Before anyone gets excited, Yes, I am aware this is not about Amtrak. But we can all dream, can't we?
Posted by tarheelman (Member # 6095) on :
Great video---thanks for posting it! Now *this* is 21st century passenger rail.
As you said, we can dream. However, if we only had an 80/20 federal/state funding program for passenger rail infrastructure, this kind of rail service could be a reality rather than a dream.
Posted by rresor (Member # 128) on :
That equates to 345 MPH, for all those kilometrically challenged. Not bad! I was at a transportation conference in Lyon, France in 1992 where SNCF was showing the video they made of a test at 520 kph/322 MPH earlier that year on the TGV Atlantique route, just before it opened. I think the best shot was of the point where the TGV crosses over an older line. There's a tower right there, a manual interlocking with the tall levers, and the operator was out on the stair landing waving as the TGV screamed by...the old and the new.
Posted by tarheelman (Member # 6095) on :
Since the TGV is approximately twice as fast as the Acela, does anyone know why Amtrak didn't go with a fleet of TGVs instead of having an HSR locomotive and cars custom built? Was the custom built option less expensive than a fleet of TGVs would've been?
Posted by sbalax (Member # 2801) on :
I saw on the web that HM The Queen has opened the new St. Pancras International in London and that the final high speed link of the Eurostar is finished and operations will soon move from Waterloo. They said it's now officially faster to take the train (city center to city center) than fly between London and Brussels and Paris.
Frank in cool, foggy SBA
Posted by Geoff M (Member # 153) on :
Yes, something like 2h20 London to Paris and 2h London to Brussels. You'd barely get from car parking to plane at CDG or Heathrow airport in that time. Check-in is 20 minutes on the train; you can sit and relax - and use your laptop throughout the journey!
Even before the high speed link in the UK was finished, unofficially it was still faster to take the train.
It should be noted that the very high speed TGV run was made with a specially formed train set and the usual speed is 186mph on most routes; slightly higher on some newer routes.
The French love trains and the majority actually *want* a high speed line close to them. Compare with the UK where the majority will do their utmost to ensure they don't get a high speed line anywhere near them.
Geoff M.
Posted by George Harris (Member # 2077) on :
quote:Originally posted by tarheelman: Since the TGV is approximately twice as fast as the Acela, does anyone know why Amtrak didn't go with a fleet of TGVs instead of having an HSR locomotive and cars custom built? Was the custom built option less expensive than a fleet of TGVs would've been?
First and foremost, IT AIN'T THE TRAINS, IT IS THE TRACK, or more precisely, the ALIGNMENT of the track.
A TGV on the northeast corridor would be no faster than the Acela. In fact it would be slower as it has a somewhat (slightly?) lower horsepower to weight ratio. This is not a problem in France where the the TGV's run primaily on tracks built for their use that have no intermediate lower speed restrictions. In other words, you get up to 300 km/h or whatever and stay there until it is time to slow for the next stop. On the NEC by contrast, there is almost constant acceleration and braking because you are running on an 18 whatever alignment built when the only earthmoving equipment was shovels and mule drawn scrapers and wagons. About all the speed has been squeezed out of the northeast corridor that can be without major realignments.
Second the TGV equipment does not meet the FRA crashworthiness standards. A statement of reality, not a can of worms I am trying to open - again.
Geoff - a mindset that appears peculiar to Engish speaking peoples. Way too much of it on the west side of the Atlantic, as well.
Posted by tarheelman (Member # 6095) on :
quote:Originally posted by George Harris:
quote:
First and foremost, IT AIN'T THE TRAINS, IT IS THE TRACK, or more precisely, the ALIGNMENT of the track.
A TGV on the northeast corridor would be no faster than the Acela. In fact it would be slower as it has a somewhat (slightly?) lower horsepower to weight ratio. This is not a problem in France where the the TGV's run primaily on tracks built for their use that have no intermediate lower speed restrictions. In other words, you get up to 300 km/h or whatever and stay there until it is time to slow for the next stop. On the NEC by contrast, there is almost constant acceleration and braking because you are running on an 18 whatever alignment built when the only earthmoving equipment was shovels and mule drawn scrapers and wagons. About all the speed has been squeezed out of the northeast corridor that can be without major realignments.
Second the TGV equipment does not meet the FRA crashworthiness standards. A statement of reality, not a can of worms I am trying to open - again.
Geoff - a mindset that appears peculiar to Engish speaking peoples. Way too much of it on the west side of the Atlantic, as well. [/QB]
Thanks for the explanation, George. I didn't know that the TGVs don't meet federal crashworthiness standards. Also, I'd forgotten just how old most of the track in the NEC is.
Geoff: As George said, the anti-train mindset appears to affect all English speaking peoples. However, IMO, as bad as this mindset is in the U.K., it's even worse here. At least you folks *have* HSR---every attempt at implementing it here has failed. (I don't consider the Acela to be a true HSR implementation because, as George reminds us, most of its route is made up of old track that wasn't designed for modern HSR trains.)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)