|
|
| Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service (614045) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 2 of 6 |
||
|
| (614502) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Thu May 8 21:53:42 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu May 8 20:29:43 2008. Not in NYC. Essential Air Service is for places like Dickinson.ROAR |
|
|
| (614512) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu May 8 22:00:14 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 8 20:43:11 2008. Okay, you go stand with a radar gun at any given point of I-91 or the Mass Pike other than a freakin toll plaza |
|
|
| (614514) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Thu May 8 22:00:32 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Thu May 8 21:49:39 2008. Huh? I replied to a discussion here, as did many others. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (614515) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu May 8 22:01:11 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu May 8 21:53:42 2008. I thought there were some places that were part of that bill that kinda didn't need it, but if that's not the case, then okay. |
|
|
| (614541) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by DCmetrogreen on Thu May 8 22:43:41 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by Dutchrailnut on Thu May 8 07:01:23 2008. Jawohl! Not Jah Whole? |
|
|
| (614545) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by DCmetrogreen on Thu May 8 22:46:25 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by WillD on Thu May 8 01:09:35 2008. Would they really call it Florida Overland Express? I mean, come on; FOE?! |
|
|
| (614571) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri May 9 00:03:39 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by Broadway Lion on Thu May 8 10:39:55 2008. Using existing interstate ROWs as the backbone, new rail lines *can* be built.In most of the country you'd probably be best off going with a completely new ROW which avoids the developments that inevitably cluster around highways in very rural areas. You're not going to gain a significant number of customers from those towns and it'll only make land acquisition that much more expensive. LION doesn't see the fed doing anything of the sort. Ergo it must come from regional governments and/or private enterprise. What fantasy world are you living in where states can afford this? How exactly do you expect the states to cooperate in starting these sorts of services if the Feds aren't involved? Hell, at the very least the feds should fund HSR as payback for the Bush administration's glut of unfunded mandates they've handed down to the states. Include head-end (UPS, FedEx etc) as strictly containerized shipments such as the airlines already use. Use the EXACT same containers, that way they will be inter modal with air. I'd love to see a HSR line sell space on their trains to the package companies. However, using airboxes is probably not the best idea. A group of air containers in a larger space holds significantly fewer packages than the same area being occupied. UPS uses 45 and 53 foot air container trailers (45' illustrated there), which carry either 4 or 5 air boxes. Those airboxes hold between 200 and 300 packages, so the maximum a 53 foot air trailer will hold with those airboxes is 1500 packages. When I used to load the South Jersey to Jacksonville trailer we put 2200 packages in a 48 foot trailer on occassion and were expected to do around 1800. Thus an airbox fitting the profile of the airplane can result in nearly a 25% reduction in capacity. You'd probably be best off going with a new kind of airbox designed specifically to fit in whatever cargo section of the HSR train you allocate. The train isn't going to have the same sort of profile as an airliner, and loading a standard shipping container on an HST would be impractical. It is interesting to contemplate the possibilities a new HSR would open up for shipping. In California with the completion of CAHSR UPS, DHL, or Fed Ex could offer a same day ground service. You could get a package picked up by 10am, it'd be processed into a container by 11am, delivered to the train station and loaded before noon, it'd arrive at the terminal station by 2:30, be unloaded from the container and loaded into a package car by 3:30 and likely delivered by 4:30pm. In California and Texas UPS could restructure their air networks around these HSR networks and their existing large air hubs at Ontario and Dallas Fort Worth. By going with a same-day-ground approach they could condense operations and offer cheaper next-day air options which wouldn't require going through the expensive smaller airport operations at LAX and SFO. |
|
|
| (614575) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri May 9 00:12:41 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by DCmetrogreen on Thu May 8 22:46:25 2008. I think the acronym they were going to market it under was FOX. For a while there was a lot of talk about the two differing design philosophies the FOX and Acela systems represented.Here are a few sites with info on FOX: http://www.trainweb.org/tgvpages/fox.html http://www.cefa.fsu.edu/FOX.html NY Times article on the cancellation of the 6.3 billion dollar project. |
|
|
| (614597) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 00:33:56 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu May 8 22:00:14 2008. Don't have to. Just have to drive on it. The "majority" are not six or seven nuts in the fast lane. And you can't pretend that none of those states out that way don't have troopers looking to bust speeders—because they do. |
|
|
| (614600) | |
Re: High speed rail in the USA—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 00:37:19 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail in the USA—300 kmh service, posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Thu May 8 21:21:54 2008. Looks like mostly asphalt to me; that one lane is concrete, on the curve (but of course the substrate may be concrete).The NBS has a lot of concrete supporting the tracks, I noticed. And yes, that's a sixteen-car ICE III train. |
|
|
| (614613) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri May 9 00:51:29 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by SUBWAYMAN on Thu May 8 02:50:10 2008. It may not be completely realistic, but California HSR is at least being talked about. I hate to make an argument with Youtube videos, but the stuff by NC3D is simply amazing:Sacramento, I like the inclusion of a streetcar operating on their LRT tracks. San Jose, interesting that they show a BART station but no connection between the two. For 7 billion dollars I'd hope they'd at least build a concourse. San Fransisco's Transbay Terminal. Then there's a 10 minute promotional video which features many of the older clips created by the same group. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zD1QGNsRg74 |
|
|
| (614624) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by AEM-7AC #901 on Fri May 9 01:11:24 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 00:33:56 2008. The "majority" are not six or seven nuts in the fast lane.It's interesting to note that while 75-80mph speed limits are commonplace in the Western Europe, the Northeast is riddled with silly 65mph speed limits. Those six or seven "nuts" are "normal" in certain European nations. And you can't pretend that none of those states out that way don't have troopers looking to bust speeders—because they do. Which is sad given that they'd be much more effective if they were fighting crime in the dangerous urban cores of those states instead of pulling over motorists for revenue enhancement. |
|
|
| (614690) | |
Re: High speed rail in the USA—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri May 9 06:59:32 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail in the USA—300 kmh service, posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 8 14:54:04 2008. I just like this pic, so I'm posting it in here. Not necessary to do this for BOS-WAS, though; but it could work for NYC-CHI.Possibly would be useful between Boston and New Haven. |
|
|
| (614694) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri May 9 07:07:21 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by WillD on Fri May 9 00:03:39 2008. How exactly do you expect the states to cooperate in starting these sorts of services if the Feds aren't involved?AIUI one of the more idiotic moments of the Constitution prevents just this sort of co-operation. |
|
|
| (614697) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri May 9 07:10:43 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by DCmetrogreen on Thu May 8 22:46:25 2008. Would they really call it Florida Overland Express? I mean, come on; FOE?!It was probably their second choice after someone pointed out what Florida East Coast Express Service spelled. |
|
|
| (614700) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri May 9 07:23:56 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by NIMBYkiller on Thu May 8 22:01:11 2008. I thought there were some places that were part of that bill that kinda didn't need it, but if that's not the case, then okay.Some will obviously actually be essential, but many won't. We need teh list! |
|
|
| (614701) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri May 9 07:29:26 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by RIPTA42HopeTunnel on Thu May 8 11:14:31 2008. "They do pretty well in Germany, you just need better banking (superelevation) and no freight."And no local trains on the adjacent track. I must have been imagining things in/around Munich and Frankfurt. |
|
|
| (614702) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri May 9 07:33:38 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by JohnL on Thu May 8 09:48:42 2008. I mentioned them once, but I think I got away with it. |
|
|
| (614752) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by 156n3rd on Fri May 9 09:33:53 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri May 9 07:07:21 2008. Back in 1976 when CONRAIL was born (I worked for them for 3 yrs.)the original intent was to rip up the tracks and create a trucking super highway. Crossings would continue as usual, just like with trains. The "sealed" system would reduce fuel consumption, control costs and crate jobes for those displaced from the railroads. Cooperation could not be attained, and you know the rest of the story. |
|
|
| (614782) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 11:05:45 2008, in response to High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by R42 4787 on Thu May 8 00:45:59 2008. So what you're proposing is:Require hundreds of thousands of daily passengers to change their commutes and possibly move their families so that the small handful of people who currently travel by rail between New York and Washington DC in 2:45 can shave 15-30 minutes off the total time? |
|
|
| (614784) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 11:08:38 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 8 20:36:49 2008. Amtrak only has a faster average speed than driving if you are driving your car from NYP to Boston South Station.If either or both of your endpoints are different then you'd have to consider time getting to and from Amtrak in comparing speed of the train option to the speed of the car option. |
|
|
| (614786) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 11:12:45 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by Fred G on Thu May 8 06:54:54 2008. Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor? Hell no!! |
|
|
| (614809) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Fri May 9 12:13:50 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by WillD on Fri May 9 00:03:39 2008. Um, no.Those big containers ride on FREIGHT TRAINS, not on HSR trains. HSR has a smaller body profile for better aerodynamics, furthermore it facilitates interchange with air transport. It does not need to interfaces with fright trains or ocean ships. ROAR |
|
|
| (614824) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Fri May 9 13:26:30 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Olog-hai on Thu May 8 12:07:01 2008. Why? There were places where trolleybuses crossed electrified mainline tracks. I don't know if any still exists though. |
|
|
| (614857) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri May 9 14:38:48 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 00:33:56 2008. Funny, if my mom drives under 70 on the Mass Pike, it's those state troopers bullying us out of the lane, with a whole crowd of other cars right behind them. Sorry, but the point is Amtrak needs to get an average of 80MPH on NY-BOS to compete with road traffic |
|
|
| (614858) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri May 9 14:39:54 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 11:08:38 2008. What if I compare NYP with PABT? The Wilmington bus station and train station are right across the street from each other. |
|
|
| (614898) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by WillD on Fri May 9 17:00:41 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by Broadway Lion on Fri May 9 12:13:50 2008. Those big containers ride on FREIGHT TRAINS, not on HSR trains. HSR has a smaller body profile for better aerodynamics,It really doesn't. An international shipping container could fit under an aerodynamic shroud on an ICE3. There are drawings in a book published in the 1980s called "The Transportation Architecture of West Germany" of an ICE train with the passenger cars replaced by well cars. The well cars carry containers which are loaded and covered by an aerodynamic shroud in the same shape as a passenger coach. Of course the ICE 1 and ICE 2 are a bit large for international travel, but the ICE 3 could likely still work in this sort of role, even though the Germans did not pursue it. The big problem with a standard shipping container is not one of size or weight, but rather the load time. You have two to at most four guys working on each wall, and they'll need about an hour and a half to two hours to fully load a 45 to 48 foot container. Even a double ended container, with all the nightmares that creates for the load and unload processes, would likely take around an hour to fill. furthermore it facilitates interchange with air transport. But as I noted in my previous post that interchange with air transport comes at a significant cost in wasted space. The high speed rail train is not going to have the same cross section as an airliner, so any use of an airbox on an HSR train is going to result in lost volume. It is highly unlikely the package hubs and HSR stations are going to be colocated (except maybe at Ontario Airport), so you will need an air container trailer to take the airbox from the station to the package hub, and airboxes sacrifice a lot of volume in those trailers. On the HSR train itself space and weight are still going to be at a premium. Thus your best bet is probably to develop a new airbox-like container specifically for the high speed trains which can fit snugly against the wall from ceiling to floor. Then design the cargo area of your high speed train in such a way that it can accomodate both these special rail boxes as well as a few air boxes. Packages shipped through services like Next Day Air Saver, 2nd Day Shipping and so on would be unloaded from their airboxes, processed through the airhub and loaded onto these smaller railboxes for their ride on the CAHSR train. NDA Early Morning shipments and similar services would come off the plane and their airbox would be loaded directly onto the CAHSR train. That way you maximize the number of packages for lower cost services while not significantly increasing the travel time, but you also get the high value packages from one point to another faster and with less time spent at a hub. |
|
|
| (614908) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:17:39 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri May 9 14:38:48 2008. You're still trying to justify speeding (and I see you slowed down to 70 mph). An Amtrak hogger would be facing a decert if he went overspeed. Don't like how slow trains go on the New Haven Line, then cry to Metro-North, because it's their line from Shell to New Haven. Amtrak still beats driving legally. Watch out for those troopers when they go on a ticketing blitz to raise revenue . . . |
|
|
| (614909) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:18:16 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Wado MP73 on Fri May 9 13:26:30 2008. Examples? |
|
|
| (614910) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:20:15 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 11:08:38 2008. Not true. Unless you speed through the Bronx? A lot of 55-mph limit there. You'll never be able to achieve a 64-mph average speed without speeding, no matter what part of the city you leave from or what part of Boston you go to. |
|
|
| (614911) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:21:17 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri May 9 14:39:54 2008. What if you do? Buses can't hit an 80-mph average speed, unless you're zooming down I-95 at 100 mph. |
|
|
| (614915) | |
Re: High speed rail in the USA—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:27:27 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail in the USA—300 kmh service, posted by Kew Gardens Teleport on Fri May 9 06:59:32 2008. Where are you going to build it? Besides, the slowest part of the railroad is between New York and New Haven. You've still got to consider the MBTA-owned part of the NEC, upon which there are still some 100-mph limits.The Air Line might have cut down average speeds to under three hours by taking a more inland route (but not as far inland as the "Inland Route"); but remember that it was turned into a rail trail instead. |
|
|
| (614918) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:32:20 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 11:05:45 2008. No; he wants "true high speed", which would cut at least an hour off NYP-WAS and possibly reduce WAS-BOS to a bit over 3½ hours. However, that's not going to be possible by "converting" the Northeast Corridor. (And who wants it? The true ability of tilt-train technology, i.e. exercised to full potential, ought to be enough to reduce WAS-BOS to 4½ hours and NYP-WAS to a little over two hours. That's how well tilt-trains work elsewhere, on traditional rail corridors.) |
|
|
| (614933) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 18:04:19 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:20:15 2008. Mostly 50 MPH limit in the Bronx. 70MPH will set you back about $500 when all is said and done.My point is that the average speed of the train doesn't matter. What does matter is total time door-to-door. If you're starting from the Bronx, you've got to either get to Penn Station or Stamford (no Acela at New Rochelle) which is going to take time. Then once you get to Boston you have to get from whichever station you use to where you are going. That slows down the trip when compared to the automobile option -- no matter how fast the average speed of the train is. On the flip side, it is much more relaxing to take a train than it is to drive (said the man as he heads out the door to take on Friday night traffic on I-95...). |
|
|
| (614941) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 18:28:21 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 18:04:19 2008. the average speed of the train doesn't matter. What does matter is total time door-to-doorIf that were true, then nobody would be using Amtrak. Besides, on city streets, you have nice 10-20 mph average speeds, and you can't always get parking right at the door of your destination (never mind your origin). |
|
|
| (614985) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri May 9 20:49:24 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:17:39 2008. I'm not trying to justify shit. I'm saying Amtrak needs to keep up with what people REALLY do. |
|
|
| (614998) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by #5 - Dyre Ave on Fri May 9 21:20:44 2008, in response to High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by R42 4787 on Thu May 8 00:45:59 2008. What about commuter service north of Penn Station? There's no parallel rail line to the NEC north of Penn. And what do you do about commuter train lines that branch off of the Corridor, like NJT's North Jersey Coast Line and the Dinky or SEPTA's Airport, Media and Chestnut Hill West lines? |
|
|
| (615058) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 23:17:22 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 18:28:21 2008. If that were true, then nobody would be using Amtrak. Besides, on city streets, you have nice 10-20 mph average speeds, and you can't always get parking right at the door of your destination (never mind your origin).Exactly. When I decide whether to drive, fly or take the train I consider what time I have to leave my house and what time I will arrive where I'm going. The actual time spent on any particular mode of transit isn't important to me -- nor is how fast it is going. The thing that drives my decision is what method (or, in most cases, combination of methods) gets me there soonest, followed by flexibility (if there's only one flight per day then that's going to be a problem -- even if it looks like it will line up well with my travel plans). If the time difference is close, then I'll factor in things like comfort, effort and how much crap I'm toting along with me (driving is great if you aren't a very neat packer) |
|
|
| (615140) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Wado MP73 on Sat May 10 10:21:09 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:18:16 2008. Couldn't find any firm pics on Google and this may not be a AC line but it should work the same way. The trolley lines are higher than the catenary dead section. The pic is from Innsbruck.Oh and BTW, a real high speed line shouldn't cross at grade with a trolley line. I'm just saying that a trolley line can have a level crossing with catenary wired lines. 
|
|
|
| (615201) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 10 16:12:49 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat May 10 10:21:09 2008. Very interesting setup. Thanks for that pic.and BTW, a real high speed line shouldn't cross at grade with a trolley line Well, "real high-speed" lines don't cross at-grade with anything. Traditional rail corridors are another matter, though. |
|
|
| (615202) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 10 16:14:21 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by NIMBYkiller on Fri May 9 20:49:24 2008. They keep up just fine, even in your fantastic perception of reality. The law will catch up when they start looking for revenue. |
|
|
| (615204) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 10 16:26:48 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by AlM on Thu May 8 11:03:58 2008. EAS is socialistic. Never mind the means to fund the airports. |
|
|
| (615222) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by kp5308 on Sat May 10 18:07:14 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 kmh service, posted by Wado MP73 on Sat May 10 10:21:09 2008. Nice pic-something that really couldn't be put into words.... |
|
|
| (615284) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Terrapin Station on Sat May 10 21:13:22 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:20:15 2008. The HHP is a freakin speedway!!! |
|
|
| (615319) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat May 10 22:44:50 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by Olog-hai on Fri May 9 17:21:17 2008. Well I hate to say it, but my chinatown bus just matched Amtrak's time from Wilmington to NY (1:45), something I have NEVER witnessed before doing that stretch, by bus or by car. I will say, we probably averaged 70 for the highway portion |
|
|
| (615322) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Dutchrailnut on Sat May 10 23:02:02 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat May 10 22:44:50 2008. Averaged, A locomotibe engineer would be de-certified if he/she exceeded the speed by more than 5 mph.taking a China town bus with a KAMIKAZE Driver is not my cup of tea. |
|
|
| (615329) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 10 23:15:25 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat May 10 22:44:50 2008. You're contributing to lawlessness. |
|
|
| (615332) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat May 10 23:17:11 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC-300 kmh service, posted by The Port of Authority on Thu May 8 00:52:31 2008. The "numerous curves" are east of Old Saybrook and diminish when you get into RI. |
|
|
| (615446) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by Broadway Lion on Sun May 11 07:54:54 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by NIMBYkiller on Sat May 10 22:44:50 2008. Speed limit out here is 75 mph. The cops will give a mile or two on top of that. The Gas Station attendant will not.ROARING |
|
|
| (615451) | |
Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun May 11 08:09:06 2008, in response to Re: High speed rail on the NEC—300 km/h service, posted by Charles G on Fri May 9 18:04:19 2008. What does matter is total time door-to-door.For quite a few years I had to visit another company office near I495 and I95 west of Boston, often for arrival there at 8:30. Renting a car so far beat out any other mode of travel for the trip (usually 3 hours and 5 minutes going, little traffic except for the Hartford appraoch and the last 2 miles, a bit more returning because of more traffic everywhere) that sadly I never could see a reason to take Amtrak. I only made the mistake of flying once. |
|
|
|
Page 2 of 6 |
||
