Ye gads!  If you knew half as much as you think you do, Railwayist, you'd still know twice as much as you really do.  You've obviously never had to worry about meeting a payroll or running a manufacturing plant that produced products that people wanted to buy.

None of which has anything to do with your appalling lack of understanding of economics.  I, too, am originally from Cleveland.  I was there when there were real steel producers -- USS, Republic, National.  They're all gone now, and your constant rants about OPEC and fuel guzzling contribute nothing to intelligent discussion.  You may not like my replies to you, but that's alright because I don't much like your posts.  The point is you are free to post anything you want, and I'm free to reply in any way I want.  Ain't democracy grand?

Never met the gentlemen.  And, by the way, we called them street cars.

Gentlemen,

What's the point of pulling each other down?  We need this type of transportation.  It may seem like a dream now but why not look to the future as there will be solutions forthcoming for the economics.  Highways and autos are not an absolute in a large nation like ours.  Interconnectivity on land IS the only logical real world solution.  Either rail does is or trucks do.  Take your pick.

With as much respect as I can offer to clfrantz, I think he misses the fundamental point.  The provision of HSR or low-speed passenger rail, for that matter will not be in response to logic.  It will be a decision made by politicians, most of whom have no comprehension of the issues involved.  They see only dollar signs of cost and with few exceptions avoid doing the intellectual heavy lifting of deciding whether the society just might be better off - or not - from the provision of such services.  This is another example of the morass we find ourselves in as a partial result of DOT's inability to produce a national transportation policy framework.  

Nor do I consider the rail vs truck conundrum an either-or situation.  That's because the rapid conversion of much freight transportation to intermodal, using the best capabilities of truck and rail, already is underway.  

While passenger transportation relies on government financial assistance, freight transportation invariably will find a way to satisfy customers.  That just might be because there is the profit motive driving freight transportation, while passenger has demonstrated it is incapable of operating at a profit.  And, if one wanted to be a bit churlish (who me?) a case could also be made that air passenger service also relies on public subsidies for its continued existence.  

Look at NYC Transit with its three line main line. The middle line is used for the express service and the out side lines are used for local service. Maybe this would work for slow freight and high speed passenger lines. This concept worked for the elevators in the world trade center. You can have the fastest passenger train, but if you can't get passed a slow freight train, you are just spinning your wheels.

Look at NYC Transit with its three line main line. The middle line is used for the express service and the out side lines are used for local service. Maybe this would work for slow freight and high speed passenger lines. This concept worked for the elevators in the world trade center. You can have the fastest passenger train, but if you can't get passed a slow freight train, you are just spinning your wheels.

The NYC subway system, like all the other subway systems, was built for a single purpose: to move as many people as quickly as possible.  My and large, it does this very well.  Its greatest problems are those of age; NYC has a very old subway system.  Dennis Moore is quite right in his assessment of how NYC moves express trains past locals.  Its system was built that way.  As I understand the HSR debate, though, the railroads that own the rights of way are quite adamant that a true HSR operation cannot operate over the same tracks as their freight trains.  That's a safety issue and is not negotiable.  If you try to build a true HSR set of tracks in the same R-O-W, you increase the cost of HSR exponentially, and the niggardly amount now budgeted will buy even less.  We really must deal with the fundamental issue first: Do we intend to have real HSR?  Or, are we simply going to talk about it until everyone forgets what the debate is about?

It might help, RAILWAYIST, if you provided translators with your comments.

For some reality-based HSR news, MIT's Technology Review has a good article on China's program.  A summary: China's decision to build its HSR network from the ground up has allowed it to get very high average speeds with conventional trains.  (The Maglev system's top speed is much greater, but its average speed not, and that isn't just about trip lengths and initial acceleration and final decelleration.)

Taking care of alignment, grade, and track condition with relatively conventional equipment can give 225 mph.  Who'd a thunk, except maybe some guys at the NYC 40 odd years ago.

www.technologyreview.com/.../24341