4 ms·

We also have a strong first-adopter problem: our rail systems were among the first, so we're stuck with some inherent design limitations that weren't an issue i

We also have a strong first-adopter problem: our rail systems were among the first, so we're stuck with some inherent design limitations that weren't an issue in 1890 but sure are now. For example, if you want high speed rail between major cites in new england, you're out of luck; the rails were laid out with curves and shapes that will not allow you to go fast. You can solve this, but the solution is to straighten out the rails -- and that means eminent domaining several billion dollars worth of Connecticut. I don't see that happening.

StreamBright 8y ago
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_State_Railways https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_State_Railways We had rails sooner yet we did not get stuck. Do you think that the size of US is limiting here?
- hprotagonist 8y ago
  That's the other big problem, yes. See also the Netherlands. In the 70s they decided that bikes were good, and that paving over canals to let big trucks and cars take over was bad, and it was time to stop doing that and move to a better way. They got away with it because the Netherlands is 19 times smaller than the state of Texas.
illvm 8y ago
There were other rails which ran between NYC and Boston which have since been shuttered, but were far more efficient. Problem is that there isn't a populated, straight line between NYC and Boston. So the curved rail road won out due to where people live. But that's not even the real problem. The real problem is that passenger trains do not have right of way on these lines. That belongs to the freight companies. So, on average, even Acela ends up averaging 65-70mph.
- hprotagonist 8y ago
  To your first point: yes, that's part of why worcester and springfield have been dead since before the Civil War. And it's part of the context for "Ethan Frome". For better or worse, CT port cities proved better than rail to the hudson, especially once farming moved west. Right of way is another big issue, but even if it wasn't, Acela can't hit full speed north of NYC. It'd derail if it tried.
desas 8y ago
We have the same thing in actual England, our rail system was the first and now we have to live with tunnels and bridges not high enough for double decker trains. Most of our railways are limited to 125mph due to lack of in-cab signalling rather than because of track curvature though, tilting trains handle tight curvature problems.

StreamBright 8y ago

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_State_Railways https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_State_Railways We had rails sooner yet we did not get stuck. Do you think that the size of US is limiting here?

hprotagonist 8y ago
That's the other big problem, yes. See also the Netherlands. In the 70s they decided that bikes were good, and that paving over canals to let big trucks and cars take over was bad, and it was time to stop doing that and move to a better way. They got away with it because the Netherlands is 19 times smaller than the state of Texas.

illvm 8y ago

There were other rails which ran between NYC and Boston which have since been shuttered, but were far more efficient. Problem is that there isn't a populated, straight line between NYC and Boston. So the curved rail road won out due to where people live. But that's not even the real problem. The real problem is that passenger trains do not have right of way on these lines. That belongs to the freight companies. So, on average, even Acela ends up averaging 65-70mph.

hprotagonist 8y ago
To your first point: yes, that's part of why worcester and springfield have been dead since before the Civil War. And it's part of the context for "Ethan Frome". For better or worse, CT port cities proved better than rail to the hudson, especially once farming moved west. Right of way is another big issue, but even if it wasn't, Acela can't hit full speed north of NYC. It'd derail if it tried.

desas 8y ago

We have the same thing in actual England, our rail system was the first and now we have to live with tunnels and bridges not high enough for double decker trains. Most of our railways are limited to 125mph due to lack of in-cab signalling rather than because of track curvature though, tilting trains handle tight curvature problems.