Can High-Speed Train Firms Soar Amid Boeing's Woes?

[JMAC]

`

"The aviation sector has lost $4.1 billion since the grounding of the Boeing 737 MAX. But high-speed rail firms in the U.S. see a chance for growth."

"Now, the high-speed train industry in the U.S. is racing to grab some of that market, hoping to gain a foothold in a nation where it has struggled for decades.



https://www.ozy.com/fast-forward/can..._content=Final


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





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





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





.

[Weirdcuba]

Don’t get me started. Lots of potentially confusing factors, but man I wish we had great high speed trains in the US.

[For The Love of Music]

I think a blend would help in a lot of ways

[Mikado463]

Originally Posted by For The Love of Music

I think a blend would help in a lot of ways

agreed, like energy, there is no 'one' answer.

Being an insider to the industry I get asked all the time, why aren't we rail (passenger) savoy like Europe. Two big reasons jump out, cheap gas and we love our automobiles. There are plenty more, like funding, infrastructure capacity
and the list goes on .......

[piolaxo]

You would think that there should be already a high speed link from Philly all the way
to Boston. Interestingly, there is no LA-SF link in that map. It's been in California
politics for so many years with work that have started but then stopped.

[Mikado463]

Originally Posted by piolaxo

You would think that there should be already a high speed link from Philly all the way
to Boston.

There is, at least in principal, it's called the 'Northeast Corridor'

[piolaxo]

Originally Posted by Mikado463

There is, at least in principal, it's called the 'Northeast Corridor'

Agreed, but then the definition of high speed becomes relevant. What is the
fastest they can go, 125mph? Maybe it is a bit more, but not for the whole
distance. That may be why the article mentions of a new New York -
Washington line bypassing Philly, for allowing faster trains?

[SCAudiophile]

Originally Posted by Mikado463

agreed, like energy, there is no 'one' answer.

Being an insider to the industry I get asked all the time, why aren't we rail (passenger) savoy like Europe. Two big reasons jump out, cheap gas and we love our automobiles. There are plenty more, like funding, infrastructure capacity
and the list goes on .......

And short sightedness...rights of way not laid in or modernized to meet the needs of high speed rail. The Acela corridor is proof positive of this, the gear barely breaks a sweat and is a mid-speed capable unit for the entire trip from Washington to Boston. It is particularly bad from New York and into far eastern CT and almost into RI before they can open it up. I love the train and took it whenever I could but to see that rig running from 30 to 75 mph at most on Metro North and other local track was just plain sad. It only hits a top speed of 150mph-ish on 34 miles of track in RI and MA.

[GSOphile]

My understanding (and I'm no industry expert): Existing track used for passenger service in the U.S. will not support true high speed trains, and, with the exception of the Northeast corridor, we don't have the population density required to support the economic case, such as we see in Europe, Japan, and China.

[Mikado463]

Originally Posted by piolaxo

Agreed, but then the definition of high speed becomes relevant. What is the
fastest they can go, 125mph? Maybe it is a bit more, but not for the whole
distance. That may be why the article mentions of a new New York -
Washington line bypassing Philly, for allowing faster trains?

The article is somewhat misleading for the 'route' bypassing Philly is actually a scheduled Acela train that runs non-stop between DC and NYC, beware of 'fake news' !

Originally Posted by SCAudiophile

And short sightedness...rights of way not laid in or modernized to meet the needs of high speed rail. The Acela corridor is proof positive of this, the gear barely breaks a sweat and is a mid-speed capable unit for the entire trip from Washington to Boston. It is particularly bad from New York and into far eastern CT and almost into RI before they can open it up. I love the train and took it whenever I could but to see that rig running from 30 to 75 mph at most on Metro North and other local track was just plain sad. It only hits a top speed of 150mph-ish on 34 miles of track in RI and MA.

lots of reasons for this as well, $$$ being a big one. Most people don't know that when Amtrak was conceived over 48 years ago under the Nixon Admin it was set up for failure. Here it is 2019 and the can continues to get kicked down the road. Federal subsidy is less than 2 billion dollars, two thirds of which is for long distance trains. Keep in mind, there is no money in hauling people !

As for the NE Corridor, antiquated catenary in so many areas combined with track radius, congested areas keep speeds well below the Acela capability. As you said Mark they do hit the 155 mph for about 34 miles in RI.

Originally Posted by GSOphile

My understanding (and I'm no industry expert): Existing track used for passenger service in the U.S. will not support true high speed trains, and, with the exception of the Northeast corridor, we don't have the population density required to support the economic case, such as we see in Europe, Japan, and China.

A lot of truth to that, keep in mind with the exception of the NE Corridor and Philly to Harrisburg Amtrak operates over various 'hosting' Class 1 railroads (freight). So sharing right of way with 50 mph freight trains does not bode well for high speed passenger trains.