Maybe Wright was on to something. All rails and no roads was the best setup in "SimCity," but that's just a game.

Personally, I think they'll eventually find the high speed is too expensive to operate. If the existing definition of kinetic energy is correct, then it costs 44% more energy to go 300kph than 250kph, but that is only a 20% increase in speed. An 8 hour trip at 300kph is only 9.6 hours at 250kph. Not a big deal, because in most cases 96 extra minutes isn't going to make any difference in a person's schedule if they are already spending most of a day or night on a train anyway.

I point this out every time on rail articles, and people always negative me, but imagine if you made a 44% energy savings on everything we do...The keeling curve would be flat right now, maybe even negative; that's how big a difference it is.

I point this out every time on rail articles

And you think these guys are too dumb to do the math? That they just build stuff without thinking it through?
They have their reasons for making the train as fast as it goes - and the extra energy cost is certainly not a factor that merits a slower train (because you can make that argument ad infinitum until you arrive at an optimally efficient, but stationary, train)

They need to go as fast as they do because trains need to beat out airplanes (or at least be a reasonable alternative). And the energy savings compared to THAT mode of transportation are great enough to the point of being economically significant.

Is sad when i hear news like this and know that here in the US, speed trains are nowhere near the radar of anyone in congress. I think is important to put many things into consideration as antialias_physorg mentioned. First and foremost, these trains avoid the issues of volatile fuel costs, never mind the certain scarcity of them in the near future. The fact that you can travel that great distance(almost coast to coast in the US) on a ticket costing you ~$140 it's remarkable in my opinion. How you get the power for these trains is a different subject matter and whether you want to argue about efficiencies between different modes of travel (train vs. airplane) is a completely different matter altogether too and don't be fooled, both modes have pros and cons. But I'd rather have a train network than the deteriorating road infrastructure we currently have. How long does it take to drive from coast to coast? How much would it cost you?

The US is still using the Imperial System of measurements, that's hilarious. Bullet trains are definitively not on the radar.

China unveils a new bullet train.

U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff and back into Recession due to Republican refusals to raise taxes on the super-rich.

Sign of the times.

Is sad when i hear news like this and know that here in the US, speed trains are nowhere near the radar of anyone in congress.


The Rockefellers doesn't want it to happen.

Is sad when i hear news like this and know that here in the US, speed trains are nowhere near the radar of anyone in congress.


It's just tat the Rockefellers doesn't want it to happen. Making the Americans addicted to oil is the way to rule the country. High speed train was long ago invented in 1930 by George Bennie, but using electricity instead of oil prevents BP and Standard Oil from recycling their printed cash back... I'm sure other clean energy technologies are already invented but not available to the public for the same reason. The world should wake up.

Ok.

[Check] China unveils a new bullet train.

[Check] U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff and back into Recession due to Republican refusals to raise taxes on the super-rich.

Yeap, that about covers it; no... no.. wait it gets better, Republicans refuse to let there *even* be a vote.

Anyone notice the pollution in the photo. Looks like a shot from Blade runner. I don't care if they have bullet trains.
All the really smart people will migrate to the US and places like Portland Oregon to have healthy children.

People in the US don't want trains because they are too slow, too expensive and don't go where the people want to go.
That must be why 'progressives' love trains, people don't like them, they are expensive and need massive govt support to operate.
BTW, anyone notice how many environmental regulations have been waived for the Calif. high speed rail to nowhere?

"Buyers' remorse for California's 'bullet train to nowhere'
California voters are experiencing buyers' remorse over a $68.4 billion (£44.4 billion) high speed rail project which critics say risks becoming a "bullet train to nowhere."

Construction is expected to begin later this year in the middle of California's Central Valley near Merced, a town of 80,000 people known for having one of the highest home foreclosure rates in America.

The plan calls for around 300 miles of track to be laid south from there over the next 10 years to reach the northern outskirts of Los Angeles. A northern link from the Central Valley to San Francisco would not be completed until 2028. "
http://www.telegr...ere.html

People in the US don't want trains because they are too slow, too expensive and don't go where the people want to go.


LOL, only in the US is this true.

"Hey lets fix something" - Sane Person
"NO!, It's BROKEN!" - Ryggesogn2

China unveils a new bullet train.

U.S. goes over the fiscal cliff and back into Recession due to Republican refusals to raise taxes on the super-rich.

Sign of the times.
Well heres one from chicago to detroit
http://www.mlive....ion.html

-Sadly it stops short of canada. But people up there have nowhere to go anyways, do they? They do like trains though...or at least the tracks eh?
http://www.youtub...1yRKFtN0