GlobalistPotato
Lead Service Attendant
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 344
This is something I see all over the interwebz, and in Congress too.
There's a growing consensus among Americans that we need to improve our national rail system, particularly our passenger rail system.
There isn't a consensus on what exactly what type of improvements they will be.
This goes at multiple levels - financing, ownership, design, levels of service, routes, speed, etc.
It seems that half the people out there who want High Speed Rail actually want it to be a private enterprise, some only want the operator to be private (like the airlines), some want to privatize Amtrak, some want to create a national infrastructure bank to fund the construction of High Speed Rail.
Keep in mind that outside of Japan and France, most true High Speed lines were constructed during the 1990s and 2000s.
The differences include:
Area of service: Should we focus on corridor trains, or long distance ones?
Level of service: NARP seems to support conventional passenger rail (diesel powered, top speed around 80-120mph). Many people I've seen want 110 mph trains as a cost effective improvement. Some believe passenger rail won't work unless it's true HSR at 300 km/h with new ROW and stations and all.
Technology: Conventional steel-on-steel, or Maglev? Should we change FRA compliancy codes to allow for lighter trainsets? Electric or diesel or turbines?
Public or private?
The problem I see with calling all improved rail "High Speed Rail" is that it gives people the wrong impression. This is what happened in Ohio and Wisconsin. The projects were called "High Speed Rail", but they were really just trainsets running at 110mph. This was criticized and was probably one of the reasons why those projects were killed.
Blah, blah, blah, I don't feel like explaining on this futher.
What would be the difference between a pragmatists vision and a totally pie-in-the-skiy view?
And how can pro-rail people come to a general consensus on what improvements to our rail network would look like?
There's a growing consensus among Americans that we need to improve our national rail system, particularly our passenger rail system.
There isn't a consensus on what exactly what type of improvements they will be.
This goes at multiple levels - financing, ownership, design, levels of service, routes, speed, etc.
It seems that half the people out there who want High Speed Rail actually want it to be a private enterprise, some only want the operator to be private (like the airlines), some want to privatize Amtrak, some want to create a national infrastructure bank to fund the construction of High Speed Rail.
Keep in mind that outside of Japan and France, most true High Speed lines were constructed during the 1990s and 2000s.
The differences include:
Area of service: Should we focus on corridor trains, or long distance ones?
Level of service: NARP seems to support conventional passenger rail (diesel powered, top speed around 80-120mph). Many people I've seen want 110 mph trains as a cost effective improvement. Some believe passenger rail won't work unless it's true HSR at 300 km/h with new ROW and stations and all.
Technology: Conventional steel-on-steel, or Maglev? Should we change FRA compliancy codes to allow for lighter trainsets? Electric or diesel or turbines?
Public or private?
The problem I see with calling all improved rail "High Speed Rail" is that it gives people the wrong impression. This is what happened in Ohio and Wisconsin. The projects were called "High Speed Rail", but they were really just trainsets running at 110mph. This was criticized and was probably one of the reasons why those projects were killed.
Blah, blah, blah, I don't feel like explaining on this futher.
What would be the difference between a pragmatists vision and a totally pie-in-the-skiy view?
And how can pro-rail people come to a general consensus on what improvements to our rail network would look like?
Last edited by a moderator: