Another stop on a route to high-speed rail

Bike Bubba wrote:

JDD, even if you compare roads to rail, the environmental impact of roads is (sorry) far less. If you used rail as intensively as you do roads (say one vehicle per lane every five seconds or so), you'd obliterate the rails incredibly quickly. And rail vs. air travel is no contest in terms of space needed.

I wasn't comparing roads to rail. And I guess we're at a standstill concerning space needed. You haven't really explained why you hold that position, though.

Bike Bubba wrote:

Rail is a great way of moving containers and coal. It's not so hot when you're moving people, and the data, which I've linked, show it..

I agree with the containers and coal position - though I'd be interested in knowing your reasons for suddenly favoring rail for this purpose over cargo planes.

But you're still not talking about high speed rail between transportation hubs.

Bike Bubba wrote:

Let's stop pushing 19th century solutions to 21st century problems, OK? Just because putting a steam engine on steel rails to tow long wagons full of people made sense in 1880 doesn't mean it makes sense today. More or less, ever since Henry Ford, Karl Benz, and Rudolph Diesel, the passenger train has been going obsolete. The process was accelerated by Boeing.

You've restated your thesis.

Bike Bubba, I responded in #60 to your argument about distance traveled. And I responded to your argument in #59 about the physics involved. But then you've restated your certainty that airplanes are more efficient than trains. Except for some reason for cargo. If planes are actually covering more distance than you thought, and the physics is different than what you supposed, then is it possible that your energy consumed and therefore impact on the environment is also wrong?

Bike Bubba wrote:

Let's stop pushing 19th century solutions to 21st century problems, OK?

Comparing 19th century trains to 21st century trains is the same as saying the Kitty Hawk and the Wright Brothers are the equivilent of a rocket in space.

That is just plain stupid.

Give it up Mr. Bubba. We won. We now have decided that the future of transportation is rail. And not just because of nostalgia, but because it is a far more Earth friendly mode of travel. The environment is what will either save us or kill us in the next 100 years. We have chosen to side with our Mother, the Earth.

IrishMN wrote:

<quoted text>
We now have decided that the future of transportation is rail. And not just because of nostalgia, but because it is a far more Earth friendly mode of travel. The environment is what will either save us or kill us in the next 100 years. We have chosen to side with our Mother, the Earth.

All these earth friendly solutions are killing the economy and the reason states like California and Michigan are at depression levels for unemployment.

What % of commuters use rail during rush hour????? What is the cost of these projects????

Now you know why bridges fall because budgets are broke.

JDD, the reason trains are so great for cargo, and so awful for people, is that cargo can't run to the other side of the train car to look at a cow--pulling a too light carriage off the tracks. Hence the ratio of load/vehicle mass/weight can be much higher for cargo than for people.

Also, cargo doesn't demand to get there instantly, and it also doesn't demand to have stops at every podunk town through Wisconsin. As a result, cargo works a lot better than passenger rail.

And IrishMN, I'll give it up when the data say that it's a good idea. They don't, so I won't. As 35 years of Amtrak and transit subsidies ought to tell any thinking person, it's an expensive, ecologically damaging boondoggle.

Bike Bubba wrote:

JDD, the reason trains are so great for cargo, and so awful for people, is that cargo can't run to the other side of the train car to look at a cow--pulling a too light carriage off the tracks. Hence the ratio of load/vehicle mass/weight can be much higher for cargo than for people.

Now that's another argument I've never heard before! I'll leave it hanging there for a while while we both ponder how you came to seize on this as the overriding difference between cargo and passenger rail. I'm a little skeptical about the accuracy of your statement as well - and about its consistency with your position. A while back you were saying that passenger trains are too heavy. Now they are too light?

But you didn't address my question. Just a second ago you were talking about the effect on the environment and fuel efficiency. Now you've dropped that issue. My question, restated, is: If you believe that airplanes are more fuel efficient than trains - then why is it that you switch your reasoning and your support when cargo is involved? If it's because a train can carry much more cargo per trip - then I say what would that matter to you if the overall efficiency was worse?

I'll be more able to evaluate your reasoning when you respond to my posts about travel distance and the physics involved.

Bike Bubba wrote:

Also, cargo doesn't demand to get there instantly, and it also doesn't demand to have stops at every podunk town through Wisconsin. As a result, cargo works a lot better than passenger rail..

Well, as maybe you can sense, I'm about ready to leave this conversation for greener pastures. I sure wish we'd lock down what we're talking about. As long as you keep referring to high speed rail as something that stops at every town in between here and there, it's just a verbal game of bait-and-switch. Not interested. But I hope any reader will note the difference.

Have a good afternoon.

JDD, ask yourself why a bus capable of carrying 50 people weighs ten tons, but a train car capable of carrying about the same number of people weighs about fifty tons.

It's because you've got to keep the wheels on the rails, and the rails are only 4'11" apart for a train, but 8-10' apart for a bus. The extra weight doesn't do a whole lot, mechanically speaking, except keep the center of mass between the rails. Historically, it was accomplished simply by adding concrete (no great material for a lightweight moving vehicle) to the base of the Pullman car.

The end result is that the weight to carry 200 passengers on a train is about 200 tons.(plus locomotive, plus baggage car, plus dining car, etc..) For buses, maybe 40-50 tons, and for a plane, about the same for 200 people.

See why the advantages gained by steel on steel are thrown away in passenger rail?

For comparison, a typical freight car for coal has an unloaded weight of 20 tons, and a loaded weight of 130 tons. So the load/deadweight ratio is about 100 times better for freight than it is for passengers.

Bike Bubba wrote:

JDD, ask yourself why a bus capable of carrying 50 people weighs ten tons, but a train car capable of carrying about the same number of people weighs about fifty tons.
It's because you've got to keep the wheels on the rails, and the rails are only 4'11" apart for a train, but 8-10' apart for a bus. The extra weight doesn't do a whole lot, mechanically speaking, except keep the center of mass between the rails. Historically, it was accomplished simply by adding concrete (no great material for a lightweight moving vehicle) to the base of the Pullman car.
The end result is that the weight to carry 200 passengers on a train is about 200 tons.(plus locomotive, plus baggage car, plus dining car, etc..) For buses, maybe 40-50 tons, and for a plane, about the same for 200 people.
See why the advantages gained by steel on steel are thrown away in passenger rail?
For comparison, a typical freight car for coal has an unloaded weight of 20 tons, and a loaded weight of 130 tons. So the load/deadweight ratio is about 100 times better for freight than it is for passengers.

Hey Bike Bubba, Cut the Dribble. Please!

Riddlin wrote:

If they are going to build a high speed train they need to build a MagLev and do it right. 200mph and your in Chicago in 1 1/2 hours tops. Why would anyone pay to get there in 5 1/2 hours when you can drive it in that amount of time for less.

whatever california....you cannot drive to shytown in 5.5 hours.

Riddlin wrote:

If they are going to build a high speed train they need to build a MagLev and do it right. 200mph and your in Chicago in 1 1/2 hours tops. Why would anyone pay to get there in 5 1/2 hours when you can drive it in that amount of time for less.

Let's do the math; Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul are 400 miles apart. If a train travels 200 MPH and does not stop, it will take;
A: 1.5 hours
B: 1.5 hours tops
C: 2.0 hours (if there are no other impediments)
D: None of the above

Joe Blow wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's do the math; Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul are 400 miles apart. If a train travels 200 MPH and does not stop, it will take;
A: 1.5 hours
B: 1.5 hours tops
C: 2.0 hours (if there are no other impediments)
D: None of the above

4+ hours after you deal with the TSA and security at the train station before leaving and wait for baggage when you arrive.
Add to that the time to get from your garage to the train station (and park) then the time to wait for a taxi or bud to get you to your actual final destination.

Joe, would you like to say something of substance, or would you like to keep on with asinine sniping?

If you'd like to say something of substance, you can start by addressing the fact that on a train, about one ton of weight per passenger is needed to get to the destination (about the same as in a passenger car with average load), while on a bus or plane, one needs only about 500 lbs of vehicle to move a person.

It has a lot to do with why rail is neither economically or environmentally responsible.

Bike Bubba wrote:

Joe, would you like to say something of substance, or would you like to keep on with asinine sniping?
If you'd like to say something of substance, you can start by addressing the fact that on a train, about one ton of weight per passenger is needed to get to the destination (about the same as in a passenger car with average load), while on a bus or plane, one needs only about 500 lbs of vehicle to move a person.
It has a lot to do with why rail is neither economically or environmentally responsible.

It is no wonder why you are "Bubba" Again, cut the dribble. How much does your bike weigh and how man tone miles will that go?

Joe Blow wrote:

<quoted text>
Let's do the math; Chicago and Minneapolis/St. Paul are 400 miles apart. If a train travels 200 MPH and does not stop, it will take;
A: 1.5 hours
B: 1.5 hours tops
C: 2.0 hours (if there are no other impediments)
D: None of the above

Can the train pull over for a stop in Milwaukee???