3 ms·
Actually, railways in USA already has much higher portion in freight transport than in EU (40% to 10%). It is not that big surprise, as big parts of the rail sy
by thingie 18y ago
Actually, railways in USA already has much higher portion in freight transport than in EU (40% to 10%). It is not that big surprise, as big parts of the rail system are almost freight-only.
High speed rail might work to connect nearby metro areas, but almost certainly, trains across half or whole US will not work. It's simply too far away, and it wouldn't be any competition to airplanes. Even EU high speed rail are mostly, in their current state, few scattered islands connecting large cities within a single country.
- joeyo 18y ago> ... big parts of the rail system are almost freight-only. Rail can be a very cheap way to move freight. Slower than truck, sure. But quite inexpensive. I'd love to see more rail freight. The problem however is that in many parts of the country the same lines are shared by both passengers and freight. This means that for starters those lines are not going to be suitable for high speed passenger rail anyway. But beyond that, Amtrak gets second priority on those lines. This is one of the reasons for the frustrating delays that rail travel in the US always seems to have.
- thingie 17y agoGerman high speed rail lines are also shared by passengers and freight, it is not problem. Old rail lines can almost never be used for high speeds, all high speed rail lines are built completely new. Original constructors never thought about speeds around 300 km/h. For example, HS line can afford slopes with steeper grades, because high speed train units have more powered axles and have less problems with them than one or two engines with 20 cars. On the other hand, you need curves with much higher diameters. So HS lines are different from the ordinary ones.