5 ms·

> high speed rail is romanticism from bygone days when rail was the only alternative to long distance travel Yes, the 'bygone days' of maglev trains. I don't k

> high speed rail is romanticism from bygone days when rail was the only alternative to long distance travel Yes, the 'bygone days' of maglev trains. I don't know if you've ever travelled in Japan or China but the convenience and comfort of high speed rail easily surpasses flying. And in many cases, so does the speed. In most normal countries, rail is critical transport infrastructure. It's not a conspiracy.

pmontra 7y ago
Agreed. I regularly use high speed trains for every journey up to 4 hours, maybe 5. I've been on vacation in China in 2015. I preferred the high speed train over the standard delay of one or two hours because of airspace traffic congestion.
turtlecloud 7y ago
yep - once u factor in the TSA body shakedown and traffic to airport, then it about evens out air travel.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  > yep - once u factor in the TSA body shakedown and traffic to airport, then it about evens out air travel. That's a problem that will be replicated exactly for boarding a train destined to travel at 278m/s. The consequences for a major security failure on a high speed train are, if anything, more dire than those for even a very large passenger aircraft. An 800,000kg barely-subsonic chain of rigid torpedoes barreling through dense population centres is serious business.
  - saagarjha 7y ago
    You can’t really hijack a train to hit a specific building, as you can with a plane.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      > You can’t really hijack a train to hit a specific building, as you can with a train. *as you can with a _plane_
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        Oops, yes. I fixed it above; thanks!
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > You can’t really hijack a train to hit a specific building, as you can with a plane. Setting aside hijacking, which would not be the mechanism for a train attack anyway, the more likely attack on an airplane is suicidal self destruction at this point I would think, with all the new mechanisms in place. If TSA is this silly with planes, given the relative lack of attractive plans open to attackers now, what makes you think they won't get even sillier with trains than they already have. As for hitting a specific building, that depends: does your high speed rail line pass near any attractive targets? If the train is 800,000kg (not unreasonable I think?) and is travelling at the rated 280m/s or thereabouts, that's about 31GJ (please check my math) or 7.5 ton TNT equivalent of sheer momentum that can be convinced to continue travelling in an undesirable direction. Seems like it may be a bit of a risk, at least enough that somebody could be convinced to thoroughly screen passengers.
      - saagarjha 7y ago
        280 m/s is just over 1000 km/h, or 600 mph. That's faster than most passenger jets!
  - weberc2 7y ago
    I get that it's moving fast, but what's the specific threat model? Terrorists hijack the train and somehow drive it off the tracks? Presumably it's easy enough to secure the "cockpit". They could blow it up, but is that dramatically worse than blowing up a train moving 50 mph (genuine question, I'm not sure about the physics)? Especially as these trains don't carry fuel, I can't imagine a tragedy on the scale of 9/11.
    - microcolonel 7y ago
      > But is that dramatically worse than blowing up a train moving 50 mph Yes, it is extremely bad when 60-100 ton railcars are being thrown around like toys, at nearly the speed (about 30m/s slower than most .45 ACP) some handguns fire bullets.
      - weberc2 7y ago
        I get that, but it seems strictly better than, for example, blowing up a trail full of oil cars.
        microcolonel 7y ago
        If the goalposts move as fast as these trains are marketed to move, I'm sure we could find all sorts of things worse than the already terrible tragedy of a deliberate derailment, explosion, or sabotage of a high speed train.
        weberc2 7y ago
        The goalposts didn't move, you were just reminded that conventional trains frequently carry explosive freight.
Mountain_Skies 7y ago
Rail is critical infrastructure in the US, extremely critical. It's just not critical for passenger travel.
- remarkEon 7y ago
  It is on the east coast. It doesn't always work, and it's a pretty crappy experience, but there isn't an alternative for moving that many people around the Northeast corridor.
puranjay 7y ago
Stretch your legs, go to any one of the several bathrooms at any time, hang out in the pantry car and even get a proper meal. Store all the luggage you want. Arrive just 20 minutes before the departure and still have time to laze around. Board/deboard in the center of the city rather than 40kms in the outskirts. The benefits of rail over air are absolutely endless. And I haven't even mentioned the lower carbon footprint of electric rail (you can make electricity from renewable sources. Can't make jet fuel).
- garmaine 7y ago
  > you can make electricity from renewable sources. Can't make jet fuel This isn't true BTW. Biofuels are made by pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.

pmontra 7y ago

Agreed. I regularly use high speed trains for every journey up to 4 hours, maybe 5. I've been on vacation in China in 2015. I preferred the high speed train over the standard delay of one or two hours because of airspace traffic congestion.

turtlecloud 7y ago

yep - once u factor in the TSA body shakedown and traffic to airport, then it about evens out air travel.

microcolonel 7y ago
> yep - once u factor in the TSA body shakedown and traffic to airport, then it about evens out air travel. That's a problem that will be replicated exactly for boarding a train destined to travel at 278m/s. The consequences for a major security failure on a high speed train are, if anything, more dire than those for even a very large passenger aircraft. An 800,000kg barely-subsonic chain of rigid torpedoes barreling through dense population centres is serious business.
- saagarjha 7y ago
  You can’t really hijack a train to hit a specific building, as you can with a plane.
  - weberc2 7y ago
    > You can’t really hijack a train to hit a specific building, as you can with a train. *as you can with a _plane_
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      Oops, yes. I fixed it above; thanks!
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > You can’t really hijack a train to hit a specific building, as you can with a plane. Setting aside hijacking, which would not be the mechanism for a train attack anyway, the more likely attack on an airplane is suicidal self destruction at this point I would think, with all the new mechanisms in place. If TSA is this silly with planes, given the relative lack of attractive plans open to attackers now, what makes you think they won't get even sillier with trains than they already have. As for hitting a specific building, that depends: does your high speed rail line pass near any attractive targets? If the train is 800,000kg (not unreasonable I think?) and is travelling at the rated 280m/s or thereabouts, that's about 31GJ (please check my math) or 7.5 ton TNT equivalent of sheer momentum that can be convinced to continue travelling in an undesirable direction. Seems like it may be a bit of a risk, at least enough that somebody could be convinced to thoroughly screen passengers.
    - saagarjha 7y ago
      280 m/s is just over 1000 km/h, or 600 mph. That's faster than most passenger jets!
- weberc2 7y ago
  I get that it's moving fast, but what's the specific threat model? Terrorists hijack the train and somehow drive it off the tracks? Presumably it's easy enough to secure the "cockpit". They could blow it up, but is that dramatically worse than blowing up a train moving 50 mph (genuine question, I'm not sure about the physics)? Especially as these trains don't carry fuel, I can't imagine a tragedy on the scale of 9/11.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    > But is that dramatically worse than blowing up a train moving 50 mph Yes, it is extremely bad when 60-100 ton railcars are being thrown around like toys, at nearly the speed (about 30m/s slower than most .45 ACP) some handguns fire bullets.
    - weberc2 7y ago
      I get that, but it seems strictly better than, for example, blowing up a trail full of oil cars.
      - microcolonel 7y ago
        If the goalposts move as fast as these trains are marketed to move, I'm sure we could find all sorts of things worse than the already terrible tragedy of a deliberate derailment, explosion, or sabotage of a high speed train.
        weberc2 7y ago
        The goalposts didn't move, you were just reminded that conventional trains frequently carry explosive freight.

Mountain_Skies 7y ago

Rail is critical infrastructure in the US, extremely critical. It's just not critical for passenger travel.

remarkEon 7y ago
It is on the east coast. It doesn't always work, and it's a pretty crappy experience, but there isn't an alternative for moving that many people around the Northeast corridor.

puranjay 7y ago

Stretch your legs, go to any one of the several bathrooms at any time, hang out in the pantry car and even get a proper meal. Store all the luggage you want. Arrive just 20 minutes before the departure and still have time to laze around. Board/deboard in the center of the city rather than 40kms in the outskirts. The benefits of rail over air are absolutely endless. And I haven't even mentioned the lower carbon footprint of electric rail (you can make electricity from renewable sources. Can't make jet fuel).

garmaine 7y ago
> you can make electricity from renewable sources. Can't make jet fuel This isn't true BTW. Biofuels are made by pulling CO2 out of the atmosphere.