daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old May 11th, 2010, 02:13 PM   #1441
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
I'm lost, I can't see the correlation between the proposed articulated design and crash resistance. Whether it be traditional or articulated, there should be no difference at the front.
The TGV only runs at full speed on dedicated tracks. There the thing you worry about is how the train behaves in a derailment, not in a head on crash. Here (as has been demonstrated) the articulated design helps.
How your train deals with head on collisions is only relevant if your train also runs on routes with level crossings, which the TGV does a lot, but the Shinkansen mostly doesn't. However where the TGV runs on existing lines with at grade crossing it will not do so at more than 160kmh. Generally when the speed of a line is raised above this all grade crossings are eliminated. The nose of the TGV is designed to absorb the impact of a grade level collision with a road vehicle at speeds this is likely to occur, and that this works has also been demonstrated.
Quote:
As for axle load, Alstrom sacrificed cabin space in doing so which is evident going over passenger capacity.(Seven to fourteen carriages, with a total of 250-650 seats)
The relevant metric is not "X seats for Y cars" but "X seats on a train with length Z". The TGV has relative short cars.

The 11 car AGV Alsthom is building for NTV is just 200m long, and has about 460 places. 200m is exactly half the maximum length for passenger trains in Europe, so it's a useful size. The 8 car "Velaro D" sets Siemens is building for DB are also 200m long, and have about 460 seats too. So the AGV uses cabin space just as efficiently as the Velaro D...
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old May 11th, 2010, 02:16 PM   #1442
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
BTW the first HSR was Shinkansen and Japanese travel the most by rail each year than every other nation in the world...you make it seem like japanese train companies have no idea what they're doing

Distance travelled by rail per inhabitant in km/year
# 1 Japan: 1,900
Actually the Swiss are #1, with 2400 km/year per inhabitant.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 03:21 PM   #1443
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
The TGV only runs at full speed on dedicated tracks. There the thing you worry about is how the train behaves in a derailment, not in a head on crash. Here (as has been demonstrated) the articulated design helps.
How your train deals with head on collisions is only relevant if your train also runs on routes with level crossings, which the TGV does a lot, but the Shinkansen mostly doesn't. However where the TGV runs on existing lines with at grade crossing it will not do so at more than 160kmh. Generally when the speed of a line is raised above this all grade crossings are eliminated. The nose of the TGV is designed to absorb the impact of a grade level collision with a road vehicle at speeds this is likely to occur, and that this works has also been demonstrated.
Your explanation does not answer the question, of proposed correlation between articulated design and crash resistance.
As for derailment as I have posted earlier a Shinkansen ran through epicenter of a M6 earthquake without a major incident so I don't see much of an advantage in that part either.

Quote:
The relevant metric is not "X seats for Y cars" but "X seats on a train with length Z". The TGV has relative short cars.

The 11 car AGV Alsthom is building for NTV is just 200m long, and has about 460 places. 200m is exactly half the maximum length for passenger trains in Europe, so it's a useful size. The 8 car "Velaro D" sets Siemens is building for DB are also 200m long, and have about 460 seats too. So the AGV uses cabin space just as efficiently as the Velaro D...
So Alstrom made shorter carts to reduce axle load. Really not something to brag about.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 04:30 PM   #1444
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
I'm lost, I can't see the correlation between the proposed articulated design and crash resistance.
Articulated designs resist roll-over better than traditional designs in the event of a derailment.

Quote:
As for axle load, Alstrom sacrificed cabin space in doing so which is evident going over passenger capacity.
AGV is indeed shorter than competing designs, but also much lighter at only 270 ton for a 7 car train set, to keep axle load under 17 ton with powered articulated design.

AGV's closest rival is HEMU-400X, which abandoned articulated design of KTX2 and returned to traditional axle layout design because each car is 50% longer than AGV and the axle load requirement is 13 tons.

So powered articulated design is hard, as Koreans prove. How Koreans plan to deal with derailment is unknown, must be taking design cues from Shinkansen.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
Your explanation does not answer the question, of proposed correlation between articulated design and crash resistance.
Articulated design does not offer superior crash resistance, it offers superior roll-over and jack-knife resistance in case of a derailment caused by an impact.

As for the topic of Shinkansen's flimsy construction, here is a video. Not very crashworthy looking. This is the latest Shinkansen E5.

HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 05:21 PM   #1445
K_
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 2,744
Likes (Received): 243

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamuraiBlue View Post
So Alstrom made shorter carts to reduce axle load. Really not something to brag about.
The shorter cars are a consequence of the choice for an articulated set. They have nothing to do with reducing the axle load down. In fact, having only two axles per car in stead of the usual four increases axle load.
When you use "Jacobs" bogies you have to reduce car lengths, otherwise your train won't fit in the loading gauge.
K_ no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 05:34 PM   #1446
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
Articulated designs resist roll-over better than traditional designs in the event of a derailment.
As I have mentioned time after time, Shinkansen ran through epicenter of a M6 earthquake without a major incident so I don't see much of an advantage in that part.


Quote:
AGV is indeed shorter than competing designs, but also much lighter at only 270 ton for a 7 car train set, to keep axle load under 17 ton with powered articulated design.
If it's shorter then it will naturally be lighter in comparison, there is nothing to brag about, you are just playing with numbers since if it's shorter, saying 7 cars only weighs 270 tonnes doesn't mean a thing since it can only carry a fraction of another HSR system with the same amount of carts.


Quote:
As for the topic of Shinkansen's flimsy construction, here is a video. Not very crashworthy looking. This is the latest Shinkansen E5.
Ahh, the famous, "picture states more then a hundred words" trick.
You'll have to do better then that, without actual crash testing fact it is meaningless.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 05:42 PM   #1447
SamuraiBlue
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 1,232
Likes (Received): 195

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
The shorter cars are a consequence of the choice for an articulated set. They have nothing to do with reducing the axle load down. In fact, having only two axles per car in stead of the usual four increases axle load.
When you use "Jacobs" bogies you have to reduce car lengths, otherwise your train won't fit in the loading gauge.
Ahh, you'll have to elaborate more since it really does not make sense.
I can only read, articulated sets have less axle to divide overall weight of cart so to compensate they had to shorten the length.
As I have been saying there is nothing to brag about.
SamuraiBlue no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 05:43 PM   #1448
k.k.jetcar
Registered User
 
k.k.jetcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sapporo
Posts: 1,811
Likes (Received): 452

Quote:
As for the topic of Shinkansen's flimsy construction, here is a video. Not very crashworthy looking. This is the latest Shinkansen E5.
Hypermiler, just give it up (btw-you should change your name to "crashworthy"- I swear you seem to use that phrase in every other sentence you post). We understand you don't like shinkansen- do us all a favor and go back to shilling for Rotem and their Alstom based designs. As for the video, you can't even correctly identify the railcar- it's a N700, not the E5, so no one is going to take your opinions seriously.
k.k.jetcar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 05:48 PM   #1449
ukiyo
スーパーモデレーターSuper Moderator
 
ukiyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: 大阪府 Ōsaka
Posts: 7,238
Likes (Received): 10647

US transport chief rides 300-mph Japanese maglev
Quote:
TSURU, Japan – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood took a ride Tuesday on the fastest passenger train in the world, a Japanese maglev, as part of Tokyo's sales pitch for billions of dollars in high-speed train contracts from the U.S.

Washington is attempting to drive development of a new train network that will eventually span the country, but the U.S. has almost no domestic experience or technology. Japan, with one of the most advanced train systems in the world, is an eager seller, though it has had scant success with exports so far.

LaHood, who in the past few months has also ridden high-speed trains in Spain and France, said he was impressed with Japanese technology but that was only part of the equation. He said potential manufacturers need to "come to America, find facilities to build this equipment in America, and hire American workers."

"It's getting America into the high-speed rail business, but it's also putting Americans to work building the infrastructure," he said.

During his short visit to Tsuru, a quiet town in the shadow of Mt. Fuji about 50 miles (80 kilometers) west of Tokyo, he came straight to the Maglev Test Line in Yamanashi prefecture. The train hit speeds of 311 miles per hour (502 kph) during a 27-minute run.

Unlike standard trains that ride along on metal rails, magnetic levitation trains float along suspended by powerful magnets. The Japanese version, developed mainly by operator JR Central, uses superconducting magnets to hover above the track.

The train set a speed record for a passenger train of 581 kilometers per hour (361 mph) in 2003, which JR officials say still holds today.

After decades of testing, the train has been approved by the government and is to begin service in Japan in 2027 between Tokyo and central Nagoya.

"I explained this is proven technology that is already in practical use," said JR Central Chairman Yoshiyuki Kasai.

The U.S. in January awarded $8 billion in starter funds to several regional projects, and is due to give $2.5 billion more this year, LaHood said.

Japan's high-speed rail services are among the most advanced in the world, with hundreds of trains running each day and an average annual delay that is typically less than a minute. No passengers have died from a collision or derailment in nearly a half century of service. The only derailment was during a major earthquake in 2004.

For the sales pitch in the U.S., top government officials are working closely with the country's main train operators.

But unlike in Europe, where border crossings and interoperability are prerequisites for doing business, Japan's trains have been developed on an island with homebrew technology. Other Japanese industries with enviable but non-compatible technologies, like its mobile phone operators, haven't fared well in repeated attempts to go abroad.

In addition to the obvious financial benefits, Japan's sleek bullet trains are a point of pride for the country, and the media is closely following the sales race in the U.S. On Tuesday at the Otsuki research facility, dozens of photographers attempted to snap pictures of a 330-foot (100-meter) experimental train as it flew back and forth on the test track.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100511/...aglev_lahood_1

Quote:
Originally Posted by K_ View Post
Actually the Swiss are #1, with 2400 km/year per inhabitant.
I see and Japan is #2 at 1,980 not 1,700. Well if you look at passenger/population %

#1 Japan 69.6
#2 Switzerland 40.9

Modal Share (how many use rail compared to other modes of transport)
#1 Japan 27%
#2 Switzerland 15.3%

Well switzerland has good statistics for this. However, Japan has 127 million people, and has lowest car usage among G8 countries. Apparently Japan carries 8.78 billion passengers a year by rail.
__________________
🌸My Pictures: Tokyo, Tokyo 2, Kobe, Kamakura, Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, Himeji, Atlanta, China
🌸Japan Forum 日本フォーラム please stop by!
🌸浮世🌸

Last edited by ukiyo; May 11th, 2010 at 06:11 PM.
ukiyo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 06:18 PM   #1450
k.k.jetcar
Registered User
 
k.k.jetcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sapporo
Posts: 1,811
Likes (Received): 452


According to UIC statistics K's figures are correct. However statistics can be misleading, especially in this category of passenger km per head of population. Switzerland is a small country (you can get from one end to another in what, 2 or 3 hours?) with a highly developed railway system, with population concentrated on rail corridors- so you get high railway usage per head. Japan is (relatively) a much bigger country, with a population 16 times larger than Switzerland, with a well developed expressway and internal airline system, but it still has the second largest number of passenger km per person in the world.

Japan is still on top with passengers carried per year at 8.78 billion, and is a respectable third in passenger km at 254 billion passenger km, trailing only geographically giant China and India.
k.k.jetcar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 06:47 PM   #1451
k.k.jetcar
Registered User
 
k.k.jetcar's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Sapporo
Posts: 1,811
Likes (Received): 452

OK, steering the thread back to US High Speed Rail. US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (after making a visit to scold Toyota) rode the Maglev in Yamanashi. I'm doubtful about the economic viability of the whole maglev concept, but I'm sure the Secretary had a nice ride.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...g5UbnJynPYK5EQ

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D9FKM4Q80.htm


*apparently there is a proposal to build a maglev line between Baltimore and Washington DC, plus I think another one in PA (Pittsburgh area?)
k.k.jetcar no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 06:53 PM   #1452
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
US transport chief rides 300-mph Japanese maglev
Maglev is out of question in the US market.

http://sankei.jp.msn.com/economy/bus...2106032-n1.htm

According to this Sankei article, the cost of Maglev line construction is $162 ~ 216 million / km, far too high to be sold in the US. Sinkansen line construction cost is half that, still too high compared to what US high speed railway authorities are budgeting for their respective projects.

The likely outcome is that US high speed railway authorities would adopt UIC standard high speed railways and equipment vendors to save money, and run high speed trains partially on shared tracks. In other word, American high speed rail landscape will look like Europe and not like Japan and China.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 07:55 PM   #1453
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/...8tAUgD9FKL27G0

Quote:
LaHood, who in the past few months has also ridden high-speed trains in Spain and France, said he was impressed with Japanese technology but that was only part of the equation. He said potential manufacturers need to "come to America, find facilities to build this equipment in America, and hire American workers."
Quote:
But unlike in Europe, where border crossings and interoperability are prerequisites for doing business, Japan's trains have been developed on an island with homebrew technology. Other Japanese industries with enviable but non-compatible technologies, like its mobile phone operators, haven't fared well in repeated attempts to go abroad.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 08:01 PM   #1454
ukiyo
スーパーモデレーターSuper Moderator
 
ukiyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: 大阪府 Ōsaka
Posts: 7,238
Likes (Received): 10647

Why didn't you just use the link I posted on the page before and also the quote I posted which has the exact same sentences verbatim?

So basically your second quote doesn't matter all but only this part in the first quote. "come to America, find facilities to build this equipment in America, and hire American workers."

Since Toyota and Honda already do that I don't see why the train companies can't. As for cell phones that is entirely different issue, Japan was using 3g (the first 3g network in the world) years before the west so that is one of the main reasons why they could never market them. Last time I checked Japanese (and korean) cameras, TV's, cars and basically all other appliances do very well in the USA; cell phones are an exception and I don't see what they have to do with trains really..
__________________
🌸My Pictures: Tokyo, Tokyo 2, Kobe, Kamakura, Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, Himeji, Atlanta, China
🌸Japan Forum 日本フォーラム please stop by!
🌸浮世🌸
ukiyo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 08:54 PM   #1455
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
So basically your second quote doesn't matter all but only this part in the first quote. "come to America, find facilities to build this equipment in America, and hire American workers."
Which is what Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens, Kawasaki, Rotem already do, they are required to do so under "Buy American rule". It is not a competitive advantage at all.

Quote:
As for cell phones that is entirely different issue, Japan was using 3g (the first 3g network in the world) years before the west so that is one of the main reasons why they could never market them.
Exactly the same issue. The carrier(railway) technology is different from world standard, so cellphone(rolling stock) can't be sold overseas.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 09:03 PM   #1456
ukiyo
スーパーモデレーターSuper Moderator
 
ukiyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: 大阪府 Ōsaka
Posts: 7,238
Likes (Received): 10647

The point is the only issue he had was with building them in the US. He didn't cite any negatives of Shinkansen. Cells and trains can't be compared, the US government will buy the trains and pay for the infrastructure. 10 years ago Japanese cell phone companies were trying to sell 3g cells when 3g infrastructure didn't exist..
__________________
🌸My Pictures: Tokyo, Tokyo 2, Kobe, Kamakura, Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, Himeji, Atlanta, China
🌸Japan Forum 日本フォーラム please stop by!
🌸浮世🌸
ukiyo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 09:24 PM   #1457
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
He didn't cite any negatives of Shinkansen.
That wasn't a good place to discuss shinkansen's negatives. Usually that's done behind closed doors.

Quote:
the US government will buy the trains and pay for the infrastructure.
Actually it is individual state railway authorities who decide what to buy.

Quote:
10 years ago Japanese cell phone companies were trying to sell 3g cells when 3g infrastructure didn't exist..
Same thing.

It is almost certain that the UIC high speed rail standard will be America's national high speed rail standard. Which Shinkansen model is compatible with UIC standard? None.

Kawasaki does understand that there is almost no possibility of Shinkansen track format overseas and is developing a UIC compliant train model called efSET. However, efSET faces the problem of higher cost resulting from being an export-only model, competing against other UIC compliant models(TGV, AGV, Velaro, Talgo, KTX2, HEMU-400x, just to name a few) that are mostly paid for and technically validated through domestic service. They have the economy of scale and could offer their models for far less than the price of efSET.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n31009671/

Quote:
KAWASAKI, Japan, showed a model of its Efset concept design for a new 350km/h train which will be built to international standards as it is aimed at the export market. Kawasaki hopes to complete the detailed design for Efset by 2010.

Efset will be an eight-car train with an output of 11MW and weighing 450 tonnes to give an axleload of 14 tonnes. The objectives for the Efset project are to reduce energy consumption through regenerative braking and improved aerodynamics, and cut noise emissions from the body and bogies. Efset will have a new design of bogie with a stronger suspension system.

"Japanese high-speed trains are designed to cope with micro-pressure waves in tunnels, but this is not so much a problem abroad, so Efset will adopt a more-European nose design," says Mr Yoshitaka Yashiro from Kawasaki Heavy Industries' rolling stock overseas marketing department.
One thing you notice is that efSET weigh 450 ton, at least 100 ton heavier than a typical Shinkansen model and heavier than even the base model Velaro. Why? Because it needs to meet Euro crashworthiness standard, and their first time effort is going to be inferior to their competitor's 2nd and 3rd time efforts. Both AGV and HEMU-400x weigh significantly less than efSET, making efSET uncompetitive against those.

AGV : 270 ton for 7 x 17m cars.
HEMU-400x : 414 ton for 8 x 25m cars
efSET : 450 ton for 8 x 25m cars

Last edited by HyperMiler; May 11th, 2010 at 09:43 PM.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 09:31 PM   #1458
ukiyo
スーパーモデレーターSuper Moderator
 
ukiyo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: 大阪府 Ōsaka
Posts: 7,238
Likes (Received): 10647

It's not the same thing at all since the government will buy the trains and pay for the infrastructure... It's not hard to understand that but since all of your posts are just negative and now making ridiculous comparisons I see conversing with you will go nowhere unfortunately. You Said yourself the state will choose and they can choose whatever standard they want.
__________________
🌸My Pictures: Tokyo, Tokyo 2, Kobe, Kamakura, Osaka, Kyoto, Nara, Himeji, Atlanta, China
🌸Japan Forum 日本フォーラム please stop by!
🌸浮世🌸
ukiyo no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 09:46 PM   #1459
HyperMiler
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 240
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
You Said yourself the state will choose and they can choose whatever standard they want.
As long as the chosen model is Federal regulations compliant.

Feds decide what's legal in the US.
States choose among Fed-approved models.


Kawasaki trying to persuade in its high speed rail presentation why higher US and UIC compression standard is worthless and why only a Shinkansen-style total track/control/rolling stock package guarantees safety.

Unfortunately, all non-Japanese and non-Chinese(Not at the moment, but probably will in the future) high speed rolling stock vendors already comply to UIC standard(Some even claim to comply with 360 ton US standard), so Feds don't have to waver this requirement for the sake of Japanese bidders.

Last edited by HyperMiler; May 11th, 2010 at 10:05 PM.
HyperMiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old May 11th, 2010, 11:13 PM   #1460
Nexis
Dark Wolf
 
Nexis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Along the Rails of North Jersey..
Posts: 15,684
Likes (Received): 17032

Quote:
Originally Posted by k.k.jetcar View Post
OK, steering the thread back to US High Speed Rail. US Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood (after making a visit to scold Toyota) rode the Maglev in Yamanashi. I'm doubtful about the economic viability of the whole maglev concept, but I'm sure the Secretary had a nice ride.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp...g5UbnJynPYK5EQ

http://www.businessweek.com/ap/finan.../D9FKM4Q80.htm


*apparently there is a proposal to build a maglev line between Baltimore and Washington DC, plus I think another one in PA (Pittsburgh area?)
The Maglev dreams are dead as far as i know , now there focusing on upgrading the Northeast & Keystone Corridor to speeds of 190 & 150mph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by HyperMiler View Post
Which is what Alstom, Bombardier, Siemens, Kawasaki, Rotem already do, they are required to do so under "Buy American rule". It is not a competitive advantage at all.


Exactly the same issue. The carrier(railway) technology is different from world standard, so cellphone(rolling stock) can't be sold overseas.
Bombardier has 4 plants in the Northeast / nearby in Canada , Rotem has a plant in Philly, Kawasaki has 2 plants around the NYC region , Siemens doesn't have a plant here yet , neither does Alstom but the demand for more Transit & Train sets will likely mean they will build one soon.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NihonKitty View Post
It's not the same thing at all since the government will buy the trains and pay for the infrastructure... It's not hard to understand that but since all of your posts are just negative and now making ridiculous comparisons I see conversing with you will go nowhere unfortunately. You Said yourself the state will choose and they can choose whatever standard they want.
May i ask why Japan won't invest in the Northeast Corridor? Why Florida? California i can understand , giant system. But Florida is a waste of an investment , it won't even meet HSR speeds. The Northeast Corridor is used to by 1,200+ Trains a day and breaks a profit , + almost 500,000 people use it daily.
__________________
My FLICKR Page < 54,100+ Photos of Urban Renewal , Infrastructure , Food and Nature in the Northeastern US
Visit the Reorganized New York City Section
My Photography Website
Visit the New Jersey Section
Nexis no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 10:10 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium