House funds CA high speed rail:

Link (http://www.fresnobee.com/263/story/662610.html)

I think this is the wrong approach for high speed rail. If this approach was feasible, then entreprenuers would have done it years ago.

I believe a better approach is to create an evacuated cyclinder system in which maglev trains can travel, so that there is minimal wind resistance, saving enormous amounts of energy for freight shipments and passenger travel.

I can't imagine the cost of creating a massive reduced-pressure containment system for a shuttle train. The construction cost would be tremendous, and don't forget it will take energy to maintain the vacuum.

What would happen if something happened, and the train lost atmosphere containment? Hundred of people injured or dead?

I think a train running in standard atmospheric pressure makes a lot of sense in the long run - no pun intended. I'll even bet that there are some technologies that could reduce the train's friction through the air.

There are companies that make air handling systems for mine shafts that can evacuate these tubes efficiently, and then they only have to use enough energy to maintain the vacuum. As for cabin depressurization, airplanes already have safety features for that, so using the same systems is no problem. Tubes would be automatically re-pressurized in that instance.

It is no more expensive to build a pressure proof tube than to do all the other things you need to do for a high speed rail. Operation and maintenance would then be significantly cheaper.

Jason, what type of high-speed trains do Japan and China use ??

In any event, the cost of aquiring property and right of way will be enormous. If it could be built in the existing Federal Highway system (rte 5) easement that might have a better chance. A private firm will construct it, but the government must aquire the property.............

Japan and China are different countries, with different laws and rights (and lack thereof).

As an example, Amtrak has been a dismal failure for decades, so why create a high speed version of that debacle?

Only Japan and Europe have true high-speed rail systems. The only high-speed rail system in China is the Shanghai Maglev, which has been a massive money-loser, and was built primarily as an engineering showcase rather than a viable transport system.

Japan and Europe have viable high-speed train systems because World War II flattened their infrastructures and forced them to start all over in 1946. They didn't have any issues with going through people's homes and communities, so they could build the straightest tracks possible. The straight track is the real key to the high speed rail - even if a train can navigate a curve a high speeds the passengers will all fall out of their seats in the middle of that curve.

The best tracks in the Unites States are the tracks on the Northeast Corridor, and even then the trains can't easily do more than 165MPH. Even with that, the Accela trains rarely do more than 130MPH because Amtrak doesn't want to put stress on the infrastructure. Doing 165MPH means that the train set and overhead wire wears out earlier, and Amtrak dosen't believe in spending a lot of money on maintenance. Because of this, the 165MPH Accelas average about 120MPH.

Since we weren't "fortunate" enough to lose our infrastructure in a world war, any US high-speed rail needs to address the issue of straightening the tracks - which means a lot of site evaluations, followed by environmental impact studies, followed by protests and lawsuits, followed by nothing getting done in the end. The only places that wouldn't have this issue would be the lightly-populated areas of the US, where any high-speed rail system wouldn't be justified given the number of pasengers that would travel.

I'm a genuine rail fan, and live near the Northeast Corridor because I love to take trains. This is the one place in the US where you can go a lot of places by train. However, even here high-speed rail wouldn't justify the cost of new tracks.

As a final note, if you want to get more people to ride the trains, the easiest way would be to just add more parking spaces. Every weekday, every parking space on the Northeast Corridor is full. My own town has a waiting list of 2500 people currently waiting for a parking space. I waited 4 years for mine, and the current wait is now 8 years. If Amtrak would take some of the money from the latest federal funding and just build some parking lots, that alone would take a lot of cars off the roads!

Japan and China are different countries, with different laws and rights (and lack thereof).

As an example, Amtrak has been a dismal failure for decades, so why create a high speed version of that debacle?

Amtrak had a record number of trips last year, and are expected to break that record this year. Why should they discontinue funding, when there are few alternatives besides driving or flying to utilize?

Swimdad,

Good point about the parking lots, out here in California the parking lots are filled by 7am and we are already running at capacity. If they built a parking structure it would help out, the only question is where do people park when constructing the new parking garage. Thankfully, Congress passed that 15 billion for Amtrak, which is going to help out.

I'm sure going through the middle of the country they could implement high-speed rail, since it is mostly flat in these areas.