Opinions on trains and planes.

On Aug 18, 7:57 am, "James Silverton" <not.jim.silver...@verizon.not>
wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> Given the current cattle-car, skinflint conditions, two hour check-ins
> and waits including security, etc. I wonder how long a journey people
> would undertake by train if fast European or Japanese style trains were
> available (say, 400 kph)? I would think that Washington DC to San
> Francisco might be a bit far. The journey would take about 10 hours as
> the unstopping crow flies but more likely 15 with a few stops and as the
> track is laid.
>
> I don't like to get up early in the morning but, allowing time to drive
> to the airport, get thro' security, fly on a plane leaving at noon  and
> drive a rental car to my hotel or other destination, I have to allocate
> most of a day (certainly at least 12 hours) to get to San Francisco.
> I've never been able to sleep on planes so "red eyes" are really that!
>
> --
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> Email, with obvious alterations:
> not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not


I just ask Scotty to beam me there.

Even if there were 400k/h trains, it would take more than 10 hrs from
DC to SF. There'll be stops along the way and huge mountain ranges to
go over.

"PeterL" <po.ning@> schrieb

> There'll be stops along the way and huge mountain ranges to
> go over.

Or tunnels to go right through the mountains. The fast trains in Europe
don't bother to climb up the Alps - ok, the Rockies would need longer
tunnels, but when you can build one 60 km long, you can just as well
dig twice as far while you're at it.

Big advantage over planes: You can take your car with you on many
trains (I just found one auto train in the US: From Lorton, VA to
Sanford, FL): No need to rent one at your destination.

Jochen

James Silverton wrote:
> Hello All!
>
> Given the current cattle-car, skinflint conditions, two hour
> check-ins
> and waits including security, etc. I wonder how long a journey
> people
> would undertake by train if fast European or Japanese style trains
> were available (say, 400 kph)? I would think that Washington DC to
> San
> Francisco might be a bit far. The journey would take about 10 hours
> as
> the unstopping crow flies but more likely 15 with a few stops and as
> the track is laid.
>
> I don't like to get up early in the morning but, allowing time to
> drive to the airport, get thro' security, fly on a plane leaving at
> noon and drive a rental car to my hotel or other destination, I
> have
> to allocate most of a day (certainly at least 12 hours) to get to
> San
> Francisco. I've never been able to sleep on planes so "red eyes" are
> really that!

The real question is how much it costs. Amtrak charges about the same
to take you from Boston to DC on their cut-down TGV that the cheap
airlines charge.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

On Mon, 18 Aug 2008 14:57:19 +0000, James Silverton wrote:

> Given the current cattle-car, skinflint conditions, two hour check-ins
> and waits including security, etc. I wonder how long a journey people
> would undertake by train if fast European or Japanese style trains were
> available (say, 400 kph)? I would think that Washington DC to San
> Francisco might be a bit far. The journey would take about 10 hours as
> the unstopping crow flies but more likely 15 with a few stops and as the
> track is laid.

Well, if the train has a club car, dining car, and you have a private
compartment-bath, so, you can lie down and sleep or refresh yourself,
probably, quite a long time.

I doubt if we'll ever see "bullet" trains (other than for commuting) in
the US. The rail system here, which is 60+ years old, just can't handle
really high speed trains. Also, Americans have a different mindset than
Europeans with regards to travel: Americans are too much in a hurry to
enjoy the trip.

As far a maglev trains: The technology just isn't there. A US company
using a German company's maglev system has been trying for about 20 years
to build an elevated train from Las Vegas to Anaheim, CA--about a 300
mile trip. Total travel time, including two intermediate stops, would be
about 1.5 hours. Top speed of train is projected to be 350 miles per
hour. It's still on the drawing board.

> I don't like to get up early in the morning but, allowing time to drive
> to the airport, get thro' security, fly on a plane leaving at noon and
> drive a rental car to my hotel or other destination, I have to allocate
> most of a day (certainly at least 12 hours) to get to San Francisco.
> I've never been able to sleep on planes so "red eyes" are really that!

You could always charter a small private jet. No security check, no
waiting in line, leaves when you're ready, can land at smaller, non-major
airports, probably even have a limo pick you up. About $5000, one way.
What a deal! ;-)

Stef

"Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu> schrieb

> Who has a 400 kph train?

Europe. The French TGV currently holds the speed record, with 574.8 kph
(But the German ICE is just slightly slower)
It's the tracks, and the frequent stops, that limit the speed to 320 kph.

The US with the long distances between towns would be ideal for
high speed trains running at 400+ kph.

Jochen

In article <j5gqk.169$482.96@trnddc06>,
James Silverton <not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not> wrote:
>Given the current cattle-car, skinflint conditions, two hour check-ins
cattle cars ARE train cars.
>and waits including security, etc. I wonder how long a journey people
>would undertake by train if fast European or Japanese style trains were
>available (say, 400 kph)? I would think that Washington DC to San
>Francisco might be a bit far. The journey would take about 10 hours as
>the unstopping crow flies but more likely 15 with a few stops and as the
>track is laid.

Who has a 400 kph train?
A 300 KPH train with stops is not a 300 KPH train.

>I don't like to get up early in the morning but, allowing time to drive
>to the airport, get thro' security, fly on a plane leaving at noon and
>drive a rental car to my hotel or other destination, I have to allocate
>most of a day (certainly at least 12 hours) to get to San Francisco.
>I've never been able to sleep on planes so "red eyes" are really that!

The Europeans deal with this with overnight trains.
You get a sleeper if you can afford one. Or you tough it out in seats.
It's just not worth the money for most people on a plane, yet.

The US may be too much of a car culture to think about trains anymore in
many ways. Jets have become our trains. James Fallows wrote a bit
about some of this (the 500 mile trip stat where flying really starts to
have advantages over driving).

--

On Aug 18, 10:39 am, "Jochen Kriegerowski" <joinva...@smtp.ru> wrote:
> "Eugene Miya" <eug...@cse.ucsc.edu> schrieb
>
> > Who has a 400 kph train?
>
> Europe. The French TGV currently holds the speed record, with 574.8 kph
> (But the German ICE is just slightly slower)
> It's the tracks, and the frequent stops, that limit the speed to 320 kph.
>
> The US with the long distances between towns would be ideal for
> high speed trains running at 400+ kph.
>
> Jochen

There are automobiles that can go over 200 mph also, but they can't be
used for general transportation. There is a difference between top
speed under a test situation and top speed in actual use.

Jochen Kriegerowski wrote:
> "Eugene Miya" <eugene@cse.ucsc.edu> schrieb
>
>> Who has a 400 kph train?
>
> Europe. The French TGV currently holds the speed record, with 574.8
> kph (But the German ICE is just slightly slower)
> It's the tracks, and the frequent stops, that limit the speed to 320
> kph.
>
> The US with the long distances between towns would be ideal for
> high speed trains running at 400+ kph.

First you have to completely rebuild the infrastructure to allow such
speeds. This includes in many cases acquiring new rights of way and
in mountainous areas would often mean rerouting the tracks completely.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"PeterL" <po.ning@> schrieb

> There are automobiles that can go over 200 mph also, but they can't be
> used for general transportation.

Not at that speed, usually. Right.
With cars it's the roads and traffic condition that prevent higher speeds
(and the fact that they don't run on tracks but have to be steered manually,
with the driver being the weakest link of the chain)

> There is a difference between top speed under a test situation and top
> speed in actual use.

Sure. 400 kph is still far away from the top speed under test conditions.

Jochen

"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> schrieb

> First you have to completely rebuild the infrastructure to allow such
> speeds.

That's the same over here - Those high speed routes are completely
new because the old rail grid is limited to 160 to 200 kph: Too tight
curves, to steep inclines etc.

Jochen