credit, but it really is literally the best transportation-related idea I've ever heard. Let's build that motherfucker. What's the cost? A trillion? Let's go!
Quote from: DGuller on December 27, 2011, 11:31:32 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 10:13:03 PM
Holy shit, that's actually a great idea.
I had that idea for a long time. :mad: Seriously, the biggest impediment to Americans using trains for distances that can be covered by cars is that you still need a car after disembarking from the destination station. Few of our cities are designed to be navigated on foot.
Amtrak actually has that service in one place, you can load a car onto a train in Virginia and take it to Florida. But of course it's Amtrak, so it could probably be better than the current overnight trip.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 27, 2011, 10:12:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 27, 2011, 02:51:30 PM
I'd tend to think 300mph trains (or Maglec) would be more capable of competing with air travel, though obviously the start-up infrastructure costs, with no way to forsee demand, makes it a sketchy proposition.
The problem with trains is that they can't go 300 miles per hour for very long. They have to slow down in towns and make stops.
Yeah, which is why they would only be useful for inter-city routes (major city stops only, i.e. Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego), not for local commuters.
Even better would be a service where you drive your car onto such a train, and fling it, and you, at 300mph between major cities...lose the need to rent a local car.
But as said, infrastructure and paranoid fear of terrorists around every corner make such things impossible these days.
Problem is that you are still going to have the track go through small towns all along the way. You will have to slow down while in those towns, unless you want to deal with lots and lots of accidents every year.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:09:52 AM
Problem is that you are still going to have the track go through small towns all along the way. You will have to slow down while in those towns, unless you want to deal with lots and lots of accidents every year.
Raz, they buy their tickets, they know what they're getting into. I say, let 'em crash.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 02:09:52 AM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 27, 2011, 10:12:17 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 27, 2011, 09:38:28 PM
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 27, 2011, 02:51:30 PM
I'd tend to think 300mph trains (or Maglec) would be more capable of competing with air travel, though obviously the start-up infrastructure costs, with no way to forsee demand, makes it a sketchy proposition.
The problem with trains is that they can't go 300 miles per hour for very long. They have to slow down in towns and make stops.
Yeah, which is why they would only be useful for inter-city routes (major city stops only, i.e. Seattle-Portland-San Francisco-Los Angeles-San Diego), not for local commuters.
Even better would be a service where you drive your car onto such a train, and fling it, and you, at 300mph between major cities...lose the need to rent a local car.
But as said, infrastructure and paranoid fear of terrorists around every corner make such things impossible these days.
Problem is that you are still going to have the track go through small towns all along the way. You will have to slow down while in those towns, unless you want to deal with lots and lots of accidents every year.
As implied, such a system would need its own dedicated track without right-of-way inhibitions.
That would be kinda difficult. It's still going to cross a lot of roads and stuff. Perhaps it's different in Europe or Asia, but doesn't seem practical in the US. Even if the train has right of way, you are going to get a lot of bad publicity if you keep running over cars and children. You'll have to fight for every inch of track laid as the locals won't want a train that moves that fast in the area.
Don't get me wrong, I like rail transportation, but I think that having trains that move that fast are more publicity stunt then practical policy.
Quote from: Warspite on December 27, 2011, 01:41:02 PM
By creating unprofitable, state-backed railway routes, China is certainly in good first-world company.
They're a social service.
God I want to nationalise the railways :mmm:
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 11:41:08 PM
Well, fine, you can have credit, but it really is literally the best transportation-related idea I've ever heard. Let's build that motherfucker. What's the cost? A trillion? Let's go!
We have trains like that in Germany. You can drive your car onto the train in the evening, have dinner in the restaurant, go to a sleeping compartment and in the morning you'll wake up in southern France, Austria or Italy.
Quote from: Zanza on December 28, 2011, 05:09:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 11:41:08 PM
Well, fine, you can have credit, but it really is literally the best transportation-related idea I've ever heard. Let's build that motherfucker. What's the cost? A trillion? Let's go!
We have trains like that in Germany. You can drive your car onto the train in the evening, have dinner in the restaurant, go to a sleeping compartment and in the morning you'll wake up in southern France, Austria or Italy.
Indeed, used it alot with my parents when I was a kid
Hamburg Altona -> Verona, Biaritz, Avignon, Leurach (Basel)
V
You don't really need ultra high-speed trains for this kind of travel by the way as the competition is the speed of cars, which will rarely exceed about 60 mph (with pauses, traffic etc.). If the train can go with 100-120 mph, that's already quite an advantage speed-wise.
People travelling by air can't bring as much stuff and will have to rent a car, so that appeals to a different kind of customer.
Quote from: Valdemar on December 28, 2011, 05:17:23 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 28, 2011, 05:09:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 11:41:08 PM
Well, fine, you can have credit, but it really is literally the best transportation-related idea I've ever heard. Let's build that motherfucker. What's the cost? A trillion? Let's go!
We have trains like that in Germany. You can drive your car onto the train in the evening, have dinner in the restaurant, go to a sleeping compartment and in the morning you'll wake up in southern France, Austria or Italy.
Indeed, used it alot with my parents when I was a kid
Hamburg Altona -> Verona, Biaritz, Avignon, Leurach (Basel)
V
Yep, funny to see cars cruising in the middle of the station on the way to the platforms.
As for the right-of-way, real high-speed tracks (TGV lines, ICE Lines the three of them that is) avoid any road crossing.
Quote from: Razgovory on December 28, 2011, 03:45:25 AM
That would be kinda difficult. It's still going to cross a lot of roads and stuff. Perhaps it's different in Europe or Asia, but doesn't seem practical in the US. Even if the train has right of way, you are going to get a lot of bad publicity if you keep running over cars and children. You'll have to fight for every inch of track laid as the locals won't want a train that moves that fast in the area.
Don't get me wrong, I like rail transportation, but I think that having trains that move that fast are more publicity stunt then practical policy.
I'm pretty sure all traffic crossings have to be removed for high speed trains. If a train keeps running into cars and children, the train's aerodynamic shape is going to be all messed up, and lead to vastly increased energy consumption.
Quote from: Tonitrus on December 28, 2011, 12:03:36 AM
Amtrak actually has that service in one place, you can load a car onto a train in Virginia and take it to Florida. But of course it's Amtrak, so it could probably be better than the current overnight trip.
A former employee of mine up in Boston who is afraid of flying took the auto train down to Florida to visit his parents one Christmas. He said it was great... I don't see how he gained much since he still had to drive from Boston down to Lorton, Va. (DC suburbs), but he seemed to think he did.
How long until it derails at 300mph?
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 28, 2011, 09:13:53 AM
How long until it derails at 300mph?
About half as long as at 150 mph.
What we need is the technology to dig long tunnels at an affordable price to place the high speed tracks completely underground.
We can even create a vacuum inside the tunnel from, lets say, New York to Seattle.
Quote from: Zanza on December 28, 2011, 05:09:34 AM
Quote from: Ideologue on December 27, 2011, 11:41:08 PM
Well, fine, you can have credit, but it really is literally the best transportation-related idea I've ever heard. Let's build that motherfucker. What's the cost? A trillion? Let's go!
We have trains like that in Germany. You can drive your car onto the train in the evening, have dinner in the restaurant, go to a sleeping compartment and in the morning you'll wake up in southern France, Austria or Italy.
I have decided that despite America being morally superior, you guys have a better quality of life. It's disconcerting.
The west coast train network of Seattle to LA is foolish. Even at 300 mph, air travel is much faster. Train travel isn't always such a bargain vs. flying either: last week for instance I needed to get from Edinburgh to London. A ~4 hour train ride was slightly more expensive than a flight that was a bit over an hour. Airtravel is so cheap: a roundtrip flight from Seattle to LA can be found under $200, I don't see where the demand is going to come from.
Which brings us to the idea of driving a car onto a train: I don't see much demand for that either. It can help in Europe where gas prices are so much more and the highway systems aren't as integrated and easy, but that is several times more onerous than a normal passenger ticket. If the ticket price goes up accordingly, it is hard to imagine many scenarios where it isn't better to either just drive or fly (or train or bus) and rent a car at the destination.
I don't know about prices in the US, but the UK is about 2 or 3 times the price of European trains in my experience. In part because we've privatised the trains and in a deeply inefficient way. I wouldn't judge trains based on our system.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 01:34:36 PM
I don't know about prices in the US, but the UK is about 2 or 3 times the price of European trains in my experience. In part because we've privatised the trains and in a deeply inefficient way. I wouldn't judge trains based on our system.
That is fair, but my understanding is the main difference in the pricing structure between the UK and the continent is that the UK subsidizes its trains a lot less.
Subsidies in Europe, with its high population density, make sense. The government can pay to expand the road network for more cars, or pay to encourage more train travel. In many parts of the US, it is different. Intercity travel is almost entirely air or car based. Because of our lower population density, the interstate road network between our cities tends not to be overworked. By and large, we don't need a giant interstate road building investment to keep traffic flowing.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 01:41:01 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 01:34:36 PM
I don't know about prices in the US, but the UK is about 2 or 3 times the price of European trains in my experience. In part because we've privatised the trains and in a deeply inefficient way. I wouldn't judge trains based on our system.
That is fair, but my understanding is the main difference in the pricing structure between the UK and the continent is that the UK subsidizes its trains a lot less.
Subsidies in Europe, with its high population density, make sense. The government can pay to expand the road network for more cars, or pay to encourage more train travel. In many parts of the US, it is different. Intercity travel is almost entirely air or car based. Because of our lower population density, the interstate road network between our cities tends not to be overworked. By and large, we don't need a giant interstate road building investment to keep traffic flowing.
This isn't correct, the UK has one of the higher population densities in Europe and if you look at only England, one of the highest.
Quote from: mongers on December 28, 2011, 01:51:02 PM
This isn't correct, the UK has one of the higher population densities in Europe and if you look at only England, one of the highest.
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say:
1) My understanding is that the UK subsidizes less than its continental counterparts, resulting in the price differences, and
2) It makes more sense for European (including the UK) to subsidize when compared to the US
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 01:55:24 PM
Quote from: mongers on December 28, 2011, 01:51:02 PM
This isn't correct, the UK has one of the higher population densities in Europe and if you look at only England, one of the highest.
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say:
1) My understanding is that the UK subsidizes less than its continental counterparts, resulting in the price differences, and
2) It makes more sense for European (including the UK) to subsidize when compared to the US
Well I wasn't addressing you wider point, that I may or may not agree with, but that one of your assumption is wrong.
edit:
I looked it up, the UK is the third most densely populated 'significant' country after The Netherlands and Belgium.
If you look at just England, then it would be the most densely population European country if one excluded the half-dozen tiny states that together have a total combined population of 600-700 thousand.
Of course this high density of itself causes various problems for railway infrastructure projects.
Quote from: mongers on December 28, 2011, 01:57:32 PM
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say:
1) My understanding is that the UK subsidizes less than its continental counterparts, resulting in the price differences, and
2) It makes more sense for European (including the UK) to subsidize when compared to the US
Well I wasn't addressing you wider point, that I may or may not agree with, but that one of your assumption is wrong.
[/quote]
Which one?
The one that England is less densely populated than the Continent. :P
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 28, 2011, 02:07:13 PM
The one that England is less densely populated than the Continent. :P
I wasn't assuming that, for whatever difference it makes.
I know, I was cracking monger's stones for misunderstanding.
Lets get back to talking about trains.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 01:55:24 PM
I don't think you understood what I was trying to say:
1) My understanding is that the UK subsidizes less than its continental counterparts, resulting in the price differences, and
I think so. Our annual subsidy to the train companies is roughly the same as the running costs of British Rail before it was privatised. Back then it was significantly less than in continental Europe. One of the problems of our uniquely inefficient method of privatisation is that I don't think there's been as much private investment by the train companies as needed to improve them. So we're stuck with a more limited network, high prices and often kind-of crappy trains - it's like our own version of your healthcare system :P :bleeding:
I agree with your general point on the US. Having said that I'd read that large parts of the highway network were in pretty bad repair due to under-investment. Also I do think there's an argument for large intercity rail networks just to connect different parts of the network. But in terms of investment and high-speed rail then it's clearly best to be focussed on relatively high population density areas - such as the North-East and maybe some parts of the West coast.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:15:14 PM
I agree with your general point on the US. Having said that I'd read that large parts of the highway network were in pretty bad repair due to under-investment. Also I do think there's an argument for large intercity rail networks just to connect different parts of the network. But in terms of investment and high-speed rail then it's clearly best to be focussed on relatively high population density areas - such as the North-East and maybe some parts of the West coast.
There is a lot of generalization I'm doing, but I think there is a difference between intra city roads - which tend to need a lot of work and suffer from overcongestion - and inter city roads. My thoughts are that we need a lot more rail--but if the intra city variety. Most of our cities have a terrible public transport system. Even in a magical world that someone wanted to take a train from Seattle to Los Angeles, they will probably want to rent a car once they get where they are going.
What makes rail travel attractive in Europe aren't just the distances, but also the absence of a need for a car at the destination. Take the chunnel between paris and london. It may be more expensive than flying, but it goes from city center to city center and seamlessly connects to the public transport grids. The flight may be a lot shorter and cheaper, but I suspect most people prefer the train.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 02:25:25 PM
There is a lot of generalization I'm doing, but I think there is a difference between intra city roads - which tend to need a lot of work and suffer from overcongestion - and inter city roads. My thoughts are that we need a lot more rail--but if the intra city variety. Most of our cities have a terrible public transport system. Even in a magical world that someone wanted to take a train from Seattle to Los Angeles, they will probably want to rent a car once they get where they are going.
Oh I'd agree with that. The reason for inter-city rail, in a country like the US, would seem more like connecting different, but far more developed intra-city commuter networks. That's like what exists in Europe but with less people.
QuoteWhat makes rail travel attractive in Europe aren't just the distances, but also the absence of a need for a car at the destination. Take the chunnel between paris and london. It may be more expensive than flying, but it goes from city center to city center and seamlessly connects to the public transport grids. The flight may be a lot shorter and cheaper, but I suspect most people prefer the train.
I think the train journey takes almost the same as the flight. But as you say you're in the centre, there's no hassle of airport security (Eurostar security and check-in is far less lengthy) and, from people I've spoken to, it's better for working on than a plane...
I love Eurostar :blush:
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:32:30 PM
I think the train journey takes almost the same as the flight. But as you say you're in the centre, there's no hassle of airport security (Eurostar security and check-in is far less lengthy) and, from people I've spoken to, it's better for working on than a plane...
I love Eurostar :blush:
It isn't just airport security: it is also the fact you need to get to the airport on the way out, and from the airport to the city center. If you take cabs in London and Paris on both ends of the journey, you could easily pay more in cab fares than your tickets cost, and the travel times will be about the same as the time in the air.
I've gone on enough rants with airplane security, but the difference between subway and airplane security makes no sense to me.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 02:25:25 PM
What makes rail travel attractive in Europe aren't just the distances, but also the absence of a need for a car at the destination. Take the chunnel between paris and london. It may be more expensive than flying, but it goes from city center to city center and seamlessly connects to the public transport grids. The flight may be a lot shorter and cheaper, but I suspect most people prefer the train.
Nay, we just need those inter city trains to be able to carry passenger's autos with them, just like a ship ferry. Easy solution! ;)
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 02:47:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:32:30 PM
I think the train journey takes almost the same as the flight. But as you say you're in the centre, there's no hassle of airport security (Eurostar security and check-in is far less lengthy) and, from people I've spoken to, it's better for working on than a plane...
I love Eurostar :blush:
It isn't just airport security: it is also the fact you need to get to the airport on the way out, and from the airport to the city center. If you take cabs in London and Paris on both ends of the journey, you could easily pay more in cab fares than your tickets cost, and the travel times will be about the same as the time in the air.
I've gone on enough rants with airplane security, but the difference between subway and airplane security makes no sense to me.
Even Al-Qaeda's finest might have trouble crashing a subway train full of fuel into a skyscraper at 500mph.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:15:14 PMHaving said that I'd read that large parts of the highway network were in pretty bad repair due to under-investment.
If that's true, I've not witnessed significant evidence of it in my travels. What I have witnessed is under-capacity areas where the population and transportation needs have outgrown the infrastructure.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 28, 2011, 03:04:41 PM
Even Al-Qaeda's finest might have trouble crashing a subway train full of gasoline into a skyscraper at 500mph.
Supposedly we don't have to worry about that now that pilots are safely locked away.
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 28, 2011, 03:10:06 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:15:14 PMHaving said that I'd read that large parts of the highway network were in pretty bad repair due to under-investment.
If that's true, I've not witnessed significant evidence of it in my travels. What I have witnessed is under-capacity areas where the population and transportation needs have outgrown the infrastructure.
I think this is common to many areas of the world, hell in the small market town I live in every early morning and mid-afternoon to end of the working day, we have mini-gridlocks. :rolleyes:
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 03:12:08 PM
Supposedly we don't have to worry about that now that pilots are safely locked away.
From what I've read that change has had the biggest impact on security. The rest is broadly negligible. It's like massive government make-work program for wankers <_<
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:18:46 PM
It's like massive government make-work program for wankers <_<
That's not entirely accurate. Properly conducted enhanced pat-downs involve contact with other people's penises, not with your own.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 03:18:46 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 03:12:08 PM
Supposedly we don't have to worry about that now that pilots are safely locked away.
From what I've read that change has had the biggest impact on security. The rest is broadly negligible. It's like massive government make-work program for wankers <_<
I think most people know a lot of the security is stupid, but what politician wants to cut back on security when a plane may be bombed immediately afterwards?
Subway systems are also vunerable to bombings (obviously), but no politician can propose a screen when it would keep millions from getting to work on time.
Personally, if I'm going to be killed in a bombing, I'd rather go on a plane rather than an overcrowded subway train at rushhour while in a narrow tunnel. Even aside from terrorism, I think some of those trains may be safety hazards with the way people squeeze in.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 02:47:02 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 28, 2011, 02:32:30 PM
I think the train journey takes almost the same as the flight. But as you say you're in the centre, there's no hassle of airport security (Eurostar security and check-in is far less lengthy) and, from people I've spoken to, it's better for working on than a plane...
I love Eurostar :blush:
It isn't just airport security: it is also the fact you need to get to the airport on the way out, and from the airport to the city center. If you take cabs in London and Paris on both ends of the journey, you could easily pay more in cab fares than your tickets cost, and the travel times will be about the same as the time in the air.
As an example, it takes me about 15 min to get to the railway station. Less than 90 minutes later I'll be in downtown Madrid. And of course I'll be able to work and stay connected the whole time.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 02:15:00 PM
Lets get back to talking about trains.
I think model railroaders are a bit weird. Especially those N scale fucks.
Quote from: Ed Anger on December 28, 2011, 04:53:18 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 02:15:00 PM
Lets get back to talking about trains.
I think model railroaders are a bit weird. Especially those N scale fucks.
HO HO OO , Money won't fall for that.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 28, 2011, 03:31:59 PM
I think some of those trains may be safety hazards with the way people squeeze in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b0A9-oUoMug
When I travel back to my hometown from where I live now, it's probably about 5 hours total for a flight and about 7 hours total by train - door-to-door. The train never costs me more than 67 Euro oneway, even if I stop halfway inbetween at friends or relatives and go on the next day. I can book the train just before I board it, if necessary via smartphone. Or I pay on the train, which adds 5 Euro or so. Flights can be a bit cheaper (20-25%), but you have to plan months ahead and they often leave at strange times whereas the trains leave every hour.
Quote from: Zanza on December 28, 2011, 05:06:39 PM
When I travel back to my hometown from where I live now, it's probably about 5 hours total for a flight and about 7 hours total by train - door-to-door. The train never costs me more than 67 Euro oneway, even if I stop halfway inbetween at friends or relatives and go on the next day. I can book the train just before I board it, if necessary via smartphone. Or I pay on the train, which adds 5 Euro or so. Flights can be a bit cheaper (20-25%), but you have to plan months ahead and they often leave at strange times whereas the trains leave every hour.
Sounds very nice. Every hour between cities? Even I wouldn't mind doing that.
QuoteSupposedly we don't have to worry about that now that pilots are safely locked away.
Which has spoiled air travel for a generation of kids :(
Quote from: Tyr on December 29, 2011, 02:24:04 AM
QuoteSupposedly we don't have to worry about that now that pilots are safely locked away.
Which has spoiled air travel for a generation of kids :(
:yes: In Russia, back in the days, kids could even fly the planes (although not very well, and not for very long).
Grown man... movies about gladiators...
Quote from: MadImmortalMan on December 28, 2011, 05:15:48 PM
Sounds very nice. Every hour between cities? Even I wouldn't mind doing that.
Here is the network of InterCityExpress trains. There are further InterCity trains that will run at up to 200 kph and complement that main network.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fcommons%2Fthumb%2Fe%2Feb%2FICEtracks.png%2F442px-ICEtracks.png&hash=ecb23c46e49f0fc3febd1955aa7e8c9a85dda525)
The trains from Frankfurt Airport to Cologne and Stuttgart are so fast that Lufthansa has mostly stopped to fly those routes and rather cooperates with the train company to deliver their passengers there in a code-share agreement.
Germany is slightly smaller than the dakotas (combined, not individually). But it has over 80 million people.
Yes.
The only areas that seem suitable to me for high speed trains in the USA are the area between Boston and DC (maybe Richmond and Norfolk) and Texas (Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Austin, perhaps Oklahoma City). Of course Texas won't have much public transport, so you would end up without a car in your destination.
Trains are the future.
With rising fuel costs we're going to see a big move back towards trains. Could be interesting for settlement patterns, towns away from the railways shrinking whilst civilization hugs the lines.
Fast trains are great but the Chinese need to nail down rail operations and safety before adding more speed. Otherwise there are just building a very expensive manned unguided missile and firing it at themselves.
I think the track guides it pretty well, they just aren't sure when it will explode.
Quote from: frunk on December 29, 2011, 01:43:33 PM
I think the track guides it pretty well,
Not all the time, that's the problem.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on December 29, 2011, 01:51:09 PM
Quote from: frunk on December 29, 2011, 01:43:33 PM
I think the track guides it pretty well,
Not all the time, that's the problem.
Don't forget the early days of rail were littered with train crashes, the Chinese are just going through the same learning process but with a larger train set and faster trains. :)
iirc much of the improvement in safety and death rates on British railways can be attributed to lower average speeds of network timetabled trains and how much time they spend stationary. :bowler:
Quote from: Ender on December 27, 2011, 02:03:16 PM
Quote from: dps on December 26, 2011, 02:43:12 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on December 26, 2011, 02:31:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 26, 2011, 11:08:04 AM
Stolen technology no doubt
Oh, God! They've stolen the secret of RAILROAD!
One of the few technologies that they haven't stolen is Democracy.
Nah, its the social policies. They went with Tradition, Commerce and Order, and you cannot select policies from the Order and Freedom policy trees at the same time.
Dragging out a joke too long is fun.
Quote from: Tyr on December 29, 2011, 11:42:47 AM
Trains are the future.
With rising fuel costs we're going to see a big move back towards trains. Could be interesting for settlement patterns, towns away from the railways shrinking whilst civilization hugs the lines.
You keep forecasting that but where's the proof?
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 29, 2011, 11:42:47 AM
Trains are the future.
With rising fuel costs we're going to see a big move back towards trains. Could be interesting for settlement patterns, towns away from the railways shrinking whilst civilization hugs the lines.
You keep forecasting that but where's the proof?
Maybe time loops back on itself and after a sufficient length of time it'll be 1830 again.
Quote from: Zanza on December 29, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
Yes.
The only areas that seem suitable to me for high speed trains in the USA are the area between Boston and DC (maybe Richmond and Norfolk) and Texas (Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Austin, perhaps Oklahoma City). Of course Texas won't have much public transport, so you would end up without a car in your destination.
The area between Boston and DC already has high-speed trains (the Acela Amtrak line). The problem is that Amtrak is such a piece of shit it can barely keep those things running properly, due both to poor rail maintenance and poor engine maintenance.... or at least that was true five years ago. Now that I don't live up there I don't pay attention to Amtrak and its troubles.
Why do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor? Texans love their cars as much or more than any other Americans. I don't see high speed rail catching on in the south (either southeast or southwest) for a very long time, though IIRC there is a serious proposal for a line between Atlanta and Chattanooga.
Also, doesn't Amtrak share the tracks with other rail traffic, and has to pull over for freight? That obviously slows Amtrak way down, hampers the service.
Quote from: KRonn on December 29, 2011, 08:25:00 PM
Also, doesn't Amtrak share the tracks with other rail traffic, and has to pull over for freight? That obviously slows Amtrak way down, hampers the service.
I'm not sure that's true anymore on the Amtrak northeast corridor lines... but it is (was?) true for the MBTA, yeah.
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2011, 08:16:59 PM
Why do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor? Texans love their cars as much or more than any other Americans.
They've been talking about a high speed rail system that links those Texas cities for years, but it hasn't really gone anywhere that I'm aware of. Light rail in San Antonio is similar. They've tried a couple of times, and the proposals actually seem quite reasonable to me, but voters are lame and stupid and don't want to add another .1% (or whatever) to their sales tax, so...no. AFAIK, neither one has really been about DEY TOOK ARE CARS!1! but instead taxes and probably gays.
Valmy knows more about it, I'm sure. I stopped paying attention a long time ago because it doesn't seem like it'll ever happen, so fuck it
The last governor in Ohio wanted to build a rail network here. For Ted Strickland, the idea wasn't bad. But Teddy boy's inherent suck doomed the project.
Maybe if the Shale oil pays off we might get one.
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2011, 08:16:59 PM
Quote from: Zanza on December 29, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
Yes.
The only areas that seem suitable to me for high speed trains in the USA are the area between Boston and DC (maybe Richmond and Norfolk) and Texas (Houston, Dallas/Ft. Worth, San Antonio, Austin, perhaps Oklahoma City). Of course Texas won't have much public transport, so you would end up without a car in your destination.
The area between Boston and DC already has high-speed trains (the Acela Amtrak line). The problem is that Amtrak is such a piece of shit it can barely keep those things running properly, due both to poor rail maintenance and poor engine maintenance.... or at least that was true five years ago. Now that I don't live up there I don't pay attention to Amtrak and its troubles.
Why do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor? Texans love their cars as much or more than any other Americans. I don't see high speed rail catching on in the south (either southeast or southwest) for a very long time, though IIRC there is a serious proposal for a line between Atlanta and Chattanooga.
I took the Acela from NYC to DC and back. Broke down both times.
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 29, 2011, 11:42:47 AM
Trains are the future.
With rising fuel costs we're going to see a big move back towards trains. Could be interesting for settlement patterns, towns away from the railways shrinking whilst civilization hugs the lines.
You keep forecasting that but where's the proof?
Railways quite recently were seen as old hat and generally neglected. This last decade though has seen massive investment.
That and the actual fact of oil reserves not going to last forever.
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2011, 08:16:59 PMWhy do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor?
There are a couple of big cities that probably have a lot of traffic between them. The distances between them are high enough for a fast train, but not so high that an airplane is the only serious choice.
Quote from: garbon on December 29, 2011, 04:34:28 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 29, 2011, 11:42:47 AM
Trains are the future.
With rising fuel costs we're going to see a big move back towards trains. Could be interesting for settlement patterns, towns away from the railways shrinking whilst civilization hugs the lines.
You keep forecasting that but where's the proof?
You can definitely see that here with regional trains. Those towns that are connected via regional trains to bigger metro areas will see higher property prices and people moving there.
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2011, 02:42:33 AM
Railways quite recently were seen as old hat and generally neglected. This last decade though has seen massive investment.
That and the actual fact of oil reserves not going to last forever.
I'd add that it's always been true for commuter towns - in terms of settlement patterns.
There's been a revival in the UK, for sure. Globally trains could do well if the inflation in aviation fuel keeps increasing at its current rate.
Quote from: garbon on December 30, 2011, 02:24:21 AM
I took the Acela from NYC to DC and back. Broke down both times.
:console: It was an emotional experience for me too, though not to that degree.
Quote from: DGuller on December 30, 2011, 08:36:02 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 30, 2011, 02:24:21 AM
I took the Acela from NYC to DC and back. Broke down both times.
:console: It was an emotional experience for me too, though not to that degree.
:lol:
Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2011, 03:40:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2011, 08:16:59 PMWhy do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor?
There are a couple of big cities that probably have a lot of traffic between them. The distances between them are high enough for a fast train, but not so high that an airplane is the only serious choice.
If we take a 5 hour car trip vs. ~1 hour plane trip, the hastle of flying makes driving a competitive choice, but even though a train may be less hastle, it is still a hastle. You have to go to the train station, figure out parking, wait for the train, and then at the terminus figure out how to get where you are going (in Texas, that would often mean renting a car). Until there is a strong intra city public transport system, I think this will be a tough sell (due to needing cars on both ends).
It also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.
Maybe its a problem of the difference between European and American cities?
Here in Japan they seem to follow the American model. A large degree of urban sprawl with worthwhile things scattered all over the area of the city, you really have to travel quite a way for a lot of stuff. In Europe meanwhile we tend to have more well defined city centres where if you get to a city most businesses are within walking distance. Perhaps due to European cities being older and having old central cores which were originally all that was the city.
Yet...trains are popular in Japan :hmm:
Guess its the shittyness of the roads (it can take all day to go 60km...)
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2011, 09:38:50 AM
Maybe its a problem of the difference between European and American cities?
Here in Japan they seem to follow the American model. A large degree of urban sprawl with worthwhile things scattered all over the area of the city, you really have to travel quite a way for a lot of stuff. In Europe meanwhile we tend to have more well defined city centres where if you get to a city most businesses are within walking distance. Perhaps due to European cities being older and having old central cores which were originally all that was the city.
Yet...trains are popular in Japan :hmm:
Guess its the shittyness of the roads (it can take all day to go 60km...)
Generalizing: gas is way more expensive in Japan and Europe than the US. Also US cities to a large extent are new cities, that grew after cars were widespread. Even in the rebuilding post WWII Europe and Japan didn't have the widespread car ownership that the US had.
Even if you gave some newer US cities great public transport, it still wouldn't be used like in Europe (or NYC or Boston) for quite some time, because the cities have been zoned and built with cars in mind.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 09:31:50 AMIf we take a 5 hour car trip vs. ~1 hour plane trip, the hastle of flying makes driving a competitive choice, but even though a train may be less hastle, it is still a hastle. You have to go to the train station, figure out parking, wait for the train, and then at the terminus figure out how to get where you are going (in Texas, that would often mean renting a car). Until there is a strong intra city public transport system, I think this will be a tough sell (due to needing cars on both ends).
I don't try to sell it. ;)
It's just an observation that, given the right infrastructure, a train network in Texas could work because of the distances and population figures. It would not work in other parts of the USA as the population density is not there or the distances are too high.
QuoteIt also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.
Definitely. Urban or at least metropolitan area public transport should be the priority.
Quote from: Tyr on December 30, 2011, 09:38:50 AM
Maybe its a problem of the difference between European and American cities?
Here in Japan they seem to follow the American model. A large degree of urban sprawl with worthwhile things scattered all over the area of the city, you really have to travel quite a way for a lot of stuff. In Europe meanwhile we tend to have more well defined city centres where if you get to a city most businesses are within walking distance. Perhaps due to European cities being older and having old central cores which were originally all that was the city.
Most American cities, even with suburban sprawl, have pretty well defined cores as well. The problem is that those cores largely rotted out years ago. Even where urban renewal has been relatively successful and the rot has be expunged from the city centers, those centers are often filled with offices and the like, not residential areas and retail businesses.
But the real difference is what ar points out--most American cities have infrastructure that essentially assumes most people get around by private automobile.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 09:31:50 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2011, 03:40:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2011, 08:16:59 PMWhy do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor?
There are a couple of big cities that probably have a lot of traffic between them. The distances between them are high enough for a fast train, but not so high that an airplane is the only serious choice.
It also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.
That may be true in Texas, but on the east coast, even the interstates between cities, like I-95 between Fredericksburg & DC, between DC and Baltimore, and I-66 between DC and Fairfax and further out, are packed during rush hour, and it's only getting worse. Plus there's no room for much more expansion or alternate routes.
Same on some of those bay area roads and LA!!!
Quote from: Zanza on December 29, 2011, 11:02:14 AM
The only areas that seem suitable to me for high speed trains in the USA are the area between Boston and DC (maybe Richmond and Norfolk)
I think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice. Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. :bleeding:
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 30, 2011, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 09:31:50 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2011, 03:40:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2011, 08:16:59 PMWhy do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor?
There are a couple of big cities that probably have a lot of traffic between them. The distances between them are high enough for a fast train, but not so high that an airplane is the only serious choice.
It also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.
That may be true in Texas, but on the east coast, even the interstates between cities, like I-95 between Fredericksburg & DC, between DC and Baltimore, and I-66 between DC and Fairfax and further out, are packed during rush hour, and it's only getting worse. Plus there's no room for much more expansion or alternate routes.
By Texas standards, that would probably still count as "in and immediately around the cities".
Heck, even in West Virginia, I-64 right around Charleston is a mess at rush hour. And getting around town to and from the Interstate was a pain. When I worked there and lived at my mom's, I had a 60-mile commute, which broke down into 3 parts--about 10 miles of narrow, 2-lane backroads from home to the Interstate, about 40 miles of Interstate to the Charleston area, and another 10 miles of Interstate and major non-interstate highways within the Charleston are to work. The 10 miles from the house to the Interstate took about 15 minutes, regardless of the time of day. The 40 miles from there to the Charleston area took about 35 minutes, again regardless of the time. The last 10 miles took about 40 minutes during rush hour.
I think his point still stands--once you get out of the vicinity of the major cities, driving the interstates and the better non-interstate highways is a piece of cake, barring major road work. It's within and right around the cities where the problem develop.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 30, 2011, 11:07:08 AM
I think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice. Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. :bleeding:
I took the 18-hour overnight trip from DC to Chicago, which turned into a 28-hour trip.
All things considered, though, I'd rather be stuck on a train for a few extra hours than on a plane.
Quote from: Maladict on December 30, 2011, 11:21:35 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 30, 2011, 11:07:08 AM
I think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice. Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. :bleeding:
I took the 18-hour overnight trip from DC to Chicago, which turned into a 28-hour trip.
All things considered, though, I'd rather be stuck on a train for a few extra hours than on a plane.
Wasn't a lot of that extra time spent getting to and from the airports, though? Wouldn't that be a similar problem with getting to and from the train station? The airports mostly have to be outside the city centers for saftey reasons, true, while the train stations don't
have to be, but a lot of Amtrack stations are in, well, odd places (though I don't think that's as true of DC and Chicago as it is in a lot of places serviced by Amtrack).
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 30, 2011, 11:07:08 AMI think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice. Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. :bleeding:
It's about 800 miles, which is a lot. A flight between the two cities probably takes a bit more than 2 hours. Add another hour at origin and destination to get to the airport, check in and get your luggage back. If the train takes more than 5 hours, it can't compete, so it will have to average 160 mph, which is a lot. If you build tracks for a train going that fast, you'll never be able to compete price-wise with the aircraft...
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 30, 2011, 10:51:40 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 09:31:50 AM
Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2011, 03:40:40 AM
Quote from: Caliga on December 29, 2011, 08:16:59 PMWhy do you think Texas would be a good high-speed corridor?
There are a couple of big cities that probably have a lot of traffic between them. The distances between them are high enough for a fast train, but not so high that an airplane is the only serious choice.
It also doesn't eliminate a major problem. By and large, the roads between cities are not overused--the roads with problems are in and immediately around the cities. You don't make a big improvement public welfare by reducing a 5 hour drive to a 3 hour train ride. You would cut down some on pollution, but city driving is more of a source of pollution than trips between cities. But if you spent the money on public transport in Houston and Dallas, you could reduce commute times (which in some cities are out of control), pollution, and start to contain sprawl.
That may be true in Texas, but on the east coast, even the interstates between cities, like I-95 between Fredericksburg & DC, between DC and Baltimore, and I-66 between DC and Fairfax and further out, are packed during rush hour, and it's only getting worse. Plus there's no room for much more expansion or alternate routes.
There are clearly exceptions to what I'm saying--and I think the area around where you are talking about is one of those. But, DC in particular is badly sprawled, to the point that is almost just a single metropolitan area. At least I think Fairfax would be.
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
Quote from: Zanza on December 30, 2011, 11:43:55 AM
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 30, 2011, 11:07:08 AMI think NY to Chicago would be a natural choice. Two big cities with public transportation, far enough away to make high-speed rail necessary to compete with flying, and a few decent mid-sized stops directly along the way (Pittsburgh, Cleveland). Google Maps says it's a 13.5 hour drive, and current Amtrak takes 20 hours and runs twice a day. :bleeding:
It's about 800 miles, which is a lot. A flight between the two cities probably takes a bit more than 2 hours. Add another hour at origin and destination to get to the airport, check in and get your luggage back. If the train takes more than 5 hours, it can't compete, so it will have to average 160 mph, which is a lot. If you build tracks for a train going that fast, you'll never be able to compete price-wise with the aircraft...
I just did a search for a round trip flight from Chcago to NYC in 2 weeks: there was a ticket for $123. Flight time was 2 hours. I don't think a train can beat that.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2011, 11:35:48 AM
Quote from: Maladict on December 30, 2011, 11:21:35 AM
I took the 18-hour overnight trip from DC to Chicago, which turned into a 28-hour trip.
All things considered, though, I'd rather be stuck on a train for a few extra hours than on a plane.
Wasn't a lot of that extra time spent getting to and from the airports, though? Wouldn't that be a similar problem with getting to and from the train station? The airports mostly have to be outside the city centers for saftey reasons, true, while the train stations don't have to be, but a lot of Amtrack stations are in, well, odd places (though I don't think that's as true of DC and Chicago as it is in a lot of places serviced by Amtrack).
What airports? :huh:
The train stations in both DC and Chicago are located quite conveniently. In fact, in none of the American cities I visited by train (Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, SC, Chicago and Detroit) did I have any need for additional transportation, except for Detroit.
Quote from: Zanza
It's about 800 miles, which is a lot. A flight between the two cities probably takes a bit more than 2 hours. Add another hour at origin and destination to get to the airport, check in and get your luggage back. If the train takes more than 5 hours, it can't compete, so it will have to average 160 mph, which is a lot. If you build tracks for a train going that fast, you'll never be able to compete price-wise with the aircraft...
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:50:42 AM
I just did a search for a round trip flight from Chcago to NYC in 2 weeks: there was a ticket for $123. Flight time was 2 hours. I don't think a train can beat that.
I take Amtrak from Boston to Philadelphia pretty frequently, and I think it is sort of instructive about the advantages of train travel.
The trip takes about 7 hours. The bus is cheaper, but interminably long, unpredictable due to traffic, and difficult to get any work done on.
US Airways has direct flights that take a little over 1 hour in the air and cost only a little more, but I never take them. I don't like flying itself, and I think there is a decent number of people in that group in the US. To fly from Boston, I have to take the T downtown, then transfer to the dedicated bus line to get to the airport an hour early, go through security, etc. When it lands, I have to get a regional rail train into Philadelphia then transfer to the subway or bus line that takes me where I'm going. From where I live, you need to leave an hour to get to the airport, an hour for security, and an hour+ to get from PHL to the city. I would estimate it takes about 5 hours door to door.
By train, I take one T ride to South Station, get there 15 minutes before departure, and arrive at 30th Street Station, where I can walk to Center City or West Philly, or get the El almost anywhere with ease. Probably 8 hours door to door, with no security hassle, much less weather uncertainty, and a lot of comforts -- the "quiet car" if you need to work without people yakking on their cellphones, the rest of the train if you want to yak on your phone the whole way, the cafe car, scenery to look at, etc.
If NY to Chicago could get down to 8-10 hours with a comparable cost to air travel, I would definitely take it rather than fly. I don't claim to know if enough people would feel the same way to make it worthwhile.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
I don't think it's fair to expect the planners to foresee that the city would be home to more people than the entire country was at the time.
Quote from: Maladict on December 30, 2011, 11:55:56 AM
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2011, 11:35:48 AM
Quote from: Maladict on December 30, 2011, 11:21:35 AM
I took the 18-hour overnight trip from DC to Chicago, which turned into a 28-hour trip.
All things considered, though, I'd rather be stuck on a train for a few extra hours than on a plane.
Wasn't a lot of that extra time spent getting to and from the airports, though? Wouldn't that be a similar problem with getting to and from the train station? The airports mostly have to be outside the city centers for saftey reasons, true, while the train stations don't have to be, but a lot of Amtrack stations are in, well, odd places (though I don't think that's as true of DC and Chicago as it is in a lot of places serviced by Amtrack).
What airports? :huh:
The train stations in both DC and Chicago are located quite conveniently. In fact, in none of the American cities I visited by train (Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, SC, Chicago and Detroit) did I have any need for additional transportation, except for Detroit.
I think you managed to hit every major american city with a good public transportation system.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 12:17:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
I don't think it's fair to expect the planners to foresee that the city would be home to more people than the entire country was at the time.
For starters, they could allow high rise buildings, so that people can work in the core of the city rather than sprawling everywhere.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 12:17:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
I don't think it's fair to expect the planners to foresee that the city would be home to more people than the entire country was at the time.
For starters, they could allow high rise buildings, so that people can work in the core of the city rather than sprawling everywhere.
Yeah, I don't think they were privy to the possibilities opened by steel-skeletoned skyscrapers either. ;)
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 12:25:53 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 12:17:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
I don't think it's fair to expect the planners to foresee that the city would be home to more people than the entire country was at the time.
For starters, they could allow high rise buildings, so that people can work in the core of the city rather than sprawling everywhere.
Yeah, I don't think they were privy to the possibilities opened by steel-skeletoned skyscrapers either. ;)
They have been privy to such possibilities for a century.
Washington would be more honest if the Capitol, Washington Monument, etc, were no longer visible on the skyline due to defense contractor buildings towering over them.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 12:19:47 PM
I think you managed to hit every major american city with a good public transportation system.
SF, Seattle, and Portland all have pretty good systems, even if they aren't quite as "major."
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 12:19:47 PM
I think you managed to hit every major american city with a good public transportation system.
Well yes, probably. But I didn't have much use for them either.
Used the subway in DC to get to Arlington, and I may have used it once or twice in New York.
Everything else could be done on foot. The only time I needed a taxi was to get to Vancouver Airport and go home.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:17:40 PM
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
There are height limits on buildings, but DC can't sprawl because its borders are tiny.
The massive expansion of the DC metro area is better explained by growth of the federal budget and lobbying rather than building restrictions.
Quote from: Maladict on December 30, 2011, 11:55:56 AM
What airports? :huh:
Oops. Somehow mis-read your post as saying that you flew.
Quote from: SheilbhQuote from: alfred russellWashington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
I think that was his point. They've put preserving the view of the famous landmarks of the city's skyline above practical concerns.
Similarly, Philadelphia apparantly used to have an ordance that no building could be taller than the bell tower on top of Independence Hall. They didn't drop that until the mid-1970s IIRC.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2011, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:17:40 PM
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
There are height limits on buildings, but DC can't sprawl because its borders are tiny.
The massive expansion of the DC metro area is better explained by growth of the federal budget and lobbying rather than building restrictions.
Certainly, but it could be a lot more dense than it is.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 01:40:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 30, 2011, 01:27:40 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:17:40 PM
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
There are height limits on buildings, but DC can't sprawl because its borders are tiny.
The massive expansion of the DC metro area is better explained by growth of the federal budget and lobbying rather than building restrictions.
Certainly, but it could be a lot more dense than it is.
Not just the lack of skyscrappers, either. For its size, the city has a lot of open plazas and park-type areas.
So, instead of trains the US needs the cars from Minority Report? So you can drive it to and from the maglev rail and the "car" itself is the "train".
Meanwhile, if the rail system was better, more people would use the "drive onto the train" service.
Also, if we had the flying cars we were promised we would not need the trains either. <_< Yesterday's tomorrow is not what it used to be. :(
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
London has the same problem. Anything over four stories wades into a quagmire of planning considerations. And the view of London from Primrose Hill continues to take precedence over more practical considerations like the housing shortage.
Quote from: dps on December 30, 2011, 01:28:25 PM
Similarly, Philadelphia apparantly used to have an ordance that no building could be taller than the bell tower on top of Independence Hall. They didn't drop that until the mid-1970s IIRC.
It was an unwritten rule that the city wouldn't approve buildings higher than the William Penn statue on top of City Hall (548ft -- the second tallest masonry structure in the world, and tallest building in the world from 1901 to 1908). It wasn't broken until One Liberty Place was built in 1987, giving birth to the "Curse of Billy Penn" idea concerning the city sports teams.
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimageshack.us%2Fphoto%2Fmy-images%2F577%2Fbroadstreetcityhall.jpg&hash=9385459514ff76ef607d54f715c770cc8bd9ae6b)
You can still have a rather densely packed city with 500 foot tall buildings.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 03:30:10 PM
You can still have a rather densely packed city with 500 foot tall buildings.
I think most of the post-87 buildings in Philadelphia haven't added much. One Liberty Place is an OKish knockoff of the Chrysler Building, but that's about it:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.izzybarish.com%2Fimages%2Fphilly2%2Fone%2520liberty%2520place.jpg&hash=9a32400e8aa220472e4e47bc0d3e6af7a0c6d8f2)
And City Hall is gorgeous in my opinion:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgeekadelphia.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F01%2Fphiladelphia_city_hall.jpg&hash=948179991da4a1f7f7c0c70b78f4d661f9dbbd86)
It creates a very dramatic sightline looking up Broad Street from almost anywhere south of it in the city:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi41.tinypic.com%2F2rnvac5.jpg&hash=0bd75fc54aa4a0602ac5a1937c13160abf48c11b)
There were plenty of great early "skyscrapers" in Center City. The PSFS building was the first American skyscraper built in the International modernist style (1931):
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thestranger.com%2Fimages%2Fblogimages%2F2011%2F03%2F30%2F1301543896-psfsbuilding.jpg&hash=5a70f485826be656e7d0df66e1824c3b4db43a9c)
Quote from: Warspite on December 30, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
London has the same problem. Anything over four stories wades into a quagmire of planning considerations. And the view of London from Primrose Hill continues to take precedence over more practical considerations like the housing shortage.
i used to be quite in favour of ths thinking it good to preserve the appearance of the city but lately i read something about the sinister undertones of these poliies- it is so the existing land owners keep their land values high
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 12:17:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
I don't think it's fair to expect the planners to foresee that the city would be home to more people than the entire country was at the time.
For starters, they could allow high rise buildings, so that people can work in the core of the city rather than sprawling everywhere.
That's just in DC proper, which is pretty small. Outside of that, you can build high rises and there are some in parts of NoVA and MD, just not enough. I blame American's insistence on owning a McMansion in the middle of an urban area.
Quote from: Maladict on December 30, 2011, 01:12:43 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 12:19:47 PM
I think you managed to hit every major american city with a good public transportation system.
Well yes, probably. But I didn't have much use for them either.
Used the subway in DC to get to Arlington, and I may have used it once or twice in New York.
Everything else could be done on foot. The only time I needed a taxi was to get to Vancouver Airport and go home.
Not sure what you are arguing though. There is a lot more of America that isn't like that.
I also wonder about the amount of time you wasted on foot.
Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2011, 12:56:04 AM
Quote from: Warspite on December 30, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
London has the same problem. Anything over four stories wades into a quagmire of planning considerations. And the view of London from Primrose Hill continues to take precedence over more practical considerations like the housing shortage.
i used to be quite in favour of ths thinking it good to preserve the appearance of the city but lately i read something about the sinister undertones of these poliies- it is so the existing land owners keep their land values high
Pretty much - a lot of it is just NIMBYism. Then again if you did start developing more high rises in London, the Duke of Westminster and Marquess of Salisbury would be quids in. :/
Quote from: HisMajestyBOB on December 31, 2011, 03:46:19 AM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 12:20:59 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on December 30, 2011, 12:17:47 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
I don't think it's fair to expect the planners to foresee that the city would be home to more people than the entire country was at the time.
For starters, they could allow high rise buildings, so that people can work in the core of the city rather than sprawling everywhere.
That's just in DC proper, which is pretty small. Outside of that, you can build high rises and there are some in parts of NoVA and MD, just not enough. I blame American's insistence on owning a McMansion in the middle of an urban area.
Certainly the problems go beyond DC proper, but I disagree that it is so small: according to wikipedia DC has almost 3 times the land area as Manhattan. If you duplicated the density of manhattan in DC you would have about 4 million people there, out of an urban population of 5.58 million.
Quote from: garbon on December 31, 2011, 08:13:18 AM
Not sure what you are arguing though. There is a lot more of America that isn't like that.
I also wonder about the amount of time you wasted on foot.
I'm arguing that, for admittedly touristy purposes, a centrally located railway station can be all it takes to make public transportation work.
Time on foot wasn't wasted as it was done by choice, I know what the yellow cars are for :)
Hauling 20 kg from Penn station to 110th street at night was a bit uncalled for though :blush:
Quote from: Warspite on December 30, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
London has the same problem. Anything over four stories wades into a quagmire of planning considerations. And the view of London from Primrose Hill continues to take precedence over more practical considerations like the housing shortage.
Guess what, same issue in Paris.
Quote from: Warspite on December 31, 2011, 08:26:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2011, 12:56:04 AM
Quote from: Warspite on December 30, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
London has the same problem. Anything over four stories wades into a quagmire of planning considerations. And the view of London from Primrose Hill continues to take precedence over more practical considerations like the housing shortage.
i used to be quite in favour of ths thinking it good to preserve the appearance of the city but lately i read something about the sinister undertones of these poliies- it is so the existing land owners keep their land values high
Pretty much - a lot of it is just NIMBYism. Then again if you did start developing more high rises in London, the Duke of Westminster and Marquess of Salisbury would be quids in. :/
NIMBY people are basically what's wrong with America and the reason federalism doesn't really work.
Building high-rises in itself won't help the housing problem, since the housing problem is really the affordable-housing problem. And most developers over here seem to prefer buying their way out of any municipal effort to devote X% of a residential development to low/middle income housing.
Quote from: Maladict on December 31, 2011, 10:33:35 AM
Quote from: garbon on December 31, 2011, 08:13:18 AM
Not sure what you are arguing though. There is a lot more of America that isn't like that.
I also wonder about the amount of time you wasted on foot.
I'm arguing that, for admittedly touristy purposes, a centrally located railway station can be all it takes to make public transportation work.
In most American cities, the touristy places aren't necessarily centrally located.
Of course, that partly depends on just which touristy places you're interested in. If you're interested in Civil War sites, for example, some of them are nowhere near major city centers. Really, none of them, as far as battlefields.
Quote from: Ideologue on December 31, 2011, 03:27:03 PM
Quote from: Warspite on December 31, 2011, 08:26:13 AM
Quote from: Tyr on December 31, 2011, 12:56:04 AM
Quote from: Warspite on December 30, 2011, 01:53:43 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 30, 2011, 01:17:40 PM
Quote from: alfred russel on December 30, 2011, 11:46:57 AM
Washington DC is a disaster of urban planning.
Don't they have really strict rules on how tall buildings can be, so it just sprawls and sprawls?
London has the same problem. Anything over four stories wades into a quagmire of planning considerations. And the view of London from Primrose Hill continues to take precedence over more practical considerations like the housing shortage.
i used to be quite in favour of ths thinking it good to preserve the appearance of the city but lately i read something about the sinister undertones of these poliies- it is so the existing land owners keep their land values high
Pretty much - a lot of it is just NIMBYism. Then again if you did start developing more high rises in London, the Duke of Westminster and Marquess of Salisbury would be quids in. :/
NIMBY people are basically what's wrong with America and the reason federalism doesn't really work.
Is the NIMBY phenomena limited to federal republics?
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 01, 2012, 07:01:18 AMIs the NIMBY phenomena limited to federal republics?
I think countries with a strong role for local government in planning decisions. We've got it too. The government's trying to change planning regulations, and God willing they will, but it's a bit like the Democrats imposing at will employment laws.
Less NIMBY-ism in France than in Germany I'd say (e.g high-speed lines) but it still exists. Bloody plonk growers.
Quote from: Capetan Mihali on December 31, 2011, 03:47:56 PM
Building high-rises in itself won't help the housing problem, since the housing problem is really the affordable-housing problem. And most developers over here seem to prefer buying their way out of any municipal effort to devote X% of a residential development to low/middle income housing.
But the affordability of housing is ultimately a function of the supply of housing. If you have a set amount of land, and build lower density, then all things remaining equal the price of a house or apartment will be higher because there are still the same number of people chasing fewer, rather than more, units. Even if developers focus on building luxury flats, then at least you ease the pressure on the lower end of the market, which in London right now is being invaded by fairly well off middle class buyers who can't afford the type of place they would have moved into 20 or 30 years ago.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on January 01, 2012, 07:01:18 AM
Is the NIMBY phenomena limited to federal republics?
I'd say that as a widespread public occurance it probably is limited to countries with representative government, and that federalism lends itself to allowing stronger symptoms of the problem to develop. But even in places that don't have representative government, I'd say that the elites make sure that the landfills and the like aren't in their backyards.