5 ms·
Doesn't 220MPH seem insufficiently ambitious? That's at least 12 hours to get from New York to Los Angeles.
by p1mrx 14y ago
Doesn't 220MPH seem insufficiently ambitious? That's at least 12 hours to get from New York to Los Angeles.
- lutusp 14y ago> Doesn't 220MPH seem insufficiently ambitious? It accommodates the state of the track (in most cases). To go faster would require wholesale replacement of most existing track, which is thought to be too expensive (but is the approach that was used in Japan and France). > That's at least 12 hours to get from New York to Los Angeles. I think many people would accept that, if the price was reasonable and the cars had suitable accommodations.
- calinet6 14y agoAlso - probably averaging in realistic stops, which is a lot of slowdown/speedup delay.
- kposehn 14y ago> It accommodates the state of the track (in most cases). To go faster would require wholesale replacement of most existing track, which is thought to be too expensive (but is the approach that was used in Japan and France). It does not accomodate current tracks. No rail lines in the US are designed for speeds over 150 mph.
- lutusp 14y agoI should have said that a comparatively modest roadbed upgrade would allow this speed -- but only compared to the effort required for the higher speeds possible elsewhere.
- kposehn 14y agoAh, ok. I would caveat that it is the alignment you can use for high speeds, not necessarily the roadbed, but your point remains the same then.
- lutusp 14y ago> I would caveat that it is the alignment you can use for high speeds ... Yes, and welded tracks, apparently a universal way to support high speed operations.