Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Improbable Story of the 184 MPH Jet Train

Posted by samzenpus on from the have-jet-will-travel dept.

MatthewVD writes Almost half a century ago, New York Central Railroad engineer Don Wetzel and his team bolted two J47-19 jet engines, throttled up the engines and tore down a length of track from Butler, Indiana to Stryker, Ohio at almost 184 mph. Today, the M-497 still holds the record for America's fastest train. This is the story of how it happened.

122 of 195 comments (clear)

  1. A Century Ago by djupedal · · Score: 1, Troll

    ....there were electric trams in New York. Then, a major US corporation named GMC lobbied to have them shut down and replaced with fossil-fueled rubber tired buses.

    The result is the situation we enjoy today. Not a random act of destiny, but more an act of corporate greed, irresponsibility and old fashioned govt. graft. Welcome to America.

    1. Re:A Century Ago by Charliemopps · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Keep in mind, the majority of the negatives you're attributing to malice weren't even a concern to the majority of scientists at the time.

    2. Re:A Century Ago by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This. Fast trains are not rocket science...unless you live in the US of A. Here it is a Jetson's fantasy future world to have trains that can get you from point A to B faster than a car.

      In the rest of the world, meh, not so much. Been there, done that.

      Hate to break it you America, but our shit does stink. We're headed toward 3rd world status, all for the want of motivation.

      I'll get modded to negative infinity pretty soon by the folks who can't face the truth, but America needs to get off its ass and get moving on a really basic level.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    3. Re:A Century Ago by chispito · · Score: 1

      Look at LA's transit history. Or watch Who Framed Roger Rabbit. Of course, in reality the Judge Dooms of this world won.

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    4. Re:A Century Ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

      It turns out that the US have a much better freight rail system than Europe. This is main reason that rail travel is slow in the US.

    5. Re:A Century Ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Europeans laugh when Americans think 100 years is a long time.

      Americans laugh when Europeans think 100 miles is a long distance.

      Any trip in America much longer than one tank of gas you're most likely better off flying, because if you're going that far you're probably going a LONG ways, and jets are faster than any train will ever be. America, unlike Europe, simple lacks a sufficient number of destinations beyond casual driving distance but close enough for trains to still beat planes because they don't have multi-hour turnarounds at every destination (i.e. ~100 - 400mi range, ballpark). And unless you take the train into a city center, congratulations, you have no way to cover the last few miles once you get off the train, whereas if you drive, the car's wonderful "goes exactly where you want" property comes into effect.

    6. Re:A Century Ago by Sique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Jets might be faster for the actual distance, but considering the whole time of travel, they aren't really faster. Boarding a train takes 5 mins. boarding a plane with all the security checks takes 1 hour. In this 55 mins, a bullet train of 150 mph goes 100 miles (and that's including acceleration). And then you have to go to the airport, while the train station is downtown, this takes another 1 hrs to get there, and 1 hrs to go from the airport downtown at your destination. In this time, the train has covered another 200 miles. Yes, the plane may take for the 400 mls flight only 1 hour, but the whole trip takes you 4 hrs, and in this time, the train makes it also to the destination.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    7. Re:A Century Ago by Bearhouse · · Score: 1

      You're right.

      OK France is much smaller than the USA, but it's still pretty big, and the TGV trains have been a huge success, attracting travellers away from air and road. With zero fatalities since its inception.
      And of course, runs on cheap, low-carbon electricty generated by France's nuclear power stations...
      So fast, safe and green. What more do you want?

      http://www.thetransportpolitic...

    8. Re:A Century Ago by stomv · · Score: 2

      That, and the insistence of running freight, commuter rail, and long distance passenger rail on the same set of tracks.

      --
      Support a few technologists in Washington.
    9. Re:A Century Ago by captbob2002 · · Score: 2

      That's a nice story you have there. The reality is a little more complex than an attractive conspiracy theory. http://www.citylab.com/commute...

    10. Re:A Century Ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Street cars are great when nobody can afford a car. Once everybody can afford a car, your trolleys are not so convenient, and fewer people ride them. And then what? You can't just move the tracks to where your riders are or where they want to go. This is especially a problem in a sprawling place like LA.

      So you have all this infrastructure (tracks) to maintain with fixed costs that don't depend on ridership. What do you do when ridership on one of your routes decreases below what it costs to maintain?

      A bus, OTOH, doesn't have that cost. When your riders move around, you just drive the bus closer to where they are. When they want to start going to different places, just start driving to different places. You share the road with everybody else, but you share the maintenance costs as well.

      The reason GM was able to buy all those rail lines to replace them with buses is that they were all going bankrupt. Trains compete well against horses and walking, but not against cars. Once cars ceased to be luxury goods, trains couldn't compete, and had to be replaced by buses.

      dom

    11. Re:A Century Ago by Sique · · Score: 1

      I don't know of you. but there are offers for a train trip Vienna - Berlin for 39,- and less (78,- for both directions).

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    12. Re:A Century Ago by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      That, and the insistence of having Nevada, Utah, Colorado, Kansas and a whole Imperial crapload of miles between the population centers. (Sorry, Denver, you don't really count.)

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    13. Re:A Century Ago by marcovje · · Score: 1

      Note that the TGV network stretches into neighboring countries like Belgium and Germany (e.g. Aachen) too, and connects to German ICE. The Netherlands have a branch too, but it is not running full speed yet. The Netherlands and Belgium are much smaller than France, but more densely populated.

    14. Re:A Century Ago by Talderas · · Score: 2

      I had a flight from my local airport to Dallas/FtWorth which is about 750 miles. My boarding time was 8:46am with the flight taking off at 9:11am, scheduled.

      It takes 30 minutes for me to drive to the airport, though I live on the opposite side of the city from where it's located. I arrived at the airport at 8:43am. Printed my boarding passes off, there, at 8:45am. I was in and through the TSA checkpoint by 8:49am. I was on the plane by 8:53am (10 minutes to board my plane). We were in the air by 9:07am for what I think was a 2 hour 20 minute flight. I got my rental car and drove to where I needed to go in Ft Worth, which was about another 30 minutes. Total time spent was about 3hrs and 40 minutes. This is a 750 mile distance.

      In my time spent flying the time I've spent in a TSA line has been as low as 2 minutes and as high as 20 minutes.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    15. Re:A Century Ago by marcovje · · Score: 1

      Highspeed trains are mostly interesting for midlong distances (till 1000 km), and specially from urban center to urban center.

      1) trains are faster.
      2) but more importantly trains still move reasonably fast in and near urban centers
      3) While budget flights (if they happen to go from/to where you want) are cheaper they often require extended checkin times and airport to center commute negating time advantages

    16. Re:A Century Ago by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      But you move your routes around and suddenly there are people who have lost service. Your service is now known as something that can't be relied on so people have to obtain their own vehicles "just in case" and so your service becomes even less popular.

      Buses are a losing game and most only really survive through subsidies.

    17. Re:A Century Ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, the TSA is well on their way to solving that problem. They've been working on getting the same security hassle in the train stations for a while now...

    18. Re:A Century Ago by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      They are also harder to figure out. It's pretty easy to figure out a streetcar / light rail line: the station is the big thing with the platform, it travels along the tracks.

      With a bus you need to know where the stops are; with a train line, you can just walk until you find the tracks, then walk on the road nearby until you find the station.

      If you see a station near your point of origin and a station at your destination, you already know a lot of useful information about the transit system without needing to look anything up.

      You see trains every so often so you subconsciously absorb whether they run weekends, how late, etc.

      With buses there are more variables to consider (is that bus I saw out of service, does it normally run on this route, etc).

      In addition to usage based service changes, a bus route can be diverted to random alternate streets for events. The train route can't, so they divert the special events away from the tracks.

    19. Re:A Century Ago by Megol · · Score: 1

      I'm European and don't think 100 miles is an especially long distance. To visit my sister I have to travel >300 miles. Car is okay, flight is also okay (but transfer to/from airports take a lot of time) but taking the high speed train is fast, comfortable and inexpensive. Even counting the transfer to the nearest train station the train is the fastest way to travel. And while doing that using Internet on the notebook computer (plugged into an AC jack) and relaxing in the comfortable chair

    20. Re:A Century Ago by tompaulco · · Score: 1

      I don't know what airline you are on, but if you arrived at 8:43 for a 9:07 flight on most airlines, they would not let you on the plane. Policy is that you must be at the boarding area 30 minutes prior to takeoff. Many of them won't even let you check in and get your boarding pass, let alone attempt to make it through security.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    21. Re:A Century Ago by Carnildo · · Score: 1

      The majority of passenger trips in the US are either less than 50 miles, or more than a thousand, with almost nothing in between. At the short end, the flexibility of car travel beats the cost reduction of rail; at the long end, the speed of air travel beats rail.

      The only exception to this is the BosWash area, where -- guess what? -- Amtrak is able to provide profitable rail service. It's not motivation that keeps the US from having good passenger rail service, it's geography.

      --
      "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
    22. Re:A Century Ago by delt0r · · Score: 1

      Yea but there is like 3 tickets available per train. Trains and flights are fairly comparable. But trains don't get that expensive for last minute travel. I use the trains a lot in fact.

      --
      If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
    23. Re:A Century Ago by Irate+Engineer · · Score: 1

      I'm both an engineer and have served America in the USAF for many years.

      Learn some manners or get out of MY country.

      --

      Left MS Windows for Linux Mint and never looked back!

      Vote for Bernie in 2016!

    24. Re: A Century Ago by colinnwn · · Score: 1

      I'd say you are lucky and possibly have a really good Federal Security Director at your airport. I regularly spend a half hour in the TSA line and have spent over an hour multiple times in different cities. Though to be fair I've also gotten through in 5 minutes, and the time isn't necessarily predictable. If you need to check a bag that can add 5 minutes to an hour, plus the 20 minutes in advance that you should be at the gate and the fact that airlines and the TSA aren't generally sympathetic if you are running late means being at the airport 2 hours in advance usually makes sense to do.

  2. Railroads killed by the government... by mi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, I know, I know. The crazy Libertarian talk. But that is, what happened — a combination of government regulating the cost of tickets, while imposing heavy taxes and building highways, where automobiles — both passenger and goods-carrying — could travel for less and less.

    And then Amtrak took over all passenger rail-travel, and has never shown a profit since — losing money on the most idiotic things — while, demanding the passengers "carry identification at all times"...

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    1. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by serviscope_minor · · Score: 5, Informative

      And then Amtrak took over all passenger rail-travel, and has never shown a profit since

      Neither has the interstate system. And AMTRACK has to compete with that *massively* subsized road system.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless you count gas-taxes re-appripiated for mass-transit as a 'profit'.

      Most of the Interstate is supported by fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are paid for by drivers. Who use the Interstate. So, I'd say that it's a pretty good case of 'user pays'.

    3. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by squiggleslash · · Score: 2, Informative

      I think pretty much everyone accepts the government killed passenger rail. It's not just what you mention, but also state support for suburbanization and the running down of Urban areas, including effective bans on Urban redevelopment (well meant but poorly thought out "parking mandates" effectively made it prohibitively expensive to redevelop land in cities), leading to the flight out of cities to areas where car ownership was mandatory.

      As far as Amtrak losing money on food service, despite it becoming a right-wing meme that this true, it's dubious at best. Amtrak doesn't charge enough for food to cover the costs of providing it, but that's normal, both commercial services - even pre-1950s when most passenger services were profitable - and government provided services generally don't expect to make their money from charges for food.

      What makes food service profitable is that passengers ride the train that otherwise wouldn't. Tell Amtrak to discontinue food service, and it would destroy ridership on their already poorly performing long distance services. The subsidy needed to continue operating them would skyrocket, and would be immensely high per-passenger.

      This wouldn't even be an argument but for some stupid politics in the 1980s, where Congress started to micromanage the service and decided, despite the fact no commercial railroad would dream of doing such a thing, to demand Amtrak make food service "pay" for itself out of food service charges, rather than be paid for in part through ticket revenue.

      So why is Amtrak unprofitable?

      Amtrak's actually pretty profitable in one area, the NEC, which is where they control their tracks and were able to build a redundant (that is, a train covering stops already covered by other trains) service that people actually wanted to use, and charge commercial rates for it.

      The big problem is outside of that area, it has much less flexibility. It runs very slow (average 40mph) trains that are slow because they stop every 20-30 minutes. Why do they stop every 20-30 minutes?

      Want to know? Specifically, why does the SIlver Star stop in both Orlando and Winter Park which are both part of the same metro area?

      Answer: because Orlando gives them Corrine Brown's vote when funding comes up in Congress, and Winter Park gets them a (semi-reluctant, he's having to avoid attacks of being a RINO from a strong Tea Party movement) John Mica's vote. And likewise there's a train in, I don't know, the North West that stops every twenty minutes to get votes there too. And each vote crosses over. The votes in the North West are for both the Empire Builder and the Silver Star, you can't vote for one without the other. Brown and Mica's votes are, again, for the Silver Star and the Empire Builder.

      Ludicrous? Yes. But we don't have a Congress based upon people deciding the "right" thing to do for the country, we have one based upon people deciding the popular thing for their constituents.

      Given enough capital funding, Amtrak could probably do to the rest of the country what it's done to the North East, but it'll never get that funding, because what it needs to do is something that'd involve dropping stops, and thus dropping supporters. The good news is that private railroads are finally taking an interest, and there are projects in both Florida and Texas right now - active, in the process of getting regulatory approval, by companies who own or will own the tracks - to start building what people want to use, not what Congress makes possible.

      I'm not blaming Amtrak for this state of affairs. I'm blaming Congress, and by extension, us voters.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by pupsocket · · Score: 2

      The long-distance railroads in the U.S. were built by giving away land stolen from other peoples. Not just land to build the lines on, but a checkerboard of land for miles on both sides of the track, land that the railroads could sell to recoup their capital.

      Many of these railroads were later bought out by John D. Rockefeller so that he could kill his competitors in the oil business by making it unprofitable for anyone else to transport petroleum.

      Subsidy and monopoly are the parents of American railroads. Only businesses benefit. Humans can take the highway.

    5. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      a pretty good case of 'user pays'.

      More than 99% of road wear is caused by heavy trucks. Once again, humans subsidize businesses.

    6. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Contrast with Japan. Their nationalized railway network was privatized decades ago, and along with the other private railways it is heavily regulated. Yet it is still a massive success, investing vast amounts of money in infrastructure and upgrades.

      Regulation isn't the problem, stupidity is.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by swillden · · Score: 1

      Unless you count gas-taxes re-appripiated for mass-transit as a 'profit'.

      Most of the Interstate is supported by fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are paid for by drivers. Who use the Interstate. So, I'd say that it's a pretty good case of 'user pays'.

      Your argument would work if the fuel taxes funded the construction and maintenance of the interstates. They don't. If we wanted them to, we could get there without raising the fuel taxes paid by passenger vehicles, in fact those might possibly be reduced (though the reductions should probably be replaced with carbon taxes, used to fund carbon sequestration). Taxes on the fuel (or whatever) paid by trucks, however, should increase several fold, since they cause the vast majority of the highway construction and maintenance costs.

      I really wish we'd fix up our highway funding so that it is usage supported, ending the massive subsidy we give the trucking system. Doing that would cause most of our bulk freight to move from the highways to rail, which is more energy-efficient and would make passenger highway travel safer. Unfortunately, it would also cost a lot of jobs in the trucking industry which wouldn't be offset by jobs in the more manpower-efficient rail industry, and that makes it politically impossible.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    8. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by captbob2002 · · Score: 1

      ...Most of the Interstate is supported by fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are paid for by drivers.

      Who are not now paying enough into the system (highway trust fund) to keep it solvent due to the combination of rising costs for maintenance and rebuilding of the highway system and the loss of revenue generated by the fuel taxes as cars have grown more efficient. At some point fuel taxes will need to be raised, tolls imposed, or more money from elsewhere in the budget shifted to highways. That'll be a fun fight to watch and the roads and bridges crumble

    9. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by Virtucon · · Score: 3, Informative

      You know it amazes me to still here this from folks. I'll let you in on a little secret. The reason Amtrak was formed was because the Penn Central was bleeding money and they had the Northeast Corridor (NEC). Since a lot of Congressmen and Senators actually rode the train into DC this could be a problem if the Penn curtailed or discontinued service. Of course it couldn't because it had a long standing agreements with the government to provide passenger service. As a matter of fact all of the huge land tracks that were granted to railroads in this country included little hooks for passenger rail service. Sure, the railroads from post WWII were losing money on passenger service because people were buying cars and the feds were sponsoring airports and the national highway system. But instead of letting the railroads drop unprofitable lines, the government pushed them to continue their agreements. The government regulated Railroads and some thing airlines are the most regulated, think again. The CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) covering Railroads is extensive and still in force even in a deregulation climate. Some of the passenger services became shadows such as running an RCD (Rail Car Diesel) as a train for example instead of a multi-car train. The point is the government has been involved in Railroads in this country for a very long time. Republican or Democratic administrations, it doesn't matter hell the PRR received a $77m loan for electrification from the new deal which was a chunk of change back then. For comparison the Hoover dam only cost $46m during the same era.

      So in the late 60s the Penn Central now with more absorbed Railroads consolidated and more miles of track and debt tied on started losing money, so much so that it filed for bankruptcy in 1970. This sent a shock wave up and down the east coast. Backroom deals were being hashed because a Federal Bankruptcy judge would allow the Penn Central to abandon less profitable passenger service, even if they had contracts and deals to provide it. What would the east coast people do and more importantly how would the Senators and Congressman who'd become accustomed to getting to / from DC quickly do? So a backroom deal was done and Amtrak was created but when other Railroads heard about the deal they said "hey, no fair" and lobbied their Congressmen and Senators and that's why boys and girls all interstate passenger rail service went to Amtrak as part of the Rail Passenger Service Act of 1970 Of course the NEC was untouched but most of the country lost passenger service. At that point the Feds were 100% in the Railroad business and because it was set up as a for profit corporation under the DOT that meant that nobody in Amtrak could ever do anything like drop or add routes without bureaucrats or congressional approval. That's not a company, that's a federal service and more importantly Amtrak is the Federal Governments toy railroad with special earmarks having been placed in front if it all along the way to add or improve service. That's all politics and Amtrak could be viable if it was allowed to drop everything but the NEC but that's not going to happen and really, think about this: Amtrak's total budget request for 2014 was $2.6 billion. Considering how much money we put into horseshit in this country that's not a lot of money but if you want Amtrak to be a independent corporation, which it isn't, it has to have an independent board who aren't appointed by the DOT and it has to be given enough funding to stretch into profitability and also, regrettably it needs to abandon routes that don't make financial sense.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    10. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      And then Amtrak took over all passenger rail-travel, and has never shown a profit since.

      Passenger rail has never been a profitable business in the US.

    11. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by stdarg · · Score: 1

      That's hard to believe. Freeze/thaw cycles, heavy rain, etc are less than 1% of road wear?

    12. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by operagost · · Score: 1

      Diesel fuel tax is higher than gasoline.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    13. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by operagost · · Score: 1

      As far as Amtrak losing money on food service, despite it becoming a right-wing meme that this true, it's dubious at best.

      It's not a truthiness issue-- they really do lose money on food service. You contradicted yourself later in your own post! I understand that food service may have long been a "loss leader" in the industry, but the fact is THEY LOSE MONEY ON FOOD SERVICE.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    14. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      a pretty good case of 'user pays'.

      More than 99% of road wear is caused by heavy trucks. Once again, humans subsidize businesses.

      OK, I'll bite. If you don't want humans to subsidize business, who are you suggesting? Cats? Aliens?

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by Idarubicin · · Score: 2

      Most of the Interstate is supported by fuel taxes. Fuel taxes are paid for by drivers. Who use the Interstate. So, I'd say that it's a pretty good case of 'user pays'.

      Used to be more true, not so much today. The Highway Trust Fund - which is funded by a combination of federal fuel and vehicle taxes - has been bailed out before ($35 billion between 2008 and 2010) and is out of money again this year. And the federal government has turned over responsibility for the interstate highways to the individual states, so a big chunk of the construction, maintenance, and repair bills actually comes from the states.

      Looking at 2010 numbers, total spending nationwide on highways was about $155 billion. The federal gas tax brought in $28 billion; state and local fuel taxes amounted to another $37 billion; plus state and local governments picked up another $12 billion from tolls and non-fuel taxes. All in all, that's about $77 billion in revenue for $155 billion in expenditures. Drivers are paying about...51% of the cost of the highway network.

      For comparison, I note a comment below that shows in fiscal 2012 Amtrak spent $4.036 billion and had revenues of $2.877 billion. In other words, Amtrak riders paid 71% of their costs out of pocket--a much bigger share of the costs than highway users.

      --
      ~Idarubicin
    16. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by marcovje · · Score: 1

      He means that a business should hold its own belt up, and not be financed via the government by allocation of taxes.

      In short, charge toll and let them pass the charge on to consumers via their products/services pricing.. That's the capitalistic way, not the commie state taking taxes from personal traffic and going light on business driving. (that being said, in Europe it is the same. Consumers pay much more for driving (gas taxes and direct road taxes) than business drivers)

      That being said, I would argue that normal erosion factors (like rain/flood/freezing) are a bigger factor than 1%

    17. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by squiggleslash · · Score: 1

      No, I didn't contradict myself otherwise you'd have quoted me contradicting myself, instead of acknowledging it using different phrasing, "loss leader".

      Again:

      What makes food service profitable is that passengers ride the train that otherwise wouldn't. Tell Amtrak to discontinue food service, and it would destroy ridership on their already poorly performing long distance services. The subsidy needed to continue operating them would skyrocket, and would be immensely high per-passenger.

      If something results in more revenue without a corresponding or larger rise in costs, it's never legitimate to describe it as "loss making." Never. So yes, it's entirely valid for me to call the claim "dubious at best".

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    18. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by jittles · · Score: 1

      That's hard to believe. Freeze/thaw cycles, heavy rain, etc are less than 1% of road wear?

      Where I live? Yes. But we don't have freeze/thaw cycles and the roads are designed specifically with the rain in mind.

    19. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by ogdenk · · Score: 1

      — while, demanding the passengers "carry identification at all times"...

      Yeah.... if I want to deal with TSA Gestapo bullshit, I'll just fly. The cost is comparable to flying if you buy a soda or two on the train. And you get there slower.

      If taking the rails were less hassle, the trains were better maintained and slightly faster, I'd choose them every time for domestic travel over flying.

      The TSA is KILLING commercial mass transit IMHO.

    20. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by volmtech · · Score: 1

      Many things are not economic if they are not subsidized in some way. Our country has it's own society. What helps one part of society helps us all (yes, socialism). My community helps me; libraries, law enforcement and open emergency rooms are just a few things provided my my community ( COMMUNISM !!!). My truckload of Omaha beef is subsidized by vegetarians who pay road taxes. Their load of tofu is subsidized by me, it equalized out.

    21. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      By your logic, a fast food restaurant "loses money" by providing beverage cups. Yet for some reason, restaurants that make customers bring their own cups are practically unheard of.

      For that second sentence,
      s/restaurant/long distance railroad
      s/cups/food
      .

    22. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by mi · · Score: 1

      The reason Amtrak was formed was because the Penn Central was bleeding

      Yep. The classic case of:

      • If it moves, tax it
      • if it keeps moving — regulate it
      • When it stops moving — subsidize it.

      Seems like you are confirming what I said, even though you begin with a rhetorical disbelief of hearing it again...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    23. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      Thank you.

    24. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by Virtucon · · Score: 1

      It's not rhetoric when it's fact. Railroads have a very poor history when it comes to dealing fairly with the public and there was a real threat based upon facts and incidents that led to the regulations but if the people believe that the huge tracts of land that were granted to the industry didn't come with strings, then they're sadly mistaken. Hence they were probably more unfairly regulated and tasked with mandates including mandatory passenger service. It was for the public good and for fostering growth in the country. To see how bad things were if a Railroad dominated a region, read "The Octopus: A story of California" by Frank Norris. While it fictionalized the struggles that were created by the Southern Pacific-Central Pacific Railroad in California in the years following completion of the Transcontinental Railroad. It was the Mussle Slough incident and five people who resisted the Railroad were killed. The Southern Pacific-Central Pacific controlled the rails, the heavy wagons and the ferries. They also had huge tracts of land and would charge whatever they wanted. It was so bad that to a point that you couldn't move any freight in California without them getting a cut. So the California government and the feds stepped in. A lot of the CFRs covering Railroads are there for safety for example boilers on steam locomotives that could explode if not properly maintained or tested or care for the widows and children of workers killed while working on the Railroad. Those are actually good regulations but as you indicate if it keeps moving regulate it but we can't just get rid of all of it not without suffering the repercussions of businesses left unchecked.

      Regrettably the Cato institute somehow thinks that all of that unnecessary regulation and government interference is bad, too much can be very bad while not enough is the same that's where the balance has to be maintained. So if you want a true Business friendly environment go back to the 1880s in California and let me know how that works for you. As a Conservative myself I have to shake my head at some of the horseshit that spouts out of the Cato institute because their way of thinking isn't even close to mine.

      --
      Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
    25. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      What you list are economic activities. Those are what humans intend to subsidize. We do not intend to favor specific businesses or to kill off businesses that would otherwise thrive.

      The trucking industry operates with large enough organizations to influence policy in its favor. That industry is as large as it is because it has an unfair cost advantage over other modes of transport and because it has successfully hidden its subsidies while ensuring the failure of rail transportation.

      Well, that's business. The fundamental corruption is in the legislature.

    26. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      The Nordic report cited above indicates that deterioration from environmental effects is not significant. Doesn't sound right, but then none of this matches intuition.

      Speculation based on cursory reading: Since trucks do their worst where pavement is rough, the freeze-thaw cycle doesn't get a chance to do its worst because the trucks are too quick at expanding fissures and pounding the edges of cracks. Once trucks start tearing up a roadway, the destruction accelerates because tires bang asphalt at all angles and concentrate their load on a smaller area with shuddering stress.

    27. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by volmtech · · Score: 1

      After a few minutes thought I can see how our legislature freed us from the tyranny of the railroad barons and allowed free transportation of goods and people. One man with a truck can deliver a twenty ton load almost anywhere in the nation in less than a week. Imaging the logistics for shipping half a boxcar away from the main line.

      Railroads have a place. In the nineteenth century towns and farms by necessity grew near the tracks but the our system of interstates and state highways has allowed the population to spread out and still have all our necessitates delivered to our door. Of course I have my own loading dock on my farm, I may be prejudice. Growing a perishable crop, no way could I depend on a monolithic rail system to safely delivery my produce. One call to a truck broker and I can have ten trucks in my lot at five AM willing to go anywhere in the county and guarantee safe delivery.

      For myself I am building props for an event ninety miles away. I can rent a truck and delivery them myself in two hours. Hide in a subway if you want, I'll take the open road.

    28. Re:Railroads killed by the government... by pupsocket · · Score: 1

      I'm not against trucks. I just think that trains that can carry 600 people downtown to downtown at 300 kph shouldn't be something citizens of the United States can experience only overseas.

      P.S. If I wanted to hide, I'd head to the old farm. It's pretty hard to hide in a subway.

  3. And? by ledow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So in 1966 it took two jet engines to reach 184mph.

    Whereas in 1938 it took only a quite ordinary, in-service steam train to get to 125mph.

    Does anyone think that, by comparison, the jet-engine thing isn't really that impressive?

    1. Re:And? by Belial6 · · Score: 2

      That's how I feel about my 2012 Prius getting 42 MPG while my 1992 Geo Metro got 52 MPG.

    2. Re:And? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2

      Oh, dear. _Energy_ is half the mass times the velocity squared. I'm afraid that's directly tied to the amount of fuel needed, not counting losses, to achieve that speed without friction. It's not really tied to the capabilities of the engines involved.

      The difficulty is the necessary _thrust_, or force, needed to overcome resistance and _accumulate_ that much energy, and that much momentum, in the train itself. Even a well designed train will have considerable friction losses, at those speeds, in its own wheels and bearings. And the air resistance of a not-well-streamlined object can go up as the cube or more of the velocity, as turbulence forms and makes the resistive losses even worse.

    3. Re:And? by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      Wind resistance follows a square law. It is impressive to get 47% more speed.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    4. Re:And? by jonbryce · · Score: 4, Informative

      The Eurostar between London and Paris / Brussels does 300km/h (186 mph), and that is a normal scheduled service. It isn't even the fastest scheduled service in France.

    5. Re:And? by stephanruby · · Score: 1

      Here, in 'Murica, you must drive your car, citizen! Taking a train anywhere is blasphemy. You will be punished by courteous service, relaxed (but not the most expedient) travel, and sensible security precautions.

      To be fair, taking a train to New York, or to San Francisco, is fine. It's only blasphemy when you take a train to a city like LA, where public transportation is a joke, and you end up waiting for a scheduled city bus that never comes.

      You might as well just fly and rent a car when you get there, it's actually faster, more flexible (despite the TSA), and much cheaper than the train (assuming you don't mind planning your trips in advance and losing your checked-in luggage as a normal cost of flying in the USA).

    6. Re:And? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      A Bugatti Veyron has a 8L W6 quad-turbo 1000HP engine and goes 400kph.
      My old subaru wagon had a 2L twin turbo 280HP engine with a top speed of 270kph.

      That's only about 47% faster too.
      Not really that impressive!

      retard.

    7. Re:And? by ledow · · Score: 1

      Further to my post:

      The Mallard was steam-powered. It had 157.7kN of tractive effort. That's force (thrust) before rolling resistance.

      Each one of those jets has 23kN of thrust before resistance. So two of them is still less than half of the Mallard EVEN IF you assume that half it's total energy is wasted trying to push the wheels at that speed.

      And this had been 30 years earlier. Within only months of being built, and then going on to retirement as a normal train in 1963. This train had done it, casually, in testing, within weeks of being made, not on a test-track, and then served for 30 years before the jet-train had even existed.

      And the drivers were in no doubt that it could have gone faster but they were on ordinary in-service train tracks with a 15mph speed limit at one point in their run! They weren't even really trying, and certainly couldn't have dared to try it as if it were a full-on effort to max out the speed as it was on a normal rail line through the British countryside.

      Does this not just scream that, actually, strapping a couple of jets to something doesn't make it the "fastest" anything compared to decent engineering?

      Sorry, I'm not a train nut, but I'm infinitely more impressed by the Mallard than I am some jet-train.

    8. Re:And? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      The thing is the jet train - now I appreciate the effort and it is pretty cool - wasn't a train at all, it was just a light locomotive. The Mallard record was done with a train. It wasn't just a light loco, there were other vehicles coupled to the Mallard when it did the 125mph run.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    9. Re:And? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Hey Jimmy*, drag is proportional to the square of velocity *because* of air resistance. Thought you might like to know, but knowledge doesn't seem to be your happy place.

      Please re-read "Jimmy"'s post. He was speaking about energy being proportional to the square of velocity, not drag. Reading comprehension...

    10. Re:And? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      a teacher teaches

      ... but good teachers also listen. And recognize when a student gets it right, even if the student expresses it "strangely". Irate Engineer doesn't seem to be able to notice when somebody speaks about energy rather than drag... and even if both may be proportional to the square of velocity, they are not the same thing!

    11. Re:And? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      That's not even fast... some cyclists are that fast!

    12. Re:And? by Andy_R · · Score: 1

      The frontal area to mass ratio of a train is tiny compared to almost every other form of transport, so that's less of a problem.

      The limiting factor with trains is usually the track, for really high speeds you need to almost completely smooth out the bends and flatten the hills, the impressive part of the jet train is that it went so fast on a track designed for much, much lower speeds.

      --
      A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
    13. Re:And? by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

      Hey Jimmy*, drag is proportional to the square of velocity *because* of air resistance. Thought you might like to know, but knowledge doesn't seem to be your happy place.

      You don't know what you're talking about AC, so please shut the hell up and let the more knowledgeable adults talk, m'kay?

      And before you start getting all snarky, I teach engineering, and I am quite capable of telling you that you don't know your ass from your elbow.

      You don't know your ass from your elbow.

      So shut up. Now.

      *Jimmy is my favorite pet name for dumbshits that don't know basic physics but like to spout off like they do on Slashdot.

      Not to beat a dead horse but drag is a force not a unit of power or energy and the amount of power needed to overcome drag is proportional to the cube of velocity not its square. While the force from drag is important in terms of the design of the train and the materials used in it's construction, it's the power requirement that is the determining factor for the engine spec.

    14. Re:And? by squiggleslash · · Score: 2

      Nah. There's a lot of crap spoken about the NYC Jet train thing. One presumption, which has more to do with smarty-pants hindsight, is that it was a prototype for a serious train, that NYC actually planned to run high speed trains like that. But that's not the case.

      NYC added jets to some unused rolling stock because it was a _quick_ _cheap_ way to get a train to go fast. They wanted a train to go fast because they were studying how high speed trains would interact with the track. Would it be possible to run them without huge infrastructure upgrade costs?

      And lest you think "But track's track right? Surely all they have to do is make it strong enough", there are known problems with running trains at high speed on conventional track without significant engineering. The major one is something called "Hunting", which is an oscillation of the wheel sets between one extreme and the other that generates a kind of feedback loop. With slower trains, it's not a problem, there's not enough energy involved, but as the train reaches higher speeds, the wheelsets oscillate left and right with greater, and greater, violence. Anything over 100mph generally is thought to require a certain amount of attention.

      "OK", you say, "But why jets? Why not just regear a normal locomotive and have it carry a couple of cars so it can get to that speed?" The answer to that is that a normal locomotive is heavy. Virtually every vision of high speed rail from sane people (that is, people who don't work for the Federal Railroad Administration) involves trains that are as light weight as practically possible, because heavy = more energy needed to start the train, heavy = more problems stopping the train in an emergency, and heavy = greater damage to tracks. Sticking a Jet, designed for an aircraft, a device known for needing designs where every pound of weight is justified, on a railroad carriage doesn't sound so insane now does it?

      Had NYC continued to exist rather than being merged into PR in the horrific Penn Central project, and decided to make a serious go of this, you would have expected the research to lead to a conventional EMU style train, or maybe something like the APT with light weight cars and as light weight as possible electric motive units. No trains with jets. It's an interesting question what the railroad map of the US would have looked like had governments not imposed impractical restrictions on urban redevelopment, had they not overregulated the railroads, and had the Penn Central never happened.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    15. Re:And? by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      It's strange how your Metro is nearly 10MPG higher then it's rated economy, while your Prius is 10MPG lower than it's. Plus I also bet your Metro didn't get anywhere near 52MPG city driving where your Prius is designed for it's best economy due to regenerative braking.

    16. Re:And? by operagost · · Score: 1

      The gap would have been much smaller in 1992, when the fuel in the Metro didn't contain 10% ethanol. My 2004 Olds doesn't hit its EPA rated MPG even on highway trips with little traffic and no stops now-- the engine runs perfectly but gets 1-2 MPG fewer.

      I don't know whether the new EPA rating methods take this into account. Note that for the Metro, there's a link for "view original EPA MPG". it says 47, although I do believe there was a model year when it was rated for 49.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    17. Re:And? by nblender · · Score: 1

      In the late 1800's, Dr. Emmett Brown and Marty McFly got a train up to just over 88mph before it careened off the end of a bridge still being constructed. No rockets were used in that endeavor. Just carefully staged fuel pellets. I watched a documentary on this a long time ago.

    18. Re:And? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      He has the heart of a teacher.

      He keeps it in a box under his bed with the other trophies.

    19. Re:And? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      TSA is on right on that...

      http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08...

    20. Re:And? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      How much lower? I get pretty close (around 22mpg)

    21. Re:And? by ebh · · Score: 1

      Well, crap, now I have to post in order to undo a moderation mistake. :(

      ObTopic: Sure we could have zillion-mpg cars. Instead of conventional creature comforts, you get new forms of in-car entertainment, like being able to tell what brand of coffee the body panels used to surround.

    22. Re:And? by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      My Metro had AC, and had no problem reading 75MPH under normal driving conditions. Sure the Prius has more power, and more safety features, but given that it is 20 years later, and the system is massively more complex, I can't forgive the 10mpg. Even if the Prius matched the metro in MPG, it would still be unimpressive that the Toyota engineers could only match the Metro when they added the little bit of extra power and massive amounts of complexity.

      Read the original post. The complain isn't that the newer device isn't more powerful. It is that the newer device adds massive complexity and cost to achieve minimal improvements.

  4. Re:Nice site by waddgodd · · Score: 4, Informative

    You realize the J47 is a GE jet? Of course they're going to have a "look what cool stuff has been done with our crap" story or five. It's prolly the only place you can find that story told in a semi-reliable fashion anymore.

    --
    Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
  5. Europeans bring lattes on their 180mph trains by Ukab+the+Great · · Score: 1, Troll

    Americans bring jet engines on their 180mph trains. Conclusion: Americans are so much more bad ass than Europeans. Now get off the track that runs through my lawn, you socialist hippie.

  6. 184 mph is the fastest train in America? by Rosco+P.+Coltrane · · Score: 2

    That says something about the state of train travel in the US. That ain't nothing to be proud of: there are trains in Europe and Japan that have been running regular services at higher speeds for a long time.

    --
    "A door is what a dog is perpetually on the wrong side of" - Ogden Nash
    1. Re:184 mph is the fastest train in America? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You mean, in Europe (France, Germany, Italy, Spain, UK, Belgium, Netherland), Japan, China and Taiwan.
      And 184 mph is about twice as slow as the world record (354 mph)

    2. Re:184 mph is the fastest train in America? by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

      Almost half a century ago ... still holds the record for America's fastest train.

      It's still the fastest train to ever move in USA.

    3. Re:184 mph is the fastest train in America? by itamihn · · Score: 1

      I think you are forgetting about Spain's AVE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVE)

    4. Re:184 mph is the fastest train in America? by Alioth · · Score: 1

      I'd say it's debatable that it was a train - it looks like just a light loco (nothing was coupled to it). You need at least two coupled vehicles to go from light loco to train.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    5. Re:184 mph is the fastest train in America? by vidarlo · · Score: 1

      Highspeed trains need special tracks. Creating these tracks involves confiscating a lot of land from people along the way.

      Roads also need a lot of space. So I don't entirely see your point. Maybe roads need 20% less space or something, but it's not like they need no space.

      Doing this creates many lovely opportunities for corruption in government as the route can go a lot of ways depending on who influences it.

      We have solved huge parts of that in Europe. We do it with open goverment, post journals showing mail that has arrived to a government agency, political hearings were everybody can send in their opinion, and the agency has to comment and publish all hearing comments. This mostly works. In the cases where it doesn't work, a sufficiently pissed of party can take the case to court to have the process reviewed.

      "It says something about the state of train travel in America" yeah it sure does. It says that people would rather drive than be subject to that TSA garbage.

      Straw man. We don't have TSA garbage on european high speed railways. And while I can take the train for long distances in the Europe, I believe I'd be taking a plane in the USA, exposing me to that very TSA garbage.

      --
      Assembling etherkillers for fun an profit
    6. Re:184 mph is the fastest train in America? by Chep · · Score: 1

      AVE is a blend of TGV and ICE depending on the stock vintage

    7. Re:184 mph is the fastest train in America? by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Uh, the land for the roads was confiscated (sorry, "nationalized") 70 years ago. There are no further opportunities for corruption.

      I love how you pretend the EU is anything close to democratic. It's not. Listening to the people doesn't create positive outcomes. I know you don't believe me, so listen to your own people:

      "Referenda are pure gambling. There is no guarantee of a positive outcome, unfortunately."
      -- Danish EU advocate Charlotte Antonsen

      Trains in the USA are regulated by the TSA. I don't understand how that's a straw man, as the TSA lacks the regulatory authority to secure trains in Europe. Are you sure you thought your argument through all the way to the end?

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  7. The death of trains by mcrbids · · Score: 4, Interesting

    In Europe, they discovered that train wrecks were really, really bad. So they set about building a system of trains that didn't wreck, with numerous controls and systems to prevent collisions, resulting in an excellent safety record and low cost.

    In the United States, they discovered that train wrecks were really, really bad. So they set about building a system of trains that survived wrecks with minimal injuries, with heavy crash cages and crumple zones in order to gracefully survive collisions, resulting in an excellent safety record and ridiculous costs.

    Making a US train go as fast as an EU train is very difficult to do feasibly, since it weighs at least 4x as much per passenger.

    --
    I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    1. Re:The death of trains by phantomfive · · Score: 2

      FWIW since the US train system is designed for freight, not passengers, speed isn't really a priority.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    2. Re:The death of trains by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry, false. European trains have crumple zones, too. They're the areas near the doors, above the axles. You'll generally sit between those areas, not above the axles. This is especially true in high-speed trains where those areas are reserved for luggage etc.

      As for "numerous controls", the EU rail safety system (ERTMS) is not exactly a resounding success. Over time, over budget, and as a result many countries still use their national, outdated 60's-era train control systems. Passing red signs happens in about 1E-6 of red signs, which is definitely an issue with todays crowded rail systems. High-speed rail is less susceptible though because it's newly built without level crossings.

    3. Re:The death of trains by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      High-speed rail is less susceptible though because it's newly built without level crossings.

      Not throughout... or else incidents such as this wouldn't happen...

    4. Re:The death of trains by Drethon · · Score: 1

      Meh, mostly in the US if something is dangerous we prefer to regulate it out of existence rather than make it safer anyway.

      I do find it interesting we can design a stock car that allows the driver to walk away from a 200+ MPH collision with a brick wall and still go like a bat out of hell but not so much with trains. I suppose fuel efficiency was never a major concern with the stock car though.

    5. Re:The death of trains by defnoz · · Score: 1

      High speed rail != high speed train

      In the French (and even more so German) models, the high speed network continues on normal track beyond the dedicated high speed routes, allowing service to places which wouldn't merit their own line. This is where such accidents occur - the train involved is incidental.

      In Japan and Spain the HSR network is self-contained since the track gauge is different to the conventional network - If the US did ever decide to build a line I would expect it to be the same. Not because of the gauge, but to allow HSR to use existing technology which would not pass US rail safety requirements.

    6. Re:The death of trains by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      The trick is to build new, dedicated lines for the high speed trains. Even if they run parallel to the existing ones. The up-front cost is higher but over the railway's lifetime it is worth it. Unfortunately that requires companies that can see beyond next quarter's profits. Give Japan Rail East a call, ask about their new linear motor (maglev) bullet train and how much it costs.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:The death of trains by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      You woefully underestimate the efforts that vested interests will go to to ensure that money goes into their pockets, I mean hard-working (cough) Americans can keep their jobs.

    8. Re:The death of trains by PrimaryConsult · · Score: 1

      They didn't call JR East, but they did call JR Central, and that is why as unlikely as it seems I have a good feeling about Texas. Professionals are in charge, not politicians.

  8. Re:Question for Amerifats by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Or do you Amerifats prefer being groped by the TSA to getting on a train?

    False dichotomy. Everyone knows that as soon as rail were to become popular the TSA would slither its way in and demand the authority to grope people boarding trains, too. And all the courts would back them up.

    TSA VIPR teams are already at some train stations. They are the vanguard. You know, like the Einstazgruppen were the vanguard.

  9. Not so impressive... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Meanwhile, the Japanese Shinkansen (Bullet Train) started regular commercial service a full two years earlier in 1964. Shinkansen now routinely exceed 200mph, although the first ones (Series 0) ran at 137mph.

    For those that have never used the Shinkansen, they are truly awesome. They leave and arrive to the scheduled minute. There is no TSA bullshit, so you can arrive at the station a few minutes before departure. There's loads of leg room. For any journey less than around 3-4 hours there is no point thinking about air travel.

    Amusingly, the Shinkansen actually makes Japanese domestic airports more efficient as well. After all, the more crap a traveller has to deal with at the airport, the more likely they are to take the train. Thus, there is no TSA bullshit at Japanese domestic airports and you can arrive 10 minutes before your flight and easily make boarding.

    1. Re:Not so impressive... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      Been there, done that, on numerous occasions.

      When I used to travel between Saijo/Matsuyama (Ehime-ken) and Tokyo or Fukuoka 2-3 times a week, the only reason I took a plane was because of the whole island thing. If I needed to do something on the same island, it was always the train... but in either case, I was rarely ever waiting around at either a station or airport.

      I believe if your Shinkansen is late, you get a note to explain why... do you still get the ticket-price credit?

      And in the airport, you used to put your drink on some kind of scanner which would determine if you could take it on board - there was no policy of "throw any and all liquids away"... is that still true?

      Ahh memories. Kind of want to move back there now.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  10. Congrats America by viperidaenz · · Score: 1

    Your fastest train of all time doesn't even make the top 10 current passenger trains normal running speed.

  11. Track-train dynamics by Animats · · Score: 5, Informative

    That jet-powered locomotive was neverintended as a useful means of propulsion. It was just to test track-train dynamics at higher speed. Not much was done with the info, since Amtrak wasn't into high speed rail.

    The next big advances in high speed rail were Japan's Tokaido line and San Francisco's BART, both around 1970. The original Tokaido trains had conventional wheel arrangements, and required a very good and very high maintenance roadbed. The SF BART system had the first trains with an active suspension, with each car body supported on a triangle of three air bags controlled by electronic controls. This allowed a higher body height at higher speed, allowing more wheel travel and a softer suspension. Also, all wheels were powered, as is normal in transit operations.

    The French TGV brought both of those ideas together - high speed plus active suspension with more suspension travel, with all wheels powered. This allowed high speed trains without excessive track wear. (That's a big problem with high speed rail. A French test in 1955 reached 331 km/h, but damaged the track seriously in only one run. There were serious doubts for years whether steel wheel on steel rail could ever go that fast in routine operation.)

    As with cars, there's been more than enough power to go fast for decades. Wheel and suspension issues are what limit speed.

    1. Re:Track-train dynamics by Alioth · · Score: 2

      You miss out one innovation - Talgo rolling stock. The company by that name in the Basque country (Spain) developed a lightweight, low CofG articulated train that could efficiently run at high speeds (Talgo is an anacronym - Tren Articulado Ligero Goicoechea Oriol - Lightweight Articulated Train by Golcechea Oriol). The current Talgo designed high speed units run up to 320km/h (just over 190 mph) and have an entirely passive tilting mechanism. The wheelsets are connected via the roof of each vehicle so the car will naturally lean into a corner without requiring the complex electronic controls that dogged the British APT experiment (incidentally the APT technology ended up being sold to the Italians who now use it in the Pendolino trains)

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
  12. Maintenance for all trains is high by justthinkit · · Score: 2

    Railways have the highest fixed costs of any transportation system. 25%, I was told 30 years ago when I worked on one.

    High fixed, low variable cost. So adding one freight car = dirt cheap. Going one mph faster on a curve = very expensive, due to increased wear on rails, road bed, etc.

    There is also the not small problem of grade. Trains dislike hills, with a grade over 1% being excessive to them. Cars routinely handle ten times this.

    Grades dictate routes. The only way around this is tunnels & bridges. Either way, cost per mile for a track is much higher than for a road. With costs born by one company, rather than all of us.

    It is a fundamental problem, that leads to the division of bulk (slow) hauling = railways, people & fast hauling = trucks/cars.

    --
    I come here for the love
    1. Re:Maintenance for all trains is high by defnoz · · Score: 1

      There is also the not small problem of grade. Trains dislike hills, with a grade over 1% being excessive to them. Cars routinely handle ten times this. Grades dictate routes. The only way around this is tunnels & bridges. Either way, cost per mile for a track is much higher than for a road. With costs born by one company, rather than all of us.

      1% is too steep for a 10000 tonne freight train, it's nothing for an electrified passenger line. High speed lines commonly have gradients of 3 or 4%. For comparison, in the UK the maximum gradient guidance for a motorway is 3% (the steepest is 5.6%). Curvature is the main constraint with HSR requiring curve radii of ~3 miles compared to 0.5 miles for motorways.

      Tunnelling is actually not a massive cost these days - to the point where nearly half of the planned HS2 line here in the UK will be tunnelled, not due to geology but to avoid land grab and spoiling the countryside (in some rich areas, obviously). Alternatively you can do as the Chinese and build elevated lines which both avoids geography to an extent and reduces the land grab - in China it was cheaper to build viaduct than on the ground for land purchase reasons alone.

    2. Re:Maintenance for all trains is high by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      It's only a problem if you are thinking about short term profits. Look at the Japanese bullet train network, and particularly at the new maglev line currently under construction. The deal with grades by going through mountain ranges with tunnels. The cost is astronomical, but they are willing to amortize it over very long periods of time. They know that the service will be popular (and affordable), and always much faster and easier than flying. Even the current 320kph trains are, although this thing is projected to hit 8-900kph.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    3. Re:Maintenance for all trains is high by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      It is a fundamental problem, that leads to the division of bulk (slow) hauling = railways, people & fast hauling = trucks/cars.

      You're right about the division, but... In much of Europe, it's the other way around: trains carry passengers, trucks carry cargo. Because the higher speed trains have right-of-way vs. slow cargo trains. In the US, slow cargo trains have right-of-way, slowing down passenger trains.

      Denmark doesn't even have real high-speed trains, but at a top-speed of 180 km/h it still exceeds anything you'd ever get away with on the highway. The few cargo trains we have mostly do their 40 km/h thing at night.

      Long-distance bus lines like the American Greyhound are essentially non-existent in Denmark; the moment you need to travel more than maybe 30 km, it's by train or private car (or plane, for the longest distances).

    4. Re:Maintenance for all trains is high by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      In the US, slow cargo trains have right-of-way, slowing down passenger trains.

      Not quite. Passenger trains have priority, and only lose it when they run late and even then, it is not that freight has priority over passenger service but that it does not have to yield to passenger trains. It would be more accurate to say it becomes "first come, first served". Kind of like if you reserve a table, they hold it for you for a few minutes after the time you set, then it becomes available to all.

      --
      I come here for the love
    5. Re:Maintenance for all trains is high by Kiwikwi · · Score: 1

      Not quite. Passenger trains have priority, and only lose it when they run late and even then, it is not that freight has priority over passenger service but that it does not have to yield to passenger trains.

      Fair enough (though your Wikipedia reference doesn't really support your claim), but in much of Europe, the passenger trains do have right of way, even if they're running late. Any freight trains on the way are literally sidetracked to allow the passenger train to run at full speed.

      I've only noticed this once; the train had been behind schedule and running slowly for a little while, and the driver came on the intercom to apologize, noting that we were just waiting for the freight train to get out of the way, so the passenger train could overtake. A little later, we sped up and drove past the cargo train, which was just sitting still on a shunting track in the middle of nowhere, allowing the passenger train to overtake on the main line.

    6. Re:Maintenance for all trains is high by justthinkit · · Score: 1

      though your Wikipedia reference doesn't really support your claim

      Well, since you were the one to say that freight trains had priority over passenger trains, how about you support your claim.

      but in much of Europe, the passenger trains do have right of way, even if they're running late

      And in Canada (where I worked for CP Rail some decades back). It surprised me that the U.S. operated differently.

      --
      I come here for the love
  13. Self propelled (carries it's own jet fuel) that is by gelfling · · Score: 1

    The French or Japanese trains are electric which means they don't carry their own fuel. A jet powered train has to carry a huge amount of jet fuel just like a diesel engine or a coaler. Which is practical only where fuel is very cheap and you have a large capacity storage tank AND there's no electrified option.

  14. Fastest? Depends how you define "train" by defnoz · · Score: 1

    This "train" (debatable if it's a train if it's only one vehicle) would only hold the record for the fastest conventional wheeled train in the US anyway.

    The record for the fastest railed vehicle in the US - hey, even the world - is more than an order of magnitude faster. I'll pass on having a ride though.

  15. Re:Self propelled (carries it's own jet fuel) that by defnoz · · Score: 1

    The prototype TGV was powered by dinosaur juice - I believe they swapped to electric mainly because of an increase in oil prices. Maintenance was probably also an issue (the prototype was gas turbine-electric which has a terrible record in the rail industry).

    But yeah, electrification is the only sensible option - you're fixed to the route of the track anyway (or if not you've got bigger worries than where your power's coming from) so why not stick some OHLE alongside.

  16. Airports are not much better by jimbolauski · · Score: 1

    I routinely have to travel from Dayton Oh to Knob Noster Mo. It is an 8 hour drive, Flying into their regional airport which is an hour away takes about 7 hours and I have been stranded there because even though I had a reservation there were no cars to be rented. The other option is going to Kansas City which has a 90 minute drive on the end of it and takes 7.5 hours all together. Flying through the southwest it's even worse as small regional airports can be over an hour away and larger airports over two hours away. Traveling from Alamogordo NM to Colorado Springs Co by plane takes 7.5 hours while driving takes 7 hours. Maybe it's because the Air Force keeps all its bases away from large airports but I know many places where driving 8 hours is just as good of an option as flying.

    --
    Knowledge = Power
    P= W/t
    t=Money
    Money = Work/Knowledge so the less you know the more you make
    1. Re:Airports are not much better by Neil+Hodges · · Score: 1

      And don't forget about those without cars, so it's either Greyhound (on an equivalent), trains, or airlines for long distances.

  17. Amtrak subsidies by Primate+Pete · · Score: 1

    Yeah, it competes with road funding, but Amtrak also takes huge funding from the government, too... near 30% of operating expenses or about half of revenue:

    Bloomberg: "After automatic budget cuts, Amtrak is getting $1.3 billion in taxpayer money for fiscal 2013, with $905 million of that going to capital costs and debt service, Kulm said. That’s less than the $1.4 billion the railroad received the previous year."

    Amtrak: "In FY 2012, Amtrak earned approximately $2.877 billion in revenue and incurred approximately $4.036 billion in expense. No country in the world operates a passenger rail system without some form of public support for capital costs and/or operating expenses."

    It may be a good social service, but it's a lousy business, and it is nowhere near self-sufficient.

  18. This is NOT the record by Maury+Markowitz · · Score: 1

    The LIMRV hit 188 in 1972 and 256 in 1974.

    This Budd gizmo isn't even close.

  19. Re:atheist listen by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

    And he is not very fond of Butler Indiana either, and he would have gotten the hell out of there as soon as possible too.

    What do you think he was doing? Not everybody had the panache to leave on a jet powered train. He gets serious points.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  20. Is it a train? by userw014 · · Score: 1

    TL;DV - but it seems that the the demonstration was a single car/engine. Does that count as a "train"?

  21. Try that today by EmperorOfCanada · · Score: 1

    Try that today and there would be not only bureaucrats in your way but bureaucratic engineers who would complain about the metal in the tracks, the wheels, the bearings, everything.

    I find that so little of human accomplishment today is real, it tends to be more accountants and PR people who have a long checklist having to explain why their product is better. Elon Musk must make these kinds of people weep; by saying what he is going to do in plain English and then doing it. He doesn't have to explain why a Tesla is different.

    1. Re:Try that today by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      We need more people to be given the freedom to do things like this... to push the limits of existing stuff and expand on it. How else are we supposed to expect innovation?

      What Mr Wetzel did was just that, and it was a good thing. These days of course, there'd be too much flak from insurance companies and lawyers.

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
  22. Re:Question for Amerifats by Richy_T · · Score: 1

    It can depend. There are reasons that bridges or underpasses cannot be put in some locations but the most likely explanation is that the bridge makers and politicians in Virginia share several of the same relatives.

  23. Another story by SteveWoz · · Score: 1

    http://www.forumsforums.com/3_9/showthread.php?t=62716

    --
    OK a new size TV