1968?
Midwest High Speed Rail Association — Another example of innovation going by the wayside when the USA dropped the ball on further development of the United Aircraft designed “Turbo Train.” Interesting story about this thing.
A Canadian version (pictured above) operated between Toronto and Montreal from 1968 until 1982. When the Turbotrains were replaced, VIA Rail (the Canadian passenger railway operator) was forced to add 30 minutes to the schedule to account for the longer running times of conventional equipment.
The UA Turbotrain had a stellar safety record. It never derailed, even in grade crossing accidents with heavy trucks.
The U.S. version operated between New York and Boston from 1968 until 1972. The Penn Central RR was able to reduce the schedule between those two cities by more than 20 minutes when the train was introduced. In 1968 a test train made the trip in 2 hours 55 minutes – three decades before the track and electrification investments made for Amtrak’s Acela Express.
There were bugs in these trains and just as they were completely worked out the trains were scrapped.
Yep,
Considering that europe and Japan have had little or no problems.
the real trick is getting it off the ground, so that Nothing can interfere with them, and they dont need to slow down from intersections, Animals, and dont need to worry about Rocks on the rails.
The biggest problem with the tubros is that they are fuel hogs, particularly when running at less than top speed.
A larger problem in the US is the condition of the track, freight train congestion, and federal regulations that limit speeds of any train. We actually have plenty of rolling stock that is capable of 100mph speeds, if they had a place to do it.
DAve
Fly California without ever leaving the ground… OK where is it?
I’d take it for sure between SF and LA and Las Vegas!
http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/
The largest problem is the condition of the trak. Our railways are abysmal.
Another thing that had problems with, is COST of making a GREAT track, that could be UP in the air, so that it wouldnt bother roads, and could keep up the speed. then comes the Power lines/phone lines/cable lines… How NOt to hit any of this stuff, or GET the other companies to Help move them.
Lets drop Amtrak too and be done with it.
WRONG !!! There are two reasons high speed trains will not make it in North America.
1) There is not the traffic demand. Even now, passenger service (Amtrack and VIA) is a losing proposition. Unlike Europe, our population centers are too spread out. This actually helps air travel.
2) Right up until recently, the North American economy has been built around the automobile and automotive transportation. Government subsidies will first go to anything automotive before going to rail. While a train might haul the equivalent of 150 tractor trailers, that means 150 truck drivers along with associated mechanics, service station operators, fuel suppliers, truck owners, and truck manufacturers losing work.
All the ancillary problems such as track condition or congestion are easily solvable. But unless the government is behind it, rail can not survive. Air and automobile traffic are both heavily subsidized by the government and so they will survive.
Like others pointed out cost is the factor. The is a cultural difference, mainly that people are more mobile in the US due to the auto culture. Many of the old lines are gone, even if they weren’t fast transit wouldn’t work. Earlier every town wanted a rail stop, nowadays nobody wants a track through their town. The cost of a dedicated cross country high speed track would be astronomical. Coast to coast would be well over 4K km. No bullet train in Europe or Japan is even close to that distance. Efficient air travel probably makes more sense for the present. If the cost of fuel skyrockets, people will need to learn to travel less. There’s no real need for all the pressing of the flesh that business does today.
Yes, even on our single-high speed line (New York to Boston) conditions are abysmal. That’s the only long stretch of track in the country with no grade crossings and high-quality rail for much of the length. But there are still shaky old bridges, very low speed approaches to the cities (sharp curves, shabbily maintained yards and switch tracks (particularly the stretch immediately west and north of Philadelphia)), obsolete power supply (relatively low, non-commercial frequency voltage, bouncy wires) and poor drainage all along the Washington-New York portion. And still absolutely no separation between high-speed intercity traffic, commuter traffic, and freight. And numerous sharp curves in Connecticut and a nasty one in downtown Elizabeth, NJ.
Well being a user of the UK’s rail system (the main parts have now been upgraded and I travel to my parents on a tilting train that moves at over 125mph btw…) I can appreciate that no-one is going to take an expensive, slow rail journey in the states when a short trip by air is available. All the major population centres in the UK are no more than a few hundred miles away from each other (and less than 100 miles in most cases) and Paris and Brussels are less than 3 hours by train from London
However, when the oil prices really start to bite and air travel becomes increasingly expensive (which is inevitable – aircraft are *exremely* wasteful of fuel) maybe you guys will look at it again… personally I love rail travel 🙂