diehardbiker

Exactly, it is called ROI.

__________________
Please do not follow unless your driving REAL 4x4 with LOW!

FUN is standard...PAVEMENT is optional....



Plus Jeep Wrangler owner too.

Deafness

__________________
This advertising will not be shown in this way to registered members.
Register your free account today and become a member on AllDeaf.com

diehardbiker

That is cheap! I know it sounded expensive but if you translate into mathematics, it is D I R T Y cheap!

Say, if the mileage are 2 gallons per mile, that would translate into half MPG. So in other word two cars together gets one MPG.

And if these train pull 400 cars, divide that by two to get average MPG per car.

That would translate into 200MPG for each car! How can any other vehicle beat that? Whats more, only need two person to haul 400 cars meaning only two man hour wage... Verses 18 wheelers

It would take 200 tractors and 200 drivers to haul entire train loads, and the best mpg for 18 wheelers are 30mpg... which transform them into... how many gallons per mile for all together? divide that by 200, that would translate into 6.6 gallons per mile (That is the best you can get, but in reality average 18 wheelers gets 15mpg and that would mean 13 gallons per mile) PLUS 200 man hour wage thus costing $$$$ plus wear and tear on our tax paid highways.

So even 2 gallons per miles for train is alot cheaper than mpg for 18 wheelers.

__________________
Please do not follow unless your driving REAL 4x4 with LOW!

FUN is standard...PAVEMENT is optional....



Plus Jeep Wrangler owner too.

sequoias

Yep, I agree! For example, in California is planning for high speed rail system which would cost $10 billion for a start up plan. The extensions would cost additional few billion dollars with a build out cost of maybe $20-30 billion and that will take a LONG time to pay it off if they did that all at once, so it's best to start with a first leg until they get revenues from the passengers, you know?

Something not related to high speed rail....Seattle light rail would be paid off by around 2030-2040 on the first segment that is completed basically and will be opening in July 3, 2009. It cost us about $2.4 billion for 15.9 miles due to the geography we have.

sequoias

Yeah, I'm aware that freight trains are MUCH more efficent than semi trucks with tons of trailers which isn't any cheaper due to cost of repairing roads that trucks caused and all the fuel in each semi trucks! 200 semi trucks times 300 gallons of fuel which is around 60,000 gallons of fuel burned while a 2 or 3 locomotives producing around 10,000 hp would be less than 7,500 gallons to burn pulling 100-120 cars carrying 2 containers which is like 200+ containers in one run for up to 1,000 miles or so.

webexplorer

I remember five years ago, we drove thru many states especially in southern states. There were awful many big commercial trucks on the highways. I didn't like it because of the many accidents. I think that it is the easy way for the companies to use the trains instead of trucks. It is probably expensive, but everything is already expensive. I am not sure if it is related in the commercial-truck business for high speed rail subject.

sequoias

There are some high speed freight trains...so it can be related. They have high speed trains carrying letters between UK and France called La poste. It's a yellow TGV Altantique, they have about 2.5 TGV locomotives in their fleet.

Here's the video of it whizzing by...along with TGV duplex passenger train passing by on the other track.

sequoias

AFP: France's SNCF hopes to run high speed rail in US

France's SNCF hopes to run high speed rail in US
3 days ago
MERRILLVILLE, Indiana (AFP) — The United States is ready for a truly high-speed rail system and France's national railway SNCF would be "very interested" in operating a network, a senior executive said Thursday.
"We strongly believe that in this country, in some of the corridors, the system should logically be profitable," SNCF International chairman Jean-Pierre Loubinoux said in an interview on the sidelines of a rail conference in Indiana.
While detailed market analysis still needs to be undertaken, Loubinoux said the French experience has shown that high-speed rail operates most effectively between large cities that are around 1,000 to 1,500 kilometers (600 to 930 miles) apart.
These conditions exist in the east coast, California, the midwest, Texas and Florida.
"You could have more than just a corridor. You could have a system," he told AFP.
"If the possibility (of operating a network) is open we certainly would consider it with great interest."
The US government has allocated eight billion dollars for high-speed rail as part of a massive economic stimulus package and a number of states are competing for the money.
The bulk of the states are expected to propose incremental improvements to their rail systems by improving existing tracks in order to increase speeds from a maximum of 79 miles per hour to 110 or 150 miles per hour (127 kilometers per hour to 177 or 241 kilometers per hour.)
Loubinoux said the nation would be better off investing in a new, dedicated system with speeds of up to 217 miles (350 kilometers) per hour.
There is "a lot of business potential to be considered," Loubinoux said, adding that the structure of the bidding process remains to be determined.
"Will it be just a build and transfer of technology, will it be maintenance and operation... commercial contracts, operating possibilities," he said.
"Definitely in some cases, especially in high-speed corridors... we could envisage participating in some operation systems."
The SNCF, which developed France's famed TGV series of high-speed trains in the 1970s, plans to submit proposals to the US railway authority, which expressed interest last fall in improving service in 11 rail corridors.
"What we can bring is our experience. It's been more than 25 years since we developed high-speed rail services."
Loubinoux is hopeful that the United States, which has long lagged in developing its passenger rail system, now has the political will to launch the massive investment needed.
"The economic and financial crisis worldwide seems to be a sort of catalyst to big, nationwide infrastructure programs," he added.

webexplorer

When will it be ready for high speed freight trains in the U.S.A.? It would be so fun and save a lot of our time. Government, hurry up - the congress people are eating our money without our permissions especially wasted a lot of money on made in China products. F-k China.

sequoias

I don't know the answer to the question about high speed freight in the US. Altho, there are 110 mph rail lines in some parts of Northeast, but freight train locomotives pulling hundred of cars cannot go that fast so passenger trains do.

PowerWCRulez

MInnesota will have high speed rail service between Minneapolis and Superior/Duluth with stop at Coon Rapids, Cambridge and Hinckley, Mn. It's called Northern Lights Express - NXL.

I hopefully they will construct the new NXL Transit Station in Hinckley, MN, new shuttle bus between Grand Casino and NXL Transit Station (Rail and bus). or NXL Grand Casino Station right by the casino.

In Minneapolis, they're under constructing new Target Field Ballpark Transit Station (Bus/Light Rail/Northstar and NXL), Northstar would start service in later this year for Minneapolis and Big Lake with stop at Fridley, Coon Rapids, Anoka and Elk River.

__________________
[] Updated: 9/10/2007 - SK3 is here! [] Avatar Pic: Ride on the bus []
[] Astrospace IRC Chat clients [] Astrospace IRC Web [] Ubuntu Linux []
[] Personal Web & Scammer Alert List [] Wheelchairjunkie []
[] MyMiniCity (Returned! Finally script working now) []
[] Xbox 360 Achievement Site [] Xbox Deaf Gamers Group []

Foxrac

It would nice to have high speed rail in Gulf Coast area and Texas.

Amtrak train is more slower when compare to car, from my area to Atlanta took 2 hours via driving but train took 4 hours and to New Orleans took 5 hours via driving and train took 7 hours.

It's cheaper to drive the car than ride on Amtrak train due low gas price, however high diesel price caused train to increase the rate for fare in past.

__________________

Grummer

cheap way to build high speed trains had been tried and successful in NY in 1963, reaching 183MPH !!!



just strap on those jets !!

__________________
Some people will tell you that slow is good - and it may be, on some days - but I am here to tell you that fast is better. I've always believed this, in spite of the trouble it's caused me. Being shot out of a cannon will always be better than being squeezed out of a tube. That is why God made fast motorcycles.
Hunter S Thompson

rockdrummer

That sucks.. nothing from coast to coast.
http://www.fra.dot.gov/downloads/Res...idors_2009.pdf

sequoias

It isn't. Too loud. Why it isn't in service today? It's not successful, period.

sequoias

Did you actually read the whole thread? I had to copy and paste what I said the reason why you can't do coast to coast. USA is so huge.

Foxrac

Yup, also I don't like their design, 1960's train is very old.

__________________

sequoias

Yea....

This is one of my favorite HST which is a TGV Duplex

webexplorer

Why they are about crashing each other? It would be awful expensive to replace new trains.

sequoias

Lol, nice job photoshopping it.

Foxrac

Is it in France?

I'm interested about high speed rail that Amtrak has one in northeast US.

I have 1 year to left to start new life in DC due college, that's not far away from NYC and I'm forward to see high speed rail.

__________________

sequoias

Yes, it's in France...they also have service between France to UK and France to Germany (TGV POS)

The Amtrak Aleca isn't really THAT fast because of the old infrastructure in Northeast. If they had dedicated high speed rail line then it would be much faster and seperated from the traffic. It only goes up to 150 mph for about 20 minutes between RI to Massachuetts, I think. Most of the time it goes up to 100-120 mph.

Foxrac

Oh really, why does they sticking with old infrastructure?

I found out about fare for Amtrak Aleca isn't cheap, it almost equal to airport fare for DC to NYC but less annoying security for train.

__________________

sequoias

Simply because they didn't want to build a dedicated rail line back then, plus there's a lot of homes in the area and it has to snake thru this and that. Imagine demolishing all those homes to build a dedicated one.

webexplorer

I would love to ride a fastest train from Massachusetts to NC for one hour. I don't like the flying that much.

The only problem is that the electric wires above the stick on the train to the towers are too dangerous. No matter what because of large amount of magnetic field which is not healthy to people. I am sure that there must be another way for a better technology without the harmful magnetic fields.

If you say that it is not a big deal, then fine with me, and there will be more people who will get a cancer from that problem. It's because we cannot see magnetic fields in the air. It is the same way for gas vapor in the air that we breathe everyday.