that's 55-65% of commercial passenger planes, depending on type of plane/flight.

and they were just 5 mph shy of the absolute record by the japs, which uses magnetic levitation. so that shows you that with maglev, 500 mph should be cake.

this is the future for intercity and inter-country travel, especially in asia. china, korea, and taiwan are investing $100s of billions in the next few years to install high speed trains all over their countries. i am sure india will jump on it soon, too.

btw, the frenchies have held the rail train record since 1955. kinds makes you want to despise the oil lobby in the US... cause if the frenchies can do that, the US could/should have been far ahead.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6521295.stm

to see footage, click http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_6520000/newsid_6522000/6522029.stm?bw=nb&mp=wm but if that doesn't work, click original link above, and then link on right.

Quote :

"French set new rail speed record A French high-speed train (TGV) has smashed the world record for a train on conventional rails by a big margin, reaching 574.8km/h (356mph). The previous TGV record was 515km/h (320mph), set in 1990. The record attempt by a modified TGV took place on a track between Paris and the eastern city of Strasbourg. The absolute train speed record was set by a Japanese magnetic levitation train - Maglev - in 2003. It reached a top speed of 581km/h (361mph). The TGV set the new record at 1314 (1114GMT) on Tuesday. It was a modified version called V150, with larger wheels than usual and two engines driving three double-decker cars. The BBC's Emma Jane Kirby said the three train drivers were seen grinning on French TV after they realised they had broken the record. V150 TRAIN Two engines - one at each end Three double-decker cars Three motorised bogies Power output: more than 25,000 horsepower Cost: 30m euros (£22m; $40m) The train travelled almost as fast as a World War II Spitfire fighter at top speed. The electrical tension in the overhead cable was boosted from 25,000 volts to 31,000 for the record attempt. Spectators clapped and cheered as the train zoomed underneath bridges. "We saw the countryside go by a little faster than we did during the tests," engineer Eric Pieczac told the Associated Press. "Everything went very well. There are about 10,000 engineers who would want to be in my place," Mr Pieczac said. "It makes me very happy, a mixed feeling of pride and honour to be able to reach this speed." French TGV trains, in service since 1981, generally travel at about 300km/h. But from 10 June they will be allowed to reach 320km/h on the recently opened Paris-Strasbourg LGV Est line. SNCF and the train's makers Alstom say the record attempt represents a test on the infrastructure in extreme conditions, which is impossible to carry out in the laboratory. After the record was broken, President Jacques Chirac conveyed his congratulations on "this new proof of the excellence of the French rail industry." Rival trains "Economically efficient and respectful of the environment, the TGV is a major asset in efforts to ensure sustainable development in transport," Mr Chirac was quoted as saying. "What is important for us today is to prove that the TGV technology which was invented in France 30 years ago is a technology for the future," said Guillaume Pepy, director-general of SNCF. Alstom also aims to boost TGV sales abroad, where it is competing with the Japanese Shinkansen and the German Inter-City Express high-speed trains. China, South Korea and Taiwan are the most important customers for high-speed trains. The technology is also being looked at in California for a new high-speed service between Los Angeles and San Francisco, according to AFP news agency. "

and before someone comes in here saying the absolute record on rails is MACH 5 using a rocket propelled small rail car in the US a few decades ago, i know about it

[Edited on April 3, 2007 at 5:50 PM. Reason : ]

4/3/2007 5:48:46 PM

It would be fucking awesome to see that thing crash going over 300mph

4/3/2007 6:05:59 PM

i'll take my singularity-powered flying superpod any day over that deathtrap

4/3/2007 6:08:36 PM

i wonder what my penny would look like if i put it underneathe it at 356mph

4/3/2007 6:09:05 PM

Quote :

"btw, the frenchies have held the rail train record since 1955. kinds makes you want to despise the oil lobby in the US... cause if the frenchies can do that, the US could/should have been far ahead. "

Except it's not their fault. Trains are GREAT for highly urbanized countries with small land areas. Same reason so many of the european and asian tranport/urban planning ideas don't work here. We have cheap land and plenty of it.

4/3/2007 6:11:48 PM

Quote :

"btw, the frenchies have held the rail train record since 1955. kinds makes you want to despise the oil lobby in the US... cause if the frenchies can do that, the US could/should have been far ahead."

anything revolving around transportation the US is far behind.

4/3/2007 6:18:59 PM

Quote :

"anything revolving around transportation the US is far behind."

you mean like how we get all the big cars and paved roads? our transportation network is excellent for the geographical requirements.

4/3/2007 6:41:51 PM

whatever happened to the linear train they were testing in japan?

4/3/2007 6:44:58 PM

Quote :

"anything revolving around transportation the US is far behind."

You're forgetting something...






FUCKING COPS ON SEGWAYS

4/3/2007 7:01:56 PM

TGVs in France are fun

I've taken the Nice - Paris TGV 5-6 times

[Edited on April 3, 2007 at 7:05 PM. Reason : yea]

4/3/2007 7:05:17 PM

Quote :

"i wonder what my penny would look like if i put it underneathe it at 356mph"

I would guess the same as if it was going 1mph. The fact that it goes really fast, doesn't mean that makes it heavier.

4/3/2007 7:08:13 PM

I went 375 MPH in the Pullen Park Train freshman year.

4/3/2007 7:09:21 PM

Yea to make something like this to cover the similar population and length to cover much of the country we'd have to spend hundreds of trillions of dollars.

The only place that really benefits from things like this is the northeast.

4/3/2007 7:43:22 PM

hundreds of trillions.... ? haha no. world's GDP: 45 trillion

sure, it will cost tens of billions (perhaps hundreds), but it doesn't have to be done in a few years, or even a decade. i can't see why it is not possible to connect all major cities in the US with each other in the next 100 years by superfast rail. and i am only talking major cities, not each and every town. how many "major" cities are there? 50? 100 tops.

i (most anybody) would much rather take a train like that than fly (and DEFINITELY over a BUS). sure, it would take me double the time to get to my destination, but it will surely cost a third to a quarter, be much more comfortable, and you get to enjoy the scenery.

imagine the money to be made from this.


[Edited on April 3, 2007 at 8:02 PM. Reason : ]

4/3/2007 7:54:09 PM

160euro roundtrip from nice to paris on TGV

200euro roundtrip from nice to paris on airfrance

you choose

4/3/2007 8:28:55 PM

it only has to go 88 mph for the delorean to travel in time

4/3/2007 8:57:00 PM

I would certainly choose high-speed train, even if they were the same price. Flying is convenient and fast, but it's a giant motherfucking production. And even if train service became faster, more common, and subject to increased security, I still think it would be more comfortable (bigger seats, more legroom, no turbulence, no pressure issues...)

[Edited on April 3, 2007 at 8:58 PM. Reason : hs]

4/3/2007 8:58:32 PM

Quote :

"btw, the frenchies have held the rail train record since 1955. kinds makes you want to despise the oil lobby in the US... cause if the frenchies can do that, the US could/should have been far ahead."

Please quit with your anti-American BS. So lets say we installed a huge high speed electric train system in the US. Most of the electricity would come from oil power plants anyway!

And you're SEVERELY underestimating how much it would cost to construct this train system somewhere. For comparison they're now building a new subway line in Manhattan that will go along 2nd Avenue on the east side (about 10 miles long). That plus an extension of another line of around 1 mile is going to easily cost over 100 billion dollars. I realize the subway's underground, but its also only 30-40 miles of track compared to hundreds.

4/3/2007 11:02:48 PM

A good train is most definitely better than a plane. More room, probably faster (including security, taxiing, etc), more convenient. Too bad Amtrak sucks balls.

4/3/2007 11:18:16 PM

what would be the price difference in constructing and operating a high speed train like this and building a vacuum tube and putting a train in that.

4/3/2007 11:46:38 PM

Quote :

"Too bad Amtrak sucks balls"

yeah, and whose fault is that, SKOKIAAN

4/4/2007 12:29:45 AM

^are you making some sort of point?

4/4/2007 12:34:36 AM

^7 sure it did, but the train did too with a flux capacitor

4/4/2007 1:13:29 AM

Quote :

"Please quit with your anti-American BS. So lets say we installed a huge high speed electric train system in the US. Most of the electricity would come from oil power plants anyway! "

why you gotta bring stupid politics into this. so me blasting the OIL LOBBY is me being anti-american? yeah ok and i never said electricity doesn't come from oil, even though not all of it does. but you do you know any history regarding this (antagonism of oil companies to rail lines)? if not, read up on it.

as for the cost, you are severly underestimating how much of an effect building underground has, as opposed to building overground. i am sure it makes it 100-fold as expensive. which means for 100 billion, you can make 3-4,000 miles above ground. that's my educated guess.


edit: i was reading an article about the french train on http://www.iht.com and it said china is building 7,500 miles of superfast rail track in the next few years at a cost of $250 billion.

i said 100 billion = 3,000 miles

multiply both sides by 2.5

250 billion = 7,500 miles.

am i good or what?

of course, it is not going to cost the same in the US because labor is so much cheaper in china, but hey, it will be mexicans making it, right? and they get minimum wage. so i don't know, maybe costs in the US will be double, or triple, but still, that's nothing compared to what you were implying with your flawed example of an underground train, which was SEVERELY overestimating the actual costs.


[Edited on April 4, 2007 at 4:21 AM. Reason : ]

4/4/2007 4:13:48 AM

I just got off of a TGV an hour ago

4/4/2007 5:44:54 AM

LIES LIES LIES!!!

PICS OR IT DIDN'T HAPPEN!!!

4/4/2007 5:56:06 AM

not that it matters much, but the record is 357 mph (357.2 to be exact, not 356).

guess BBC messed up in their conversion from km/h to mph.

4/4/2007 6:49:45 AM

meh, that's not the operating speed though, (199 i'm pretty sure)

but I am for UHSR in the US between major cities... the problem is we would have to grade and lay the track for all of it for much longer distances than they are in europe or japan....

Cleveland - Detroit - NY - Pittsburg - Philly - Boston - Washington/Baltimore - Nova/Richmond - Norfolk Area? - Raleigh - Charlotte - Charleston - Colombia - Atlanta - Savannah - Jacksonville - Miami - Tampa Bay area -(maybe another stop somewhere between) N.O. - Memphis - Dallas - Houston - San Antonio - Elpaso / Amarillo - Phoenix - San Diego - L.A. - S.F area - Salt Lake City - Los Vegas - Portland - Seattle - St. Louis - Minniapolis - Chicago - Kansas City and probably like 5 other stops....

these would be the only high speed stops... tickets could be cheaper than a plane (hopefully only about twice the time a plane takes travel time wise probably only 1.8 times once you factor in delays and such)

the cost tho would be high....

4/4/2007 9:46:08 AM

Amtrak is a money pit.

Americans will pay the extra cash to get to California in 5 hours rather than sit on a train for a day or two.

4/4/2007 10:02:30 AM

Quote :

"meh, that's not the operating speed though, (199 i'm pretty sure)"

yeah i know... currently the TGV runs at 200 mph.

but in a few years, i am sure that would be pushed up to 250 mph, and in a decade, there would be commercial passenger trains running at 300-350 mph in asian cities.

4/4/2007 10:07:47 AM

Quote :

"Americans will pay the extra cash to get to California in 5 hours rather than sit on a train for a day or two."

but they might not spend the extra money to get between two major cities on the east coast

4/4/2007 10:24:35 AM

Quote :

"And you're SEVERELY underestimating how much it would cost to construct this train system somewhere. For comparison they're now building a new subway line in Manhattan that will go along 2nd Avenue on the east side (about 10 miles long). That plus an extension of another line of around 1 mile is going to easily cost over 100 billion dollars. I realize the subway's underground, but its also only 30-40 miles of track compared to hundreds."

I think you are underestimating the cost of building anything underground, especially in an urban area. Take a look at Boston's Big Dig where they put the I-93 and I-90 freeways under the city for a few miles, that shit was ASTRONOMICAL in cost, way above budget, and has been plagued with problems concerning substandard concrete and construction methods; so you can bet it would cost more had they actually used shit they should have. Compare this to how much building this freeway at ground level would have cost, I think it would be quite less, obviously through an urban area the cost of building a freeway is going to increase exponentially, but just saying ground level=cheaper than subterranean.

So your manhattan subway comparison to a high speed rail through america linking major cities isin't really even applicable.

We need these high speed rails, im tired of my airplane seat getting kicked by small children everytime I fly.

4/4/2007 3:25:29 PM

Quote :

"china is building 7,500 miles of superfast rail track in the next few years at a cost of $250 billion."

china doesn't have to pay for property, and their labor is dirt cheap. $250 billion in materials turns into several trillion with American engineering and construction.

4/4/2007 3:30:05 PM

Quote :

"Americans will pay the extra cash to get to California in 5 hours rather than sit on a train for a day or two."

going to California from the East coast will still take all day on a high speed train.

4/4/2007 3:31:25 PM

hypothetically, if you were in a high speed train going 200mph from nyc to LA, it would take approximately 14 hrs

[Edited on April 4, 2007 at 3:45 PM. Reason : and it would take 8 hrs at 350 mph]

4/4/2007 3:44:02 PM

that's with no stops for connecting city stops, rail changes, or power grid changes.

4/4/2007 3:47:55 PM

very true.

4/4/2007 3:48:42 PM

Obviously, for longer distances, planes make sense. However, a trip to DC or NYC or Florida is close enough in both time AND cost to make it worth it.

Imagine getting to the train station 10 minutes before, walking through the electronic ticket gate, getting on the train, and having it leave on fucking time. You save at least an hour not having to do all the plane BS.

4/4/2007 8:51:55 PM

ok so complete transcontinental travel on high speed rail is still not comparable in amount of time it takes, but Im sure ridership would increase on these not only because of decreased travel time, but those who hate airports, air travel, or are afraid of flying would be more willing. Regional travel though would be the real reason for these. I would much prefer to take a high speed rail to orlando or destinations in the NE than deal with I-95 or the hassle that is air travel.

4/4/2007 8:55:46 PM

Quote :

"that's with no stops for connecting city stops, rail changes, or power grid changes."

why would there be power grid changes? if your building it up from the ground you can make it pretty consistent (even the french trains, which some use mulitple voltages don't have to slow down, they just disengage, then coast then re-engage the wire connections for the next voltage...

4/4/2007 8:59:43 PM

glad i am not the only one who thinks that fast trains would be a hit with a lot of people.

imagine, for a one hour flight, you spend:

1 hour pre-departure
1 hour in air
at least 15 min after landing to get out.

that's at least 2.25 hours.

on a train:

15 min pre-departure
2 hours travel time
5 min you are out

that's also the same amount of time.

but, less time in lines, less frustration, less hassle, less tiredness, A LOT MORE comfort (you can get stuff done on the train), scenery, CHEAPER, etc.

the choice is clear.

4/4/2007 9:33:03 PM

Last time I flew to DC, it took the same amount of time as driving. A fast train would definitely have been better for that trip.

4/4/2007 9:41:55 PM

i rode on the TGV when i was in France, and that fucker was pretty fast

4/4/2007 9:43:05 PM

Quote :

"on a train: 15 min pre-departure 2 hours travel time 5 min you are out that's also the same amount of time. "

You are crazy if you think the American government is going to be that lax about anti-terrorist measures on a train going 350mph across the countryside. it will be just like airport security.

4/5/2007 9:57:03 AM

we would have to make extensive improvements to our current electrical grid in the US before we started installing thousands of miles of rail for cars that eat up 10-15MW each. I'd like to know how many MW that 350mph train was eating up - I bet it was somewhere around 80MW.

4/5/2007 10:14:47 AM

Quote :

"as for the cost, you are severly underestimating how much of an effect building underground has, as opposed to building overground. i am sure it makes it 100-fold as expensive. which means for 100 billion, you can make 3-4,000 miles above ground."

Yeah you're right. After I posted that yesterday and logged off I realized the error in my statement. However it isn't a stretch to say it'd cost a lot more here to construct such a system.

But yes I'd love it too.

4/5/2007 1:54:17 PM

10 bucks says that this train will be a terrorist target

4/5/2007 3:03:06 PM

i rode the maglev in shanghai this past october. the airport is a 45 minute cab ride (which gets expensive) from the city, but we made it in 8 minutes on the train for USD $5. they had a digital speedometer in each car - no where close to this but we got up to about 180 mph.

passing another train going in the other direction 100 feet away at 180 mph is fucking scary.

4/5/2007 5:16:23 PM

vacuum tubes would be so much cheaper.

4/5/2007 6:50:17 PM

^^ nice!

passing another one in the opposite direction at 180 mph would make it a relative speed of 360 mph for the two trains!

4/5/2007 10:14:19 PM