Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #150 – 2016-02-01, 04:01:50 Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-01-31, 19:17:43who will be as short tempered as ensb!Hi to you too. And here I thought I'd been doing a pretty good job of remaining calm lately. I had to scroll back a bit but my last comment about trains was rather blasé. I reciprocated a tone about public water but still.If it is something regarding how the Federal Gov. isn't supposed to do some things that plenty of Euro Govs. take for granted then there's a point of discussion but I won't be getting upset about it. (Of course quoting wtf you're commenting on would be too hard. You'd have to highlight AND click something.)
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #151 – 2016-02-01, 21:35:25 Quote from: mjmsprt40 on 2015-11-10, 14:40:08What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into a train in the US?Some cargo would be damaged but no people would be injured.
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #152 – 2016-02-01, 23:20:35 Quote from: ensbb3 on 2016-02-01, 04:01:50(Of course quoting wtf you're commenting on would be too hard. You'd have to highlight AND click something.)Be patient... he takes a few years just to write your name correctly...
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #153 – 2016-02-05, 03:02:29 I do hope jimbro nothing happens from outer space as the natives are traditionally very excitable (ssh, don't mention the HG Welles thingy pre-WW2!). Anyway here is a really seriously interesting, fascinating item. So a very modern and futuristic well as impressive bit of news from over there.Initial experimental work is being done at a site in America and I watched part of it on a news report. It involves large welded tubes and a passenger pod which would be propelled through it and would reach speeds of 600mph. No track obviously but never-the-less a brilliant idea getting the go-ahead for further experimental work. Well done. Neat, eh, mjsmsprt40?
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #154 – 2016-02-05, 13:19:36 Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-02-04, 22:02:29experimental work is being done at a site in America and I watched part of it on a news report. It involves large welded tubes and a passenger pod which would be propelled through it and would reach speeds of 600mph.http://inhabitat.com/how-will-elon-musks-600-mph-hyperloop-train-work/China is also developing such a critter.That would mean a one hour trip from the south of England to the north.
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #155 – 2016-02-05, 20:53:45 …much like the pneumatic tubes once used for communication in large buildings! (Telephony and radio did them in. Such technological advances, for transporting people, seem far fetched… )
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #156 – 2016-02-06, 01:07:56 Seems too insanely expensive to ever be built.
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #157 – 2016-02-06, 14:01:33 Musk's net worth is $13 billion. The hyperloop train is estimated at $6 billion. We'll never see it built.The Chinese maglev train travels at a mere 260 mph.I can't imagine the $68-billion high-speed rail link between Los Angeles and San Francisco ever happening.http://www.usdebtclock.org/state-debt-clocks/state-of-california-debt-clock.html
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #158 – 2016-02-07, 02:14:29 Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2016-02-06, 06:01:33The Chinese maglev train travels at a mere 260 mph.My father, working for a company called AirResearch, helped the French build their high-speed trains… (High energy stuff!) If it were a sensible project here, it would have been built: We had the technology.There's just not a great need for people to regularly, routinely move over great distances within this country — not many, anyway. That pretty much explains why the U.S. doesn't have "high-speed" rail yet. No need…
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #159 – 2016-02-07, 19:40:03 Put the maglev in a tube and we might have something.
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #160 – 2016-02-07, 19:51:37 Put maglev in a tube and stick it ......
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #161 – 2016-02-08, 19:19:11 No need is an excuse OakdaleFTL. Mentioning a passing situation is not an answer and even basic things like how trains look over the years compared to other advanced countries tells something. High speed trains work in other places and that includes big countries so in rail that is a sector the USA does not count in so can understand excuses.
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #162 – 2016-02-09, 08:37:14 Oakdale, that more of the same silliness. Nothing ever gets built until somebody with the vision and ability does it, like we're doing here with Xpresswest
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #163 – 2016-02-09, 22:02:50 Quote from: rjhowie on 2016-02-08, 14:19:11High speed trains work in other places and that includes big countries so in rail that is a sector the USA does not count in so can understand excuses.You think you understand this country, but... . Well, just but.China isn't the US. Russia isn't the US. England and tiny Scotland are certainly not the US."According to the World Economic Forum’s Global Competitiveness Report, Russia ranks number 125 out of 139 countries on the quality of its highway infrastructure. " It needs trains badly because its highways are not up to par. There are trains here, but they are not a means of long distance travel, and certainly not for use by businesses.
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #164 – 2016-02-10, 06:30:04 Quote from: Jimbro3738 on 2016-02-09, 14:02:50There are trains here, but they are not a means of long distance travel, and certainly not for use by businesses.Not exactly, Jaybro: Rail is a major mover of all kinds of goods, in other words: freight. And, world-wide, so are ships, still! (No surprise, there: most of the earth's surface is ocean.)
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #165 – 2016-02-10, 10:07:43 Not the least ship shipping costs are considerably lower. Ships ship in huge volumes with a very high level of automation, as increasingly are the ports and terminals. It's not exactly C-beams glittering in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate, but I enjoy watching the endless motorway of cargo ships passing choice parts of the Chinese coastline. I've never been to the Straight of Malacca, but if I were I would be ship watching. This is why China is looking for train freight alternatives East/West through the interior of Eurasia, and the recent popularity of the "Silk Road" monicker.
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #166 – 2016-02-10, 15:03:54 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-10, 01:30:04Not exactly, Jaybro: Rail is a major mover of all kinds of goods, in other words: freight. And, world-wide, so are ships, still! (No surprise, there: most of the earth's surface is ocean.)I put my post badly. When I mentioned businesses, I was referring to business travelers. Rail transport for goods is enormous.
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #167 – 2016-02-11, 00:56:49 The problems faced by passenger rail -specially, high-speed rail- in the U.S. are similar to those that doomed the SST. Not enough demand to justify the costs…
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #168 – 2016-02-11, 12:34:36 Quote from: OakdaleFTL on 2016-02-05, 20:53:45…much like the pneumatic tubes once used for communication in large buildings! (Telephony and radio did them in. Such technological advances, for transporting people, seem far fetched… )Pneumatic tubes are still used to get cash from a cashier to a more secure location quickly, at the very least.
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #169 – 2016-02-12, 19:41:13 Regarding jimbro's thoughts I would say that earlier the part thinking here was that it was a big country so rail didn't matter the same way. That I regarded as odd and still stand by what I said about places like China or the Russian Federation. Using a handy excuse that highways were noit up to things so it had to be rail elsewhere is too neat. Can I remind when there was a scoff her when I mentioned Japan? The snort was that it was of course not as spacious as say America. However on the subject of motorways Japan is modern in it's transport and I well pointed out a high speed line and even with a competing ultra modern motorway in competition with it the trains still got where twice as fast as the highway use. That was neatly ignoredThe US does not by tradition like to think it is slow or behind in anything but it is in rail whether countries are big or small. Passenger rail was allowed to deteriorate into second place unlike other advanced nations and suitable neat excuses found for the fall back. There are train services here that run for hundreds of miles and essentially efficient and so on so nice try to jimbro but this is an area where the ex-colonies have failed. As for that idea of pumping people down a tube at 600mph that I would say to be fair will not happen!
Re: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". Reply #170 – 2020-08-08, 10:29:19 Even on common-sense grounds, a tube-train cannot work. Of course, common sense does not matter when it comes to investment hype. And I disagree with the claim that Hyperloop is the biggest scam since Theranos. Madoff's scam was much bigger and these days we should aim to those magnitudes to call it big or biggest.[video]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2h6Cz4hwuEI[/video]
Topic: Why trains don't catch on here in the "ex-colonies". (Read 39991 times)
