Siemens’ High-Speed Rail: These “Cars” Get 700 Miles-Per-Gallon

Investment U ^ | Friday, June 11, 2010 | David Fessler, Energy and Infrastructure Expert

[PugetSoundSoldier]

You must suffer some kind of reading comprehension disability. The article you cite says that the project requires 1500 miles of track. That's only $33 million per mile.

Uhhh, they need 1500 miles to make a functional rail line between Edinburgh and London. Sidings, passes, etc. means you lay more line than just the distance. I guess that's beyond your comprehension, though!

And once again, you refuse to give a number. If my numbers are bad, Willie, then what numbers are good? Barring your own set of numbers, and a realistic counter to what I've posted, it's your word against hard references, and that means you got squat.

So put up or shut up, Willie. What's the number, and what's the source?

[Willie Green]

Bloomberg says your £34 billion London to Edinburgh train will produce £55 billion in extra revenue and economic benefits.

I'll go with those numbers.

You want to spend $500 billion on high-speed rail here in the US???
Then that should produce $809 billion in extra revenue and economic benefits.

You say it costs $3 Trillion instead???
Ok, then that's $4.8 Trillion in extra revenue and economic benefits.

Bottom line: it's a good investment because it pays back more than it costs.

[PugetSoundSoldier]

So no answers again, Willie. It’s OK to admit you don’t know, don’t be ashamed of your ignorance, own it then cure it.

[Willie Green]

So no answers again, Willie

I come up with a linked source and numbers that show that a project that YOU selected is economically beneficial, and all you can come up with is a lame claim that I didn't come up with any answers???

Hey... if high-speed rail is economically worthwhile in Britain, it will also be worthwhile here.

And if the Brits can afford it, we can afford at least a dozen times more.

[KevinDavis]

Sorry I shouldn’t pay to bring back your memories..

[Crolis]

That’s fine, I don’t expect you to. If I need to recreate memories of traveling by train, I’ll fly to Europe. :)

The other problem with an increased reliance on train travel is the union presence. It’s not unusual in European countries for the public transportation to just stop. The workers just leave the vehicles and hang around until the strike ends. Sometimes it’s a few hours, sometimes its days.

I’m more of a car person now anyway. The magic of the Great American road trip is what inspires me!

[KevinDavis]

Cushy jobs for brain dead slobs!!!

[KevinDavis]

What is so bad about the Highway system?? It allowed Americans to move more freely than before..

[ctdonath2]

Congestion isn’t the problem.

[outpostinmass2]

cost

[outpostinmass2]

Those strikes also happen on the highways in Europe. I was in England for a truckers strike once. Europe is always a bad example to use.

I haven’t seen or a heard of a railroad strike in Japan.

[KevinDavis]

Actually we pay the cost of the highway through gas taxes and toll roads.. I take the freedom part... Why makes you think high speed rail is going to be cheaper??

[outpostinmass2]

High-speed rail won't be cheaper. Regular speed rail at 90MPH would be about the same price as the interstate.

Use to be that passenger railroads were privately funded. Along came the government and the interstate highway system.

By the way tolls and gas tax only pays about 70% of the cost now. The interstate system is in need of serious repair.

[KevinDavis]

Cause of the money being spent on pet projects. Don’t fall for the lie that our highway system is falling apart. To me it is union propaganda. You might as well face the fact: PASSENGER RAIL IN AMERICA IS DEAD!!

[Travis T. OJustice]

Don’t fall for the lie that our highway system is falling apart.

As a civil engineer in the transportation industry, I can honestly assure you your opinion is dead wrong.

[SoCal Pubbie]

“The switch to diesel was done almost overnight...”

If you think twenty five years is overnight, well, okay.

[outpostinmass2]

The switch to Diesel was held off during WWII delaying the switch. Infrastrucure support for steam is what was turned off almost overnight. Coal and water stations were all shutdown within ten years. Steam trains had no where to go.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Successful diesel models were introduced in 1925 with the three boxcabs units sold to the Jersey Central, B&O, and Lehigh Valley roads. Between then and 1942 a host of new models were delivered to the roads. WWII did slow down the production of diesel units, but steam engines were produced through 1949. The Santa Fe regularly scheduled steam power on the San Diegan until 1953, and used the old horses as backups on the line until 1958.

The last standard gauge class 1 regular service steam engine served in October of 1962. If 37 years can be considered overnight, I guess I'll agree.

[outpostinmass2]

I don't want to keep the argument going but I just want to clarify my point. You can believe what you want.
Running a diesel train is far different then running a steam train. A steam train needed water and fuel every 100 miles verses a diesel needing 500 miles or more for service.

It was not the purchase of diesel over 37 years it was the abandonment of the service stops of the steam train. The plug was pulled on the service stops overnight. Hence the railroads had equipment in good running condition that they could not use. And it was done virtually overnight. At the time of rapidly declining revenue the railroads needed to replace perfectly good equipment with very expensive new equipment. Most railroads made the switch in 1955 with a few lines hanging on into the 1960’s. It was a cost saving for the future but at the time it was a huge expenditure. Railroads had a few diesel engines before WWII but they were mostly running steam. Railroads did not start buying diesel engines in mass until after WWII. So within 10 years they had completely converted power.