4 ms·

Because it's here today. It's easy with simple investment, it's got huge benefits over the joke that is the current U.S train service.

grecy 8y ago
There are plenty of passenger trains in service around the world that go faster than 200mp/h, today.
- bobthepanda 8y ago
  Those are all in China. Wikipedia tells me that max achievable speed in regular service in every country except China is 320km/h. China does 350km/h, but you need to be traveling at quite a long distance for a measly 30km/h increase in speed to be worth it, and China runs much longer high speed rail services than other countries (Beijing to Hong Kong is 9 hours). Besides, the more important thing is average speed. Acela's top speed is respectable for legacy rail, but it achieves this top speed for a total of 33 miles over a 457 mile route.
  - grecy 8y ago
    > Those are all in China You're probably right. America shouldn't aim to achieve speeds of high speed rail in ~2025 that China achieved in ~2015. That's aiming too high. Best to aim lower so we don't disappoint anyone.
    - innocenat 8y ago
      And China pretty much stopped running train at 350km/h. Steel-on-steel rail is realistically limited to top service speed of 320km/h, maybe 360 at most. The maintenance is just too high when you increase speed beyond that. Newer Japanese Shinkansen line only operate at 260km/h, for example.
    - bobthepanda 8y ago
      The most painful part of high-speed-rail, particularly at higher speeds, is the land acquisition costs; minimum curve radius grows exponentially as speed rises, so costs escalate as speed gets higher. China cares far less about compensating property owners for fair value, which is why they can engineer such high speed lines in the first place. We are talking about the difference between 217MPH and 200MPH. The total travel time saved between Boston and Washington by an additional 17MPH is a whopping six minutes with the generous assumption that you start right off the bat at top speed and maintain it the entire trip. If saving six minutes will cost billions or tens of billions of dollars, why bother with such a marginal improvement, when you could spend those billions on literally anything else from housing to healthcare to upgrading the power grid?
- kingosticks 8y ago
  Yes, but the US just needs a taste to get going. They don't need to aim too high, they should concentrate on delivering something.

grecy 8y ago

There are plenty of passenger trains in service around the world that go faster than 200mp/h, today.

bobthepanda 8y ago
Those are all in China. Wikipedia tells me that max achievable speed in regular service in every country except China is 320km/h. China does 350km/h, but you need to be traveling at quite a long distance for a measly 30km/h increase in speed to be worth it, and China runs much longer high speed rail services than other countries (Beijing to Hong Kong is 9 hours). Besides, the more important thing is average speed. Acela's top speed is respectable for legacy rail, but it achieves this top speed for a total of 33 miles over a 457 mile route.
- grecy 8y ago
  > Those are all in China You're probably right. America shouldn't aim to achieve speeds of high speed rail in ~2025 that China achieved in ~2015. That's aiming too high. Best to aim lower so we don't disappoint anyone.
  - innocenat 8y ago
    And China pretty much stopped running train at 350km/h. Steel-on-steel rail is realistically limited to top service speed of 320km/h, maybe 360 at most. The maintenance is just too high when you increase speed beyond that. Newer Japanese Shinkansen line only operate at 260km/h, for example.
  - bobthepanda 8y ago
    The most painful part of high-speed-rail, particularly at higher speeds, is the land acquisition costs; minimum curve radius grows exponentially as speed rises, so costs escalate as speed gets higher. China cares far less about compensating property owners for fair value, which is why they can engineer such high speed lines in the first place. We are talking about the difference between 217MPH and 200MPH. The total travel time saved between Boston and Washington by an additional 17MPH is a whopping six minutes with the generous assumption that you start right off the bat at top speed and maintain it the entire trip. If saving six minutes will cost billions or tens of billions of dollars, why bother with such a marginal improvement, when you could spend those billions on literally anything else from housing to healthcare to upgrading the power grid?
kingosticks 8y ago
Yes, but the US just needs a taste to get going. They don't need to aim too high, they should concentrate on delivering something.