Acela 125MPH

[simonspics1]

Thats 125!!!! Can you imagine 300 mph thru there! Thanks for sharing!

[soshmed1]

AMTRAK should operate only in the main corridors for short runs. Long-distance trains in the US are a waste of tax dollars.

[admx94]

@soshmed1 yeahhh......... No, actually the Acela express has been helping Amtrak out big-time. What you mean is; "The US needs more long-distance high-speed rail". Especially because it is great for the environment, breeds industry, and breeds efficiency.

[MrZkr123]

@admx94 as much as i would love that, the longest i could see HSR would be a chicago to new york. Not Southwest Chief or CZ long.

[Bus7777]

I wish Canada had high speed rail lines. :-(

[PGMEagle]

The US is so far behind the rest of the world and the reason is the US has the greediest gov that's more concerned about lining thre pockets then spending money to upgrade the rail system and other things

[Larsky1010]

@PGMEagle The US is governed by people mostly concerned with being re-elected. Pretty well cramps their style when it comes to getting anything done regarding our failing infrastructure!

[Cazkumali]

What a beast these are

[GayBoyRunning]

i still this our XPT thats very old to beat that locomotive. Note ours is Diesel. check it out on youtube

XPT at Tarro (Down Grafton)

[darthbandon10]

The trains in the UK top out at 125mph, not exactly any better in the country that invented the railroad...

[hstadam94]

virgin pendolino is much faster than that

[jeffdarga100]

125 mph. Big deal! Trains in China run routinely at 199 mph.

[KMSalex]

@jeffdarga100 yah and you hear about the roller coaster in china that had the hole train fly off the coater? just saying...

[geekworks]

you guys got it right with the unions killing the rail. the lowest paid amtrak salary is $44k (22/hr) inventory clerk. trainman is $56k. not including benefits, I think. the unions are too expensive.

glassdoor on the web

rail COULD be worth it, but not like this.

[CapitanBluebeard]

This is why we need to support Obama's High Speed Rail plan. If we did we would have trains like this one everywhere instead of only the NEC. And we need to build the trains ourselves to boost the economy. Shinkansen said their trains could connect washington DC and New york in 70 minutes.

[bowserjunior13]

150 mph!

[mackjsm]

That was nice! BUT the US should kill the unions and politician crap and rebuild the rail infrastructure to become the fastest and best train operation in the world!! Go USA!

[bigredf150]

Without rail unions there would be no railroad.

[mackjsm]

I agree with you but they (unions) got too damn fat!! Just like our gov... There are too many good people that are held back because of these fat unions..

[gibb1991]

@bigredf150 The railroads were created long before any unions had been established.

[AmtrakSurfliner768]

That looked to be 100-110 MPH. Great video, 5/5 stars!

[class377]

Wow!

[sideslide23]

They need to replace the Tracks for the Acela Express because these tracks are 100 years old the tracks in the hudson tunnels was bulit in 1910, and Acela is traveling on that same old railway so they really need to replace the track for the acela so they can exceed 150MPH or faster once again.

[trains74]

Well sideslide23, they are on top of the problem. I think they will be replacing the tracks in both the Hudson & East River Tunnels. Hey look how long it took to string catenary from Boston to New Haven ???

[TNT314159]

They need to upgrade the catenary first, that's whats keeping the speeds of the Acela down. Since it tilts on the sharp curves, newer catenary to allow greater tilts and higher speeds. The rails are welded and seem to be doing fine.

[s7o0a0p]

Back in the days of the PRR! At the time the Hudson Tunnels were a huge technological advancement. They were one of the primary reasons that railroad cars in the US began to be made using steel instead of wood. In 1905, there was a fire in the Paris Metro because the cars were made of wood and therefore flammable. When the PRR was building the Hudson River tunnels, they decided to run only steel cars under the tunnel because of safety concerns. In the 1910s steel cars became the national stndrd.

[s7o0a0p]

They need to build a completely new right-of-way for the Acela Express. Period.

[Prometheus203]

Why invest billions into trains that travel 1/4 the speed of airliners when you can fly for peanuts... It really isn't worth the effort or the money to build something like this in the US.

[1234567freaky]

if it wasnt for the trains u wouldnt have planes cuz the wright bros. would ride the to get the fields to test there plane. trains helped built this country and ppl need to take that into account

[classicalman114]

Air travel sucks.

[Pkm188]

Please, passenger trains need to have more of a presence in the US. That would free up more airspace and relieve stress on the US's air systems. Also, there wouldn't be any delays in travel that associate with airline flying. Not to mention, highways and streets would be less congested.

[Prometheus203]

Maybe on short intercity routes in the north east but it just isn't worth the price involved for cross country or extended interstate travel...

[davis14561]

@Pkm188 Not only will it do the things you mention but also could potentially be a "green" project with encouraging people to use mass transit instead of flying or driving.

[Pkm188]

@davis14561 Indeed.... I ride the train every time i travel from college to my home town and it only costs me $10 each way.

[darthbandon10]

@Pkm188 Ever heard of this thing called population density?

[Pkm188]

@darthbandon10 sure i have. if china and japan can do it, then whats stopping us?

[m173627]

@Pkm188

trains are fine for short distance ie northeast. but the sad fact is that we're just too darn big for long distance train travel to be practical. thats why we fly everywhere here. its not like the euro countries where you can be in the opposite corner or the country in 2 hours.

if it was practical, it would be nice, but its not.

[BlackbirdGLI]

@Pkm188 the way i see it look at the rest of the worlds infrastructure then look at ours..."the greatest country on earth" yet we live in the early 20th century still. funny aint it?

[rikidu95]

The French TGV remains the best in the world :-)

[Lukelr]

i love the sound it makes as it passes. kinda a high pitched whistle. it's really neat.

[admx94]

@Lukelr yeah and here in NJ it scares the shit outta me. Especially when I'm not facing the tracks and it sneaks up behined me.

[UraeusAnkhAmon]

@Lukelr All high speed trains make that.

[cheejn]

are THOSE the fastest trains in the us? what a joke xD

[snowball787]

we are really far behind on train travel, maily because theres not any city's so close to each other that they can be served efficently by high speed rail, excpet in the northeast corridor, where the acela goes through

[s7o0a0p]

If our government had spent more money on high-speed right-of-ways (which hopefully Obama will), we would have had faster trains. For example, if we had right-of-way such as the LGV Est (where the TGV Duplex broke the rail speed record) we could have 220mph trains with very few stops and fast acceleration that could average 200mph. And if we had trains that averaged 200mph, we could have train travel between NYC and Chicago that could take as little as 5 hours.

[snowball787]

obama already proposed a high speed network for the US

[shtzi]

It would not be possible to build all the bridges and tunnels which are needed to cross the tracks. every street and ever way for people at the LGV is crossing the rails over bridges, or through tunnels. it would cost millions of dollars to build those. by the way, dont you thing you should design your own HST? i mean, german ICE´s and French TGV have a brilliant design. so korea wanted some TGv, and they get. but, you americans always say that youre smart, that youre creative, SO SHOW IT!

[futbolbrad]

i honestly would never use it if there was a high speed rail availiable to me. If I need to go somewhere in the US/Canada (same country if you ask me) i would just fly or drive. Thats the cheapest.

[scaremenga]

We show our smartness by not having rail systems like you guys in Europe do. It makes absolutely no sense for the United States to have a rail layout as dense, or even half as dense as in Europe. Why? Because America is spread out across such a large area. And it's our "Manifest Destiny" to expand, having trains would bring us together, which defeats a part of the American Dream. It's dumb, and I'd love to see rail, but honestly, I think it's smart not to. Paradox :(

[hrb266]

@scaremenga pretty much hits the nail on the head. America is not a railroad country anymore. Interstates and airplanes if we want to go somewhere to be there rather than enjoy the getting there. If you get my drift.

[DeltaPhi79]

No they're the fastest trains IN SERVICE. The fastest train in the US is a prototype maglev. And they're a joke to what? And are you talking about record speeds or for in service speeds for being a joke.

[Victorialine67]

awsome vid 5 stars + added to favorites

[SkateEmerica78]

they didnt even tell u to stay back!!!!

[prorobo]

That's because it's on the express line (middle rail).

[wertrocks123]

This train is nothing comapred to the british Class 43 HST 125

[paulgreenfields]

That's because we are a train-oriented country. We usually travel by car or airplane. This is why we have so many roads and so many busy airports. The rail industry, however, will be more popular in the next ten years or so, and as result we will incorporate trains that are faster and better. But we can't spend too much money unless we have more ridership - it's necessary. Anyway, I don't think these trains are bad. They may not be as fast as those in Europe and East Asia, but are good inside.

[paulgreenfields]

*I meant we are NOT a train oriented country.

[techphy100]

the US will never have a HSR service. The infastructure of a cross country HSR doenst support its economic value, and there are too many obstacles to overcome. Not saying the US cant build it, but its infrastructure would no be economicly efficient. For example, you would have to build a totaly separate rail because of the slow moving, mile long frequent freight service in addition to finding out where they are located.

[demexii1]

I agree, the US is too large to really have a good HSR service. The best we can have is some strong rails on the East/West coast. We already have the Acela which needs to be updated a bit and deregulated some to allow it to get faster speeds. Ad some more in the south and in California and it should be pretty good.

[techphy100]

your right, just heard they've laid out a HSR plan with regional lines. one is the Gulf Coast Corridor, i can tell them right now HSR across the Gulf Coast wont happen. Between Mobile and New Orleans theres about 200 crossings

[acelaboy123]

cool video

[boeingLL747]

this didnt look like 125

[wawonas]

I don't get it that United States may be "rich" country but don't have good mass transit infrastructure compared to rest of the world. China, Europe and Japan has more high speed rail.

[poofter9]

Frivolous delays?

Delays due to weather and sheer volume maybe, but those come with the territory. Do you forget the US is twice the size of europe? We have 300 million people, thousands of airports. But its our radar thats fucked up right? If it was the radar, why arent there more crashes, midair collisions?

And why is europe the best in air travel? Must be the radar. They dont have delays. heathrow and degaulle are always on time. Google most delayed airports, and the US only has 2 of 11.

[MikeGinny]

This isn't high-speed rail. It's 125 MPH. In most countries, that's a fine speed for a short, intercity commuter train, like Madrid to Toledo. And it doesn't even hold that speed for most of the route.

We need real HSR in this country. BOS-NY-DC, SF-LA-SD, Detroit-Chicago-Madison-Minnea­polis. Miami-Orlando, Houston-Dallas-San Antonio-Austin. We need it and we need it now.

[poofter9]

No we dont. And it would cost billions to do.

The reason other countries have high speed rails is the fact they dont have a well developed airport system like us.

The reason we cant have high speed rains is the way the tracks are made now, especially in the north east, a high speed train would not be able to travel due to the fact the wind and curve too much. Also the area is way to densely populated to have a high speed train. we would have to build new lines to eliminate rail crossings

[girlsbmws]

I am sorry, our airport system is not nearly as good as the airports in Europe... We have outdated radar systems that often lead to frivolous delays. And we need high speed rail because it consumes no oil (unlike planes which eat up fuel like crazy) and in the long run, if your going from Boston to New York or to Washington DC with a proper HSR, it will be much faster, cleaner, and more fuel efficient than planes!

[poofter9]

And trains dont use oil? REALLY? How do they do that? Solar panels? Wind, water?

They use oil, not as much, but its still a lot. Also, you can only run a couple of trains at a time NY to DC due to the ONE RAIL LINE, but its more efficient right? And trains are NEVER LATE. Snow and storms dont matter right?

Delays are a part of travel. All travel. If you want a hsr you gotta build new rail lines, move people and roads, and its gonna cost a lot. And trains use oil and are much slower.

[GeorgiaKev]

Not so. Have you ever heard of electric diesel engines?

[poofter9]

Yes i have heard of diesel electric. Give me a thumbs down again for making sense.

Did you ever hear of diesel? Do you know what it is?

She said these trains use "NO OIL".

"NO OIL".

What is diesel then?

ITS OIL. It uses oil. Thats my point.

I didnt say it wasn't efficient, it will cost way too much to put into practice from converting all the trains that travel on it, to expanding the rail system in the cramped northeast corridor.

Once again, Diesel is OIL. Therefore they use OIL

[Ven100]

There are plenty of clean ways to produce electricity for full electric trains. Nuclear is just one of the options. Weather delays affect planes far more than they do with trains. I also like how you say "trans are much slower". Much slower than what? Remeber we're talking HSR here.

[poofter9]

Nuclear powered passenger trains.

Dont talk anymore. Please.

I would love a nuclear train rolling past my house. What happens when one derails? Seriously.

What happens when someone uses it as a battering ram at Penn Station in NYC causing a massive nuclear disaster in the heart of the biggest city in the US.

You have got to be fucking kidding me.

And planes cruise at an average speed of about 500 mph. HSR is about 170-200 mph.

[Ven100]

Are you completely retarded or just 85% retarded? We're talking about nuclear POWER STATIONS not nuclear trains, but I guess I shouldn't have assumed I wasn't talking to certain idiots in the crowd. Again, check the facts. 186mph was the cruising speed for HSR for decades. Now we're seeing that raised to 199mph with the fastest going 217-220 (ICE3 model type trains) in Spain and Japan. Sitting in airports is also caculated in air travel time. Next time learn something before you talk fool.

[Ven100]

Actually that should say Spain and China. Japan and France are working on their own 220-225mph cruising speed trains.

[poofter9]

Well then say that next time. Because it would technically still be electric powered. The nuclear power is used to create electricity. Unless you want to say there is no such thing as electric power since it all has to be created.

Ok so DC to boston on the acela is 7 hours. SEVEN. Even make it 6 if you have a faster train. Boston to DC on jet blue is 90 min. Add 2 hours sitting in the airport. Shit even make it 3. Thats 4 and 1/2 hours. Which is still with the faster train 90 min quicker.

[Ven100]

Say that next time? I guess you're not smart enough to assume nuclear power means nuclear power plant when talking about TRAINS. You are a fool, so I'll keep the rest of this short so you don't lose track. Despite being slower than PROPER HSR, the Acela still has 41% of the DC/Boston travel market. Just imagine if Amtrak was running a TRUE HSR (186mph+) trainset in that area. Their market share would EASILY be over 70% (think Eurostar or TGV Paris/Lynon market share)

[pr0t0color]

France's TGV is nuclear powered. Japan's Shinkansen is mostly nuclear powered. Even the Acela is about 20% nuclear powered.

You, poofter0, are an idiot.

[poofter9]

No its all electrical powered.

Electricity runs these trains. If you want to be technical then there is no such thing as electrical power. It all comes from something right?

[pr0t0color]

Trains CAN run on coal, hydro, atomic and, yes, wind and solar power. It is difficult to plug planes into the nation's electric power grid, however. MAYBE you could fly them on biodiesel tho...good luck with that.

[poofter9]

Once again, if they can why dont they. Here are the stats. AGAIN

Amtrak in 2005 consumed 65,477,000 gallons of diesel fuel and used 531,377,000 kilowatt hours. [Both figures exclude consumption by commuter railroads for which Amtrak provides services.]

This indicates that 62.3% of Amtrak energy is diesel fuel vs. 37.7% electricity

So tell me how energy efficient you guys are. Tell me again you dont use oil. Tell me how stupid i am.

[pr0t0color]

To poofta9:

Amtrak, for the most part, is a very primitive rail system. Were it brought up to the standards that people enjoy in other parts of the world, it would be much less dependent upon diesel.

In any event, we are discussing high speed rail. All major HSR rail systems in the world are electric. Amtrak does not have adequate equipment because it does not get adequate investment. Likely, this is because there are many dumb people like you, poofta9, in America.

[poofter9]

No it is becuase we have a country where most people travel by car. Since the country is so big, and things are so far away, people drive. This isnt europe. Its huge here. the only places where public transport is used are big cities. Hopefuly with the way gas is people change thier ways.

Now as for amtrack they get plenty of funding. People dont use it enough to warrant a huge investment like you are calling for. And it would only be in limited areas, such as the NECorridor and maybe cali.

[UFO721]

Well Germany is not that small and the rail roads are better, but I do agree with the car issue.

[poofter9]

Germany is not that small?

Germany is smaller than MONTANA.

And the reason the roads are so well built in Germany might have something to do with the US Marshall plan after WW2.

I guess Germany should send us money to build a better rail system instead of criticizing the US on everything they do.

Although Germany has sent troops to Afghanistan so for that i thank them.

Wesstern Europe thinks its all big and bad now but with russia growing they are gonna need the US as the US needs them

[TheGondorian]

its not smaller then montana...it has the size of california (i live in germany so i know it), and it has nothing to do with some marshall plan! in germany, trains arent as heavy and i dont know how to say, in usa the train can bounce and goes fast into curves, and if in germany a train bounces, it is a great danger, the train stops, they look for damage and make the tracks better imidiatly. send money? dont you have enough? we can send builders and engineers, but not money!

[poofter9]

Just because you live in Germany doesn't mean you know shit.

Montana is 381,156 km²

Germany is 357,021 km2

But YOU LIVE THERE so I must be wrong.

And California is 423,970 km²

And of course Germany was in wonderful shape after WW2 after being bombed for 3 years non stop and the site of an invasion on two fronts. Are you really that poorly educated in Germany?

DUe to the densely populated areas where these passenger services are in the US there is no way around having curved tracks.

[gp40mc]

I went to Germany and rode the ICE and loved it. A few days later I rode another train along the Rhine river and it was awful. Hot and stuffy and it smelled strongly of sewage. I think the toilet had a problem. Do you know if those would be 2 different railroads because their trains were incredibly different.

[TheGondorian]

noo same company, in german commuter train's it's always the same :) but we have preserved railraods, too, there its better :)

[mugshotesp]

No more milk and cookies for us, we could really use some cash. About 12 trillion worth! (You hear me bankers?)

[TheGondorian]

12 trillion...obama you watch this video? :)

[cobaltwill215]

Russia isn't going to dominate, infact Russia is heavily dependent upon Western Europe as a customer. Western Europe doesn't "think its big and bad", it is such. Free travel agreements, one currency, efficient rail system. Though I do agree with US/EU relations being of mutual benefit to both.

[pr0t0color]

A double track trunk with modern signaling and no grade level crossings can safely run train sets as close as five or less minutes apart. 500 passengers to the same destination every five minutes? No airport can maintain that all day. Shinjuku Station in Tokyo handles 3.6mil passengers a day. The world's busiest airport, Atlanta International, handles only .25mil a day.

[poofter9]

And how much will it cost to build that infrastructure to do that. The japanese had that sytstem set up since the 50's. Japan didnt boom till later on. They had a country that was ravaged by war and were able to start over. The northeast corridor is old, and falling apart. Lots should be knocked down to rebuild highways and railways, but we cant

You speak of Shinjuku Station as if it handles regular rail traffic. It also handles subway traffic which isnt what we are speaking of.

[pr0t0color]

Poofter9, you don't know what you are talking about. Japan's Shinkansen network is still under construction (I was there...saw it).

Poofter9 says:"[Shinjuku Station] also handles subway traffic which isnt what we are speaking of". Yeah, you're right, poofter; subways aren't trains.

Anyone ever tell you that you are an idiot, poofter9? Well, just in case: You're an idiot!

[poofter9]

Once again you cant read or remember what we are talking about. We arent speaking of trains. We are speaking of High speed rail. If i was speaking of rail travel as a whole we would be having a totally different conversation.

And also included in Shinjuku Station and those figures that you use is bus traffic. But add that to the total too.

And all public transport systems are constantly under construction. Slight improvements, additions, but not huge undertakings like u call for in the NEC

[poofter9]

And the number for that station also include bus services and commuter trains.

Did you add those figures into the statistics for the airports?

.

Anyway comparing those to things is apples and oranges. We are talking about high speed rail and airline travel. Long distance travel. Not work commutes. No one flys to work each day. Doesnt happen. So it is unfair to compare the two locations.

[pr0t0color]

"Delays are a part of travel."? You, poofter9, are an ignorant ass w/Walmart-level quality standards. Japan's Shinkansen is ALWAYS, baring major natural disasters, within seconds of its schedule.

What other delays do you take for granted? Finding parking at the airport? Half hour checkin? Filing through security? 15 minutes or more boarding? Waiting on the apron for clearance? Taking the cab/limo/shuttle into town? One can arrive at the train stn and be on your way in under 5 minutes in Japan.

[poofter9]

So you dont have to park at a train station? It doesnt take time to check in?

If we expand a rail system in the US i promise you there will be security concerns that will lead to the delays like you get on airplanes. Im surprised there is no security checks now considering the train attack in spain in 04. And train stations arent always located in the center of town. For example in philly the train station is now downtown, but over in the river next to the colleges.

[pr0t0color]

poofter9 says:"So you dont have to park at a train station? It doesnt take time to check in?"

I never parked at a train station, but I suppose you could if you wanted to. "Check in"? Never! You don't know much about rail travel, do you, poofter9?

[poofter9]

Ok so you dont have a car. Most americans do. And they usually drive to the train station. And its usually hard to find a spot.

And since you are a travel expert you would know that you have to CHECK IN to ride the ACELA.

Maybe its different where you are from but thats how it is here. I havent been on HSR in Europe. I usually go to Ireland (where i am from) and our HSR is about on par with that of a tractor.

[UFO721]

Your right I'm from the U.S you don't need to reserve a seat on the ICE from germany but, for other that I have been to it's a requirment, Thalys from France and Eurostar from Italy.

[pr0t0color]

poofter9 says:"If we expand a rail system in the US i promise you there will be security concerns that will lead to the delays like you get on airplanes. Im surprised there is no security checks now considering the train attack in spain in 04."

Yep, poofter, big surprise considering how easy it would be to hijack a train and drive it into a skyscraper, killing thousands of people. It's not like they can just shut trains down remotely or anything... oh, wait...

[poofter9]

Tell me how they shut down the diesel trains. Please.

And since you dont know. There are even security checkpoints on the NYC subway. So if the US invests in a true HSR, that will carry large amounts of traffic and take the same amount of people that travel by air i promise there will security checkpoints much like the airport.

A problem on this line would be a huge problem. And the US gov wont deal with it. Security is a big biz here.

[PrimaryConsult]

There is less security involving trains simply because there is no point in hijacking them.

Going to drive it into any tall buildings? To Cuba?

[poofter9]

Didnt you ever see Steven Segal in Under Siege? Shit man.

But there is a point in hijacking them. YOu have hostages. Lots of them. and when in a tunnel or a station you could have a well defended place to fight rescuers.

Additionally those trains that go into the big stations on the east coast could be easily destroyed causing massive damage to transit hubs. Not to mention hurting lots of people.

And Steven Segal is old now. He wont be there to stop it.

[briantwigley]

Haha love steven segal.

[Great0ne1]

That's why we have Chuck Norris

[pr0t0color]

poofter9 says:"If we expand a rail system in the US i promise you there will be security concerns that will lead to the delays like you get on airplanes."

If that is true, then someone is getting scammed seriously.

[pr0t0color]

poofter9 said:"trains use oil and are much slower".

Wrong and wrong. Trains CAN use oil...that is an option, not a requirement.

Also, for most intercity purposes, modern trains are MUCH faster than planes. Example: Race from Boston Commons to Central Park in NYC.One person takes Acela Express and the other takes a commuter flight from Logan. Include all the time needed(getting to the airport/station, buying tickets, getting from station/airport to Central Park).Who will win? It's a no-brainer.

[poofter9]

Oil is not a requirment. Ok lets look at the stats of AMTRAK.

Amtrak in 2005 consumed 65,477,000 gallons of diesel fuel and used 531,377,000 kilowatt hours. [Both figures exclude consumption by commuter railroads for which Amtrak provides services.]

This indicates that 62.3% of Amtrak energy is diesel fuel vs. 37.7% electricity

And that is from Transportation Energy Data Book from Oak Ridge National Laboratory incase you think i made it up.

[rwboa22]

And, if they can convert the specialized 25 Hz single-phase AC system used between New Haven, CT and Washington D.C. to the standard 60 Hz system used to power our PCs, these trains can actually help our electrical grids by generating some electricity through the use of regenerative braking. That is why the European system works.

[Ven100]

haha, this post is a joke. Of course we need HSR.

[pr0t0color]

Yes, we do need modern rail infrastructure now... and what are a few $billion? The US burns that much in a week in Iraq.

The US is too densely populated for rail? You're an idiot. EU=500mil people, 1.7mil sq miles. US=300mil, 3.8mil sq miles. Jp=127mil people, .15mil sq. miles. Moron!

Also, you have it backwards. Advanced nations have less domestic air travel because they have good trains, not the other way `round. Only idiots take planes from downtown Tokyo to Osaka, for example.

[poofter9]

No i think you are the idiot who cant read.

I said the NORTHEAST, not the entire US, is too densly populated to build a proper high speed rail. But i guess im an idiot becuase you cant read.

It would cost a hell of a lot more than a few billion. For example there is a thing called eminent domain, where the government has to pay people a fair price for their home if they want to take it. I live in NJ now, and almost eveny house here is worth at least 300-400 thousand. Add that up for me.

[poofter9]

It has a population of 55 million, or 18 percent of the population of the United States (living on only 3% of the nation's land) and about 0.8 percent of the world population. The region has three global cities (New York City, Washington, and Boston), two developing global cities (Philadelphia and Baltimore), and four of the world's 70 largest metropolitan areas (New York, Boston, Philadelphia, and Baltimore-Washington). Over the next generation, the region will add 18 million new residents.

[poofter9]

Now add up the cost of the actual building of the railroad. THe cost of knocking down homes, buildings, rerouting traffic, moving highways, widening tunnels. The cost of the metal for the rails, the wood. The stones.

Now add the cost of the oil it takes to operate machines to build all this. To transport the metal from where it is forged. The wood from where it is chopped. THis isnt a small project. It would be a massive and expensive civil undertaking.

[UFO721]

tell me about the F-22 Raptor program cost around 66 billion that could have been used toward civilion developement but at least that money was a good investment.

[poofter9]

It is a good investment when we have to defend our interests around the world. Without jets to guard our skys, bombs would fall on the roads and rails which were built with that money.

And why is it Americas duty to build the world. Europe was smashed due to European hatred from 1914-1945 and the US poured billions into it. Now all they do is talk shit about the US and how fucked up we are.

[nivekst]

I love how all the comments from people pointing out that our system sucks are getting downvoted. Viva la ignorance!

[quornholio]

Uh, our trains: 1). Weigh more, and are thus, 2). Held to higher safety standards (fewer deaths), and, 3). Why is everybody comparing Acela to the Japanese Bullet Train, Germany ICE and France's SNCF express? Compare it to the Metroliner it replaced -- way faster!

Though I do miss the GG-1's. :)

[pr0t0color]

Two comments downvoted...yours and a flame about cars beating trains.

Acela, in fact, doesn't suck. It is successful beyond Amtrak's wildest dreams. It operates at capacity and those who use it love it. It is proof that Americans are "ready" for high speed rail. It should be treated as a pilot project to justify construction of a new trunk line in the NEC with tunnels and elevated viaducts to avoid grade level crossings and urban development. Like Acela, that would be a "slam dunk" success.

[UFO721]

I could have said it better myself They should continue to improve rail roads and expand the acelas service to other important cities like chicago. I even think that the acela train has not even reached it's top speed becuase of the limitaions cuased by the rail roads.

[cooldit1]

the french use their trains more for intercity travel, we use our trains for up the coast traveling, and we dont have the land to make straight track for very high speeds. Thank you very much.

[kokansenhikari]

From Boston to New York City, It takes 3 hours and a half by Acela.

By car, It takes 3 housr and a half. What a joke!

[Espeelover]

the freight trains by my house go mabe a little slow than that so this looks like mybe 90mph but also there is like a 40 mile strech of strait track so the freights go like 70-75mph

[KB1KOI]

Are you sure about that? Try getting from BOS to NYC in 3 and hours during Rush hour; the acela would win that race anyday.

[girlsbmws]

well ur right, i mean ive gone to boston by car and it took me 3 and a half hours. Acela should make it 2 hours if they have high speed tracks from New Haven to Westerly continuing thru that long 150m/h stretch. Take the french TGV that amazing stuff

[TrainzMaster3000]

No, It was 110-115 maybe. Not 80 or something like that. you can almost tell the speed by how fast the cars go.

[KawasakiPlant]

I would say 115 mph

[pr0t0color]

The Shinkansen here in Japan, the Korean KTX, Taiwan's HSR, and China's CRH all regularly go 200mph. If Americans wised up and realized that gas prices are NEVER going to go down, no matter how many countries they invade, maybe they'd start investing in improving the country's rail infrastructure. There is no reason why all American cities can't be linked by Acela-class or better trains.

[CBass1307]

Yes there is,... There is no room in many places for a dedicated High Speed line like other countries have. The costs would be astronomical to make room, not to mention Amtrak is losing money as it is (which has more to do with poor management than lack of ridership).

[Ven100]

There's plenty of room. We have room to keep adding and widening highways, we have room for railway lines. Not to mention we could even convert existing rails to HSR. Secondly, it's economically viable to build HSR for a few reasons. It pays for itself in a few years, is cheaper in the long run than to keep doing construction, brings money into the cities, ect ect. Finally, Amtrack is not the answer. A new private company is needed.

[CBass1307]

An American HSR would not be nearly as succesful as the french have. The french highway system is a joke. thats why they take the train.

There really isn't enough room for it. an HSR line needs long, flat, straight track. Houses, buildings, roads, and natural barriers are too numerous in the most populated parts of the U.S., where an HSR would be most needed.

[varsityswim17]

r u crazy? Amtrack is the ONLY answer....do u have any Idea what a private company would charge for the same thing amtrack dose for all of us? It would end up costing u more to ride the train than to drive!!!

[Ven100]

Last I check, Amtrack prices are high compared to the service they offer. Amtrack has been bailed out by the gov so many times. Do you see progress for Amtrack?

[wingman552]

still beats flying.

[Ven100]

Not at 125mph. True HSR is faster than flying for distances of up to ~600 miles.  With the much slower speed of Acela, that mileage drops drastically. Now for comfort levels maybe.

[wingman552]

yea and waiting at the airport blows as well.

[yesec9]

Yeah I do. Amtrak can't compete because planes (public airport system, private airlines) and cars (road funding is more than just gas tax) are subsidized about 10x as much as Amtrak per passenger.

[Ven100]

Amtrack still needs to drop prices. Sometimes it's more than flying. When they bring true HSR at reasonable price (hell, they could probably keep the same prices as now) then we'll see.

[pr0t0color]

Two things to mention: 1) NEC is already serviced by Acela. Which transport corridor in the USA is more congested than the NEC?

2) Amtrak doesn't need to make a profit. That is a NeoCon deception. Every country on the planet with infrastructure worth having subsidises that infrastructure.

[yesec9]

Yeah...the flamer's don't realize the extent to which highways are subsidized...

[KB1KOI]

On the NEC, as it is today, the tracks are so curvy that the tracks make 11 full circles. Section of the Northeast are so dense that moving the tracks to make a dedicated line will displace people and as CBass said, it would astronomical, although a partial compromise might include converting steel rail into maglev on the NEC (who wants to fly nowadays with all the haggles to deal with?)

[blood117]

that looked like 80 or 90mph

[alanhenvey]

i wish we had trains like that in ireland :( ha