The train that broke the speed record in France is old news by now. But watching video clips of the train on Youtube got me thinking. Would I enjoy riding or watching a train go that fast? I don’t believe so. I think the Acela Express here on the Northeast Corridor is fast enough. Even on the Acela seeing scenery is a bit difficult. For those who have to get where they need to be fast, the Acela is a great thing. But for someone like me, who enjoys seeing what’s going by out the windows, 150 m.p.h. is fast enough nevermind 357 m.p.h that the train in France went. Standing trackside is even worse for me when it comes to high-speed trains. Others may be different, but I do not enjoy waiting for a train to go by that I can barely see while it races past. How about safety? Could a person survive a crash on a train going 357 m.p.h.? I’m not a scientist, but for some reason, faster is not always better in my opinion. What’s your feeling about this issue?
We have to remember that trains are not operated for our entertainment but as a business. High-Speed rail, even as it exists in the United States, is necessary to go after the business trade in the short-to-medium-haul markets. The average rider on an Acela is probably a businessman who is more attentive to his laptop than the passing scenery.
that’s true to a large extent. it’s also true for regular riders. While I may like the scenery (and you can still see it at 150 mph), I am not going to buy many tickets just to sit back and watch the scenery go buy. Let’s take the Pennsylvanian as an exammple. It takes about five hours to drive to Pitt from Philly, it takes 7 and a half hours by train. I might take it once to see the scenery but if the train took 5 hours I might take it a few times a year instead of driving. If it took 4 hours or less, I would definitely take it. maybe to see a baseball game, visit family more often, etc. At 7 and a half, I’ll just drive, fly, or not go at all. Higher speeds also equate to access. access translates to economic development. think about it. If Pitt is 4 hours from Philly, it’s now a 5h50m ride from NYC (or 5h15m if you use the Pitt subway). That said, I think getting the corridor up to 150 mph and the rest of the country up to 110 mph should take precedent over getting trains over 200 mph let alone 350.
…Pretty much agree with above post…My opinion on passenger train speed in this country would be try to design for 110 to 150 mph and it would attract more riders. At that speed one would think would be a good balance to safety and speed.
Perhaps routes like the Pittsburgh to Philly line couldn’t very easy be done without extreme expense, to avg. such speeds. Just take a look where the route passes thru to get around the less severe areas of the mountain ranges {N and S} across, Pennsylvania. It’s profile in central and west central parts of the state look like a saw tooth.
After getting thru and over the mountains it levels off and then perhaps could be made to support such higher speeds. I believe the line from Harrisburg to Philly recently upgraded, can now support speeds in the 110 mph range.
As far as high speed trains on the NEC, what is there to see? The backs of run down houses, warehouses, trees, occasional glimpses of the Interstate, the inside of a few tunnels (it is dark) lots of the side of the trench the train run through. The cities you can see for a short time as it is as you approach.
The rest of the country, a lot of the long distance trains are covering the reportly great view areas in the middle of the night.
yeah, I don’t know the feasibility of higher speeds but the average speed west of harrisburg is 48 mph. An average speed of even 60-mph would be much, much better. Where this is feasible and where it’s not is a different story. maybe we’re talking about electrifying to Albany, or upping speeds between Albany and Buffalo to 110 mph. maybe it’s chicago and KC. If enough peopel ride it, the trains may lose less (operating wise) and more people might see the benefit in laying out the large amounts of dough for even higher speeds.
At higher speeds - such as those we’re discussing - the foreground details tend to be blurred but the more distant scenery is perfectly enjoyable. It just goes past a bit faster!
Many of our European high speed lines are built in cuts. In other areas the routes are bordered by huge concrete fences, partially to prevent intruders but primarily to reduce the effects of noise for local residents. The German ICE routes, in particular, are not built with sightseeing in mind.
As for safety - in the UK earlier this year a track defect caused a train of modern build to derail and partially overturn at 95MPH with only one fatality, whilst in 2001 a train travelling at well over 100MPH hit an SUV which had crashed onto the line, derailed, and was deflected into the path of an oncoming unit coal train with seven fatalities, including the engineers of both trains.
Having said that, probably my favorite rail experience ever, and one that I repeat whenever I can, is the journey into NY Penn across Hell Gate. Some things just have to be taken sedately to fully appreciate!
Some time ago a UK TV program raced two people from the Empire State Building to the White House. One took Amtrak, the other travelled from JFK to BWI. The Amtrak passenger won comfortably. If the NEC can win business from the airlines by such illustrations of their prowess surely that vindicates the arguement for higher speeds.