Re: World's First Fuel Cell-Powered Train Locomotive Slated for 2008

From: Ian St. John (istjohn_at_noemail.ca)
Date: 08/19/04 

Date: Thu, 19 Aug 2004 01:25:31 -0400

Scott A Crosby wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 22:13:22 -0400, "Ian St. John"
> <istjohn@noemail.ca> writes:
>
>>> No, they are not. Not when the population density is much lower and
>>> more spread out. Not if you can't fill a train with enough paying
>>> passengers because there isn't enough of them wanting to go to the
>>> same terminal from the same terminal.
>>
>> "if you build it, they will come". Fact is that the barrier to HSR
>> is the fact that there is no HSR and therefore no incentive to
>> denser communities.
>>
>
> An interesting conjecture. Maybe when/if the US grows to a population
> of a billion or so, we'll see more HSR.

More than a conjecture. The whole of cultural assumptions is an interlinking
web of 'because you do this, you get that'. Change your thinking and you
change the solutions.

>
>>> If you study what happened to passenger rail service in the US in
>>> the '50's and '60's, you will understand more about service in the
>>> US. Look past some of the minor issues of union feather-bedding and
>>> antiquainted operating rules and examine *why* passengers started
>>> flying and driving instead of taking the train. What does HSR do to
>>> aliviate any of those issues? Nothing.
>>
>> Mainly because U.S. trains had establihsed themselves as slow, noisy
>> and with no fixed schedule. Given the lack of progress in train
>> technology, being 'leapfrogged' by air is logical.
>>
>
> Could you explain why you think US passenger rail declined in the
> 50's?

That would be because air travel took over? All the returning airmen
starting up airlines for passengers? Was I not clear?

>
>>> As an example, I can drive about the same distance to get to
>>> either a passenger rail station, or a major US airport. From the
>>> airport, my choices of destination are many more than from the
>>> rail station. So even if the rail were HSR (with electric
>>> equipment), it would not be the preferred transportation.
>>
>> non-sequitor. The same access pertains to the both. There is no need
>> for 'exclusivity' which is just your red herring. And comparing
>> travel, the taxi times are much shorter for trains( stations within
>> the city vs airport way outside) and more comfortable. A comparison
>> of a New York( Empire State Building) to Washington DC ( White
>> House) came down to 10 minutes difference in over three hours of
>> travel using the current slow speed Acela trains. With real HSR the
>> train would have won.
>>
>
> The northeast corridor is the rare place where trains in the US can
> compete with air or automobile.

And still only a half assed implementation compared to Europe. If they can
nearly win under such burdens, they can win if you want them to.

> How about in the other 90% of the
> country?

Generally the costs of setting up an independent grid for powering the rail
lines is prohibitive so usually HSR proposals use turbines. The Acela has a
'brother' at bombardier. The same look and feel, but a turbine power
system. The biggest barrier still tends to be poor rail conditions from
freight traffic, and too many level crossings.

>
> Scott

Relevant Pages