China tests 300 mph train.

[Caliga]

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.

[HisMajestyBOB]

How long until it derails at 300mph?

[DGuller]

How long until it derails at 300mph?

About half as long as at 150 mph.

[Ender]

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.

[Ideologue]

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.

[alfred russel]

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.

[Sheilbh]

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.

[alfred russel]

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.

[mongers]

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.

[alfred russel]

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

[mongers]

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.

[alfred russel]

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?

[Admiral Yi]

The one that England is less densely populated than the Continent.

[alfred russel]

The one that England is less densely populated than the Continent.

I wasn't assuming that, for whatever difference it makes.

[Admiral Yi]

I know, I was cracking monger's stones for misunderstanding.