Is this true?
Chances that a road is unpaved:
in the U.S.A. = 1%;
in Canada = 75%
If so get the train.
Chances that a road is unpaved:
in the U.S.A. = 1%;
in Canada = 75%
If so get the train.
Should canada have high-speed rail?
- Thread starter countryboy
- Start date
[SIZE=+1]China to double bullet trains production this year[/SIZE]
China National News
Thursday 28th January, 2010
(IANS)
In order to meet the increasing demand of bullet trains for enhancing China's high-speed rail transport system, the country's passenger train manufacturing firm Thursday said it will double its production capacity in 2010.China National News
Thursday 28th January, 2010
(IANS)
The company would double its monthly production capacity in the first half of 2010 to eight bullet trains each with eight compartments, said Wang Chenghui, deputy general manager of Tangshan Railway Vehicle.
The Chinese government has launched a major upgrading of the nation's railways. The railway ministry announced in September last year it would build 42 high-speed passenger rail lines with a total length of 13,000 km in the next three years.
Wang said the company was developing new trains with average speed of 380 km per hour, so as to 'reinforce its leading role in the world's high-speed train market', Xinhua reported.
Currently, the company has been producing passenger trains with capacity of running at an average speed of 350 km per hour which are running on the existing fast-rail lines in the country.
________________________________________________________________________________
Should Canada have a smart train system? Maybe the "smart" isn't the word
Now I know a few nationalists in here will huff and puff at this suggestion, but why not have Via Rail and AmTrack work together to build a high speed train network along the northern states, along with a few NOrth-South networks between Canada and the US?
The advantage of this is that it would save Canada money by not having to build a network for an insufficient population, while making the US money not only to transport Americans East-West, but Canadians too. So Canada would save money, and the US would make money. It would be a win-win proposition. If the concern is with all the jobs going to the US too, then establish some kind of free labour-movement agreement between Canada and the US so that Canadians could apply for jobs in the uS too without any work visa, and of course this would be reciprocal. And if Via Rail should buy AmTrak stocks, then Canada benefits from some of the profits too.
From the standpoint of efficiency, I don't see the point of Canada building its own East-West high speed train network for the small population we have. Let's share one with the US. That way, we know it's actually going to be used enough to be profitable.
The advantage of this is that it would save Canada money by not having to build a network for an insufficient population, while making the US money not only to transport Americans East-West, but Canadians too. So Canada would save money, and the US would make money. It would be a win-win proposition. If the concern is with all the jobs going to the US too, then establish some kind of free labour-movement agreement between Canada and the US so that Canadians could apply for jobs in the uS too without any work visa, and of course this would be reciprocal. And if Via Rail should buy AmTrak stocks, then Canada benefits from some of the profits too.
From the standpoint of efficiency, I don't see the point of Canada building its own East-West high speed train network for the small population we have. Let's share one with the US. That way, we know it's actually going to be used enough to be profitable.
As mentioned above, I could see establishing something like this in the more populated parts of the country, such as one between Montreal and Toronto going through as many major cities as possible on the way. Other than that though, Connect the Toronto and Montreal ones to major US cities near Toronto and Montreal respectively, maybe have one from Vancouver to Seattle, and, though this might be pushing it considering the low populations, but we we absolutely insist on it, maybe from Edmonton through as many towns as possible through Calgary and then down to the States, and maybe one from Regina to the States, and one from Winnipeg to the States, again in each case trying our best to have it go through as many cities or towns as possible along the way. Honestly though, except for the Montreal to Toronto line, and Southern lines from Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver to the States, I'm not sure just how profitable such a rail system would be.
It is quite likely that any type of high-speed rail would have to service the most highly-populated areas in order to be economically feasible.
But, I think it might also be necessary to reduce the number of stops to a bare minimum in order to gain the maximum advantages of the high speed concept. Carrying it to an extreme, if the train stopped at every small centre (with the possible exception of Red Deer) between Edmonton and Calgary, it would likely reduce the average speed (or increase the travel time) enough to turn it into a less than ideal high-speed service.
Just a thought or two there...formal studies would certainly surface & examine all those things, if it ever got to that point.
I think high speed rail would be excellent as long as costs weren't prohibitive. I'm not familiar with the geography or demographics for most of Canada, but I am a little with the Edmonton - Calgary corridor and the Chilliwack -Vancouver corridor and I think both of them (especially the former) may be good places to build an experimental line. But I think once you build the one you'd monitor it for a couple of years before rushing into the next one. Don 't be like Glen Clark with his fast cats.
Good ideas. If we were looking for an experimental line, then we'd likely be looking first at a Montreal to New York City line. That one is likely to succeed on a number of fronts. First off, such a line exists already with AmTrak I believe, so it would just be a matter of replacing the train and possibly replacing the rails if we need maglev for example. Add to that that they are both highly populated cities.Next in line would likely be a Toronto to Montreal City line, for similar reasons. A Via Rail line exists already between Toronto and Montreal, and again they're Canada's to most populated cities. So again it would just be a matter of replacing the train and maybe the rails if necessary.
So as to not waste the old trains and rails, perhaps they could be reassigned to 'river routes' along major rivers. This could be good for tourism for those tourists would would like the river scenery. Obviously we do not want fast trains there since the whole purpose there is to absorb the scenery, and this could be a way to not put the old trains to waste. How profitable this would be though I'm not sure, and honestly have my doubts.
Not being familiar with the eastern corridors you mention, I do have a couple of questions - How affordable would the real estate be to contain the right of way? and How much disruption would be necessary involving moving or extra construction involved in crossing utilities? In a highly urbanized area (like Montreal- N.Y.) the main line would only be the tip of the iceberg as there would likely have to be connector lines to make it fully functional.
I do not have the answer to that. What I do know is the line is there already, so as for real estate, they already have it along that line. As far as I could tell at most it would just be a matter of removing the old iron rails and replacing them with maglev rails along the same line.
Let's see: a complete new right of way (grades and curves have to be limited for high speed rail). No level crossings of any kind.
I'm sure there aren't many people living between Montreal and New York, and there aren't many existing roads or any other infrastructure to worry about, so it would be relatively cheap to do.
Just a comment here on the scenery issue...A lot of people are concerned that if the train is too fast, people wouldn't be able to enjoy the scenery. Or, that the train ride might be too fast to be relaxing.
The point on scenery could be true in some cases, where the amount of the scenery (or the length of it) is short. I never found that to be a problem on the many bullet train rides I've taken in Japan. Even at around 300 km/hr. things pass by more quickly, but they're not a "blur", unless you're focusing on something that is quite close to the train. It's one of those "the further away it is, the better it looks" things.
A comparison might be airline travel...if you watch an airplane go past the one you're riding in, heading in the opposite direction, even at fairly close (legal) range they don't shoot by like a bullet. And the combined speed must be well over 1,000 km/hr, I would think. (I'm thinking of a couple of 747s, for example)
On ride quality, I found it to be so smooth that it is indeed relaxing...no sway or "clickey-clack"...I guess that would be unsafe at those speeds anyway. You really don't experience a sensation of high speed on a bullet train...on the night rides, I used to fall asleep for most of the trip. (Of course, that had nothing to do with the Kirin Golden Bitter beer that was served...) :-|
The point on scenery could be true in some cases, where the amount of the scenery (or the length of it) is short. I never found that to be a problem on the many bullet train rides I've taken in Japan. Even at around 300 km/hr. things pass by more quickly, but they're not a "blur", unless you're focusing on something that is quite close to the train. It's one of those "the further away it is, the better it looks" things.
A comparison might be airline travel...if you watch an airplane go past the one you're riding in, heading in the opposite direction, even at fairly close (legal) range they don't shoot by like a bullet. And the combined speed must be well over 1,000 km/hr, I would think. (I'm thinking of a couple of 747s, for example)
On ride quality, I found it to be so smooth that it is indeed relaxing...no sway or "clickey-clack"...I guess that would be unsafe at those speeds anyway. You really don't experience a sensation of high speed on a bullet train...on the night rides, I used to fall asleep for most of the trip. (Of course, that had nothing to do with the Kirin Golden Bitter beer that was served...) :-|
Honestly, I'm not sure. Maybe you're right. I'm sure there are plenty of towns between Montreal and NYC though.
I must also correct myself from my post above. I'd suggested that if we were to experiment first, a Montreal to NYC route would be a good start. I still stand by that. However, I'd forgotten that we also have a Toronto to Buffalo route I believe, and if I remember correctly that one is operated by Via Rail. Or maybe AmTrak. I forget. Either way though, Toronto to Buffalo is closer than Toronto to Montreal, and Buffalo has a larger population too, not to mention that it passes through or near Niagara Falls, a major tourist attraction. So if we found the Montreal to NYC route to be profitable, the next one worth experimenting with would likely be Toronto to Buffalo, and then maybe Vancouver to Seattle, and then Toronto to Montreal, simply because Toronto to Montreal is still quite a distance, though granted it could likely be successful too owing to major population centres including Ottawa on the way between those two cities.
You do have some good points there. I guess the real issue is making such a system profitable for a country with as low a population density as ours. Japan can build a relatively short rail line and know it's got a massive market for it. We're the exact opposite. We need to build a long rail line and then have to support ourselves on a small market.
I suppose one possibility, though this would require coordinating efforts between Transport Canada and Immigration Canada, would be to make immigration to river towns easier while making immigration to other parts of the country more difficult while raising the overall immigration quota. This would allow us to increase Canada's population density at least along river routes and then we could build TGV lines there. This would have the advantage of attracting two kinds of travellers simultaneously: the practical one going to work or a business meeting, etc., and the tourist intent on enjoying the ride and the scenery for its own sake. But for that to be successful, we'd definitely need to raise the population density at least along our river banks, in our river towns.
Otherwise, our rail routes will forever be confined to our more populated areas between Toronto and Montreal and a few other North-South routes across to the US.
Whoa!!!. A day and a half each way for a round trip? From where to where? My daughter's proposed trip from St. Petersburg to E Katerinaburg was scrapped because it would have taken 36 hours each way, which would have beaten the sh*t out of her 3 days off, (and there was no way I could get her a pass on Aeroflot with a clear conscience.) She hopped a train to Helsinki, which you can darned near see from there :lol:, while her buddies endured a trip to Moscow, (6 and 8 hours each way respectively). They all have similar stories, but took it all in stride, it is Russia after all.