Just saw this in the news, and hadn't seen it elsewhere on here:

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... QD96GNGP00

Any thoughts?

My only thought that I'm willing to post here, to avoid a politically-tinged flame-fest:

The fact that so-called "High-Speed Rail's" allocation in this budget is several times that of Amtrak's allocation speaks volumes for the true priorities of this Congress.

I would say it speaks volumes for the cost of true high speed rail systems. I mean ... running ordinary trains over existing railroads is cheap enough that it could be done ... by ... us!

But try simply acquiring a new right-of-way through a territory worth running HSR over... let alone a straight RoW...

Anyway, as a loyal citizen of California, I have to wholeheartedly agree that the best place to get bang for your HSR buck is probably the midwest, in terms both of how much it will cost, and how much economic recovery assistance it will provide.

Vegas? I really think not. If the casinos want maglev, they can pay for it themselves. Besides I have doubts as to Las Vegas' viability as a community even 10 years in the future.

I read the article and I am wondering what is the the reason for using maglev vs high speed rail? It seems to me as though the maglev rail is really expensive per given foot of track. Meanwhile the company I work for (Alstom) just broke 574km per hour on high speed rail travel over in Europe. That is faster than the 310mph train proposed for Nevada.

If this country is serious about high speed rail, I'd love to see us put the money into Amtrak's northeast corridor. The Acela is nice but first it is expensive to run, relative to the bus which can be as low as $20 NYC to Boston, the Acela is relatively slow. Someone said though I am not sure how accurate that they are not doing much better in 2009 than the New York Central RR was doing in the 1920's is this correct? I think the top speed on the Acela is just above 100mph, where as some company literature I read (overhere in the power sector) said that our Alstom trains could do NYC to Boston in 45mins!!! That would be nice.

Adam

You know, I was in the dot-com biz through the 1999-2001 boom times. While many dot-coms did OK, this sector was also loaded with crazy dreamers, silly business models, and "what were you thinking?" venture capitalists.

100 years ago, those people would have been involved in rail.

Today, they're in high-speed rail :)

The problem with modern technology is when the ideas get compromised for other agendas. This can give a poor overall impression of the industry.

I think this happened with a few of the LRT systems out there. Most work great as intended, though some come up short. I hope better happens with HSR. Midwest HSR has good potential (particularly Chicago-Milwaukee), but IMHO a California system is destined for successful ridership, based on urban demographics. I hope one other factor involved with these rail lines is that they would be designed to accommodate the coastal flooding expected due to global warming.

Lets just hope that the Simpson's episode "Marge vs. the Monorail" does not set the precedent for HSR this upcoming decade.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OC56hnyiP_s

http://www.snpp.com/episodes/9F10.html

With the comment about making the North East Corridor faster, no matter whose trains are used it is near impossible to run the route faster than 3.5 hrs from Boston South Station to NY Penn Station.

The RoW is has too many curves, the centerlines are too close, curve radii are too tight and the RoW is too narrow. The only way to make the Boston to NYC section faster is to do a major eminent domain run because the cities and towns are all built right up to and in some cases over the RoW. Currently the Acela can only run at full speed (150 mph) for a 35 miles in Rhode Island and New Jersey and a few other locations before it arrives in DC, route average is listed as 135 mph. Most of the other areas they are limited to slower speed because of the centerline distances / clearance between passing trains, any faster when they pass a train heading the other direction and the vacuum created becomes enough to pull the cars towards each other and the passing cars will rub. Then there is the fact that there is too much traffic on the line to allow faster trains: commuter lines (Metro-North & Shore Line East), Amtrak, and switching freight (CSX & P&W).

As they say everything can be solved with money, but this problem will need a wallet the size of the stimulus package to solve it.

As far as the Acela being expensive to run, keep in mind it is first class service when compared to the other trains traveling the same route so the ticket price is higher, also running faster tends to wear out things faster. Don't forget making last minute changes to a design while it was being built also adds to the acquisition cost when they were built.

Growing up in Ct, I would say that currently the NEC probably need less additional money when compared to the rest of the network based on the fact that the NEC, is one of 2 or 3 sections of the line that actually covers it costs fully, or close to it, with ticket sales. The other section I heard that was also covering it's costs was the Pacific Surfliner (at least that is what I think the route name was) and there may have been another section, possibly the Downeaster (Portland, Maine to Boston North Station).

Yeah the bus from Boston to NYC is only $20, but it takes longer during rush hours, and what are the other unpublished costs for maintaining the highways that are unmentioned when you take the bus? I would love to see what the price would be if the bus companies had to purchase & maintain their own RoWs, and not the state governments, basically an equivalent cost.

Rich C.

This is the funny thing about Acela, when I was in college I occasionally took Amtrak since it was more convenient. The funny thing is Amtrak's pricing strategy is all over the map if you ask me. Some times if I waited or got there 30mins earlier/later Acela was the same or less price than the regional train, so I would take the Acela.

One other problem Amtrak has on the northeast corridor, (though having ridden it about 6 times maybe I was unlucky) is keeping people off the tracks!!! I was on Acela I think they said that we were doing 75-90mph when we hit a kid who was walking on the tracks, that was a 4hour delay. The other time I was on Amtrak regional when the train in front of us hit a guy who decided he didn't want to live anymore. That was a 4hour delay too. If my record of 20%-30% of the time having my train being delayed due to my train hitting or the train in front of mine hitting a person is the norm (maybe I have been unlucky I don't have any statistics), I think that Amtrak has some real problems on their hands.

As for the bus vs train, well, the last 4miles of Greyhound's run aka the Boston Big Dig was just federally subsidized to the tune of 14billion in federal funds. All greyhound has to do is maintain a bunch of buses.

Does anyone know the historic schedule and time between NYC and Boston that the railroads ran 100yrs ago and how it compares to today? Who had the fastest revenue steam locomotive pulled passenger train and what was the speed compared to Acela's 135mph?

Adam