Will the US ever invest in it? I mean I know the answer is probably no because of the negative effect it would have on airfare and oil and the whole money aspect.... but I just think its awesome in Europe to be able to get on a train and get to Spain in no time. If implemented here you could get from Lexington to Miami in 3hrs. You could get coast to coast in 6 to 6.5 hours. I know I am dreaming here but it'd be pretty cool IMO. Just wonder if the US would ever do that...
Bullet Train System....
- Thread starter BigBlueSean_rivals178247
- Start date
You can get on a train in Spain and instantly be in Europe. That's fast.
My response would be if it was cost justified, private companies would already be investing to create one. If there is money to be made, private industry will fund it. If the revenue from riders can't support the cost, then it makes no sense to build it. There are other ways of traveling. I'm not sure if you were referring to the government funding this or not when you say US, but I would have to be convinced to support it as a government project.
How 'bout a long line of '64 'Cudas?
Government already has invested in the bullet train system. It is all underground. You are late to the party OP.
I can't believe you're bringing that terrorist talk to this forum. You know damn well The US is anti bullet train yet here you are trolling around. Smh.
I just looked air travel times for your two examples above. Lexington to Miami 2 hours 4 minutes. New York to LA 5 hours 23 minutes. Not sure why anyone would want to get on a train and go slower.
EDIT - are sure of the times you mentioned above? Lexington to Miami is 1044 Miles, so to get there in 3 hours you'll need to average 348mph. New York to LA is 2789 Miles, so to get there in 6.5 hours you'll need to average 429mph. I don't think you can do that on a train. The fastest trains usually max out at 200mph.
Last edited:
It all depends on the speed of the train. I went by the average to be on the safe side. You are right, time wise its not too much of a difference...The big difference is that 90% of the trains are electric. The average round trip cost to Miami as far a airfare goes is $550. LA its anywhere from 600 to 750. With the conversions a round trip via train to Miami for 1 person would be 75 to $115 if it saw usage at a high rate. Now if you tell me I can save $400 to get on a train and get there just as fast as flying....sign me up.
Ha, Bullet Train and the supporters can just give up at this point. They had their chance. By the time any single state gets it's infrastructure built, driver less cars will be available in society. And some speculate that they'll (Cars/roadways/legislation) will allow for 120+mph in 20 years. Eat ****, Amtrak.
In Japan they are testing trains that will reach up to 600 to 650 kph which is about 415mph which is nuts. They have quite a few trains there that average about 300mph and recently commissioned a line that hovers around 325-350 and has topped out at 374mph.
Jet passenger planes typically cruise at 550mph.
Get me there quicker AND cheaper on a train and I'd think about it.
Get me there quicker AND cheaper on a train and I'd think about it.
Of course there would be, but again its about the time/cost ratio. Just like the majority of people flying to florida or LA would have stops and possible layover times. No such thing as layovers with trains. Things run like clockwork.
I also think if implemented it would drive the cost of airfare down. Airfare can be absolutely ridiculous.
So, lets say taking a train would be 45 minutes longer. Is that 45 minutes really worth on the low end $350?
No, no one is going to pay a trillion dollars to do a transamerica bullet train, and if they did, it would be a million times more expensive than a plane ticket, as the cost of maintaining the train and the train lines is probably more expensive than gas for an airplane and maintaining planes. Not to mention bad weather, where a plane can fly over it, would be a disaster in some parts of the country. Just makes no sense.
So if you spend billions and billions of dollars on this high speed train, airfare comes down, so there's even less incentive to ride your much slower train.
Yeah, weather in the states would be so much worse than the northern tips of Russia.... It's mostly due to the expense of laying the track now. Much of the European train system track is not really modern rail. Much of it pre-dates WW2. Bridges have been replaced, maintenance, and that sort of thing...but unless you're talking high speed trains (the big 200mph mag-lev trains)...it's all standard rail. We dismantled much of our rail system during WW2 to use the iron to make tanks and ships. While we still have a substantial rail system it is not near what it was pre-WW2. That's why europe just seemed to sprout this great transit system and we didn't...europe didn't...most of it was already there while we dismantled ours. That was part of the additional reasoning behind the interstate system, we needed to replace a lot of the transit capacity we lost.
Not necessarily. I said come down some, not tons... Im talking maybe $50-$75. Still not enough to really compete cost wise with a high speed train.
How about safer? I guess a train can't fall out of the sky... but what if some dumb teenager decides to off himself and jump in front of the train? Does the train derail? Or do we just plow the body and continue on?
Negative, not according to historical data. The number of locomotives actually increased by 15% and serviceable freight cars by 17% during WW2. See page 19, table 8.
If by "bullet train" you mean that people will be able to legally carry a concealed handgun on a train, then it will likely get done. Any other definition of "bullet train" happening in this country is unlikely.
Yes Locomotives and freight cars increased... I'm talking solely about track. They took up a ton of track in non populous, low traffic areas. There used to be a train that went twice a day from Cynthiana to Leesburg, to Georgetown and ran through Lexington and up to Cincinnati. All of that track is gone now. Its why in a ton of rural areas in the states you see random rail abutments for rail bridges out in the country...but no iron on them? that's why. anything that had below a certain volume of traffic got pulled, dismantled, and smelted.
Its what my grandfather and his father made a living doing. So don't tell me they didn't take up a **** ton of track for the iron in WWII. Your little stats you quoted don't prove that wrong at all.
"When compared to what happened during World War I, railroads in World War II were phenomenally more efficient
. Not only did they move more tons of material and goods during the second conflict but railroads also did so with fewer locomotives, cars
, and overall rail mileage. By the end of World War II there was only 224,000 miles of track while at the beginning of World War II the industry had over 386,000. It should be noted that railroads did have improved technology
to move freight in the 1940s such as heavier freight cars and locomotives and the new diesel-electric locomotive. However, the accomplishments they were able to achieve from the first conflict are still impressive."
. Not only did they move more tons of material and goods during the second conflict but railroads also did so with fewer locomotives, cars
, and overall rail mileage. By the end of World War II there was only 224,000 miles of track while at the beginning of World War II the industry had over 386,000. It should be noted that railroads did have improved technology
to move freight in the 1940s such as heavier freight cars and locomotives and the new diesel-electric locomotive. However, the accomplishments they were able to achieve from the first conflict are still impressive."
Here is an honest question, why are all the rational arguments against bullet trains in America invalid all over Europe and Asia? They have airports, highways, cars, bad weather, mountains, etc. Yet have managed to utilize high speed trains to a degree far beyond anything seen in America.
So why are we the only ones that don't have them?
So why are we the only ones that don't have them?
Negative, negative, negative your original statement is inherently false. US freight and track-miles were already on the decline in the years preceding WW2. Between beginning of WW1 and end of WW2, track-miles declined by 11%; however, between 1941-1945, US track-miles only declined by roughly 1%. Industry downsizing was already well underway many years before the second world war.
Population density is one good reason.
In Asia and parts of Europe there is huge population density. Lots of people trying to get from one mega-city to another nearby mega-city. In these here United States we're all spread out. We like a little elbow room. Trains do work well in our high population areas in the east. New York, Philly, DC, Boston. Connect all those areas with trains and we're set. Outside of that we're just too spread out for it to be cost effective.
Thanks, not trying to start an argument, trying to understand the pros and cons. My daughter used the train all the time when she worked in Philly and had to make trips to NYC, probably once a month or every other month at least, she really liked it.
I think the fact that it would take 20 years of environmental studies before you could even look your eyes upon the first shovel, trillions of dollars to build, ongoing billions to maintain, ongoing billions to subsidize because zero people would pay full ticket to ride....
....those things are why why don't/won't have high speed rail.
OP if you'd like to go ahead and crank it up a notch, also mention light rail as a great idea for
Louisville.
....those things are why why don't/won't have high speed rail.
OP if you'd like to go ahead and crank it up a notch, also mention light rail as a great idea for
Louisville.
This thread makes me think of this video:
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="640" height="360" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Elon Musk is working on it.
http://www.cnet.com/news/elon-musk-plans-to-build-hyperloop-test-track/
and we'll pay China
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/17/us-california-rail-china-idUSKCN0SB01C20151017
- It would be Trillions of dollars to complete a high-speed train system that connected say the 50 largest cities in the US.
- It works in Europe and Japan because of population density, existing infrastructure, and size of those respective locations
- Driverless cars are less than 30 years away from being the standard. Why take a train with hundreds of other people that has very specific stops, when you can hop in your driverless car and wake up at any location you choose?
- Completely ignoring stops or comparing them to layovers on a plane is ridiculous. A train trip from NYC to LA would have at least a dozen stops. No matter how efficient they were, a plane would beat it there by hours.
- It works in Europe and Japan because of population density, existing infrastructure, and size of those respective locations
- Driverless cars are less than 30 years away from being the standard. Why take a train with hundreds of other people that has very specific stops, when you can hop in your driverless car and wake up at any location you choose?
- Completely ignoring stops or comparing them to layovers on a plane is ridiculous. A train trip from NYC to LA would have at least a dozen stops. No matter how efficient they were, a plane would beat it there by hours.