• Abandoned High Speed Rail Worldwide.

  • Discussion about railroad topics everywhere outside of North America.
Discussion about railroad topics everywhere outside of North America.

Moderators: Komachi, David Benton

  by george matthews
 
Clearly the new governor has a different view of the future. Even in America something has to be done about the emissions of CO2 into the atmosphere - the only cause of a very dangerous climate change. An electrified high speed railway is one of the measures needed to halt and reverse that change. California previously was one of the few parts of the United States with a plan to reduce carbon emissions. The loss of that plan will perhaps be the main bad news from the change of governor.
  by David Benton
 
Its more of a scaling back , than aborting. At least part of it will be completed,and at least conventional trains at 125 mph will use it. MOD NOTE,As this is the worldwide forum, and we don't normally discuss North American railroads,we should move discussion to abandoned HSR worldwide. I will retitle accordingly.
  by george matthews
 
Are there any other examples of abandoned High Speed Rail?

In Europe quite the reverse: high speed lines increase steadily. However, the proposed line from London to Birmingham is being criticised as being too expensive and may possibly be abandoned before building has got under way. The arguments are that there are many smaller projects which could use the money more effectively. Of course there is a question of whether the money would actually be spent on these other projects - such as a high speed route from Liverpool to the east coast. It doesn't help that the minister in charge is widely regarded as incompetent. But we must remember that an important reason for wanting the Birmingham line is that the existing line is fully taken up and cannot absorb more traffic on a very busy route.

BTW I note the original story is linked to the extreme rightwing publication "Breitbart" so might just be unreliable news.
  by Semaphore Sam
 
NOW we're told, 77 billion dollars committed and years late, for a slow train to.. nowhere! Sam
  by george matthews
 
Semaphore Sam wrote:NOW we're told, 77 billion dollars committed and years late, for a slow train to.. nowhere! Sam
My impression was that the planned line was to be a modern High Speed rail line, something quite common in Europe, where rail engineering has developed steadily. In America rail practice has not developed and is still using the techniques of the past. I have travelled by train in several parts of the US and have always noted how old-fashioned the trains are there, especially how SLOW they are. The international interest in the proposed line in California was that at last a modern rail line was planned. It is disappointing that this attempt seems to have been abandoned. I have no doubt that if there were to be a high speed rail line between San Francisco and Los Angeles - and further - it would attract passengers from the air lines, and probably from the motorways. Moreover it would not emit CO2 and thus would reduce America's climate change liabilities.
  by ExCon90
 
What many people never seem to get is that high-speed rail dramatically increases demand between the cities it connects; existing travel demand becomes almost irrelevant. Paris-Lyon before and after TGV is a typical example.
  by george matthews
 
ExCon90 wrote:What many people never seem to get is that high-speed rail dramatically increases demand between the cities it connects; existing travel demand becomes almost irrelevant. Paris-Lyon before and after TGV is a typical example.
I have little idea of what Americans think about High Speed Rail. As they don't have the chance to experience it,their views may be erroneous. But where people do have the chance to use it - as in much of Europe - they fill the trains. I feel sure that if the Californian line were to be built and come into operation it would be very popular and the trains would be full.
  by ConstanceR46
 
You have 2 choices:

A. Take a flight; involving waiting hours at airports, stuffing yourself into a cramped 737 (or smaller), and have your legs go numb.

or

B. Take a HSR train. May take a bit longer, but you'll be able to stick your feet up on cushy seats and see the scenery go by.

I know what one i'd pick.
  by george matthews
 
ConstanceR46 wrote:You have 2 choices:

A. Take a flight; involving waiting hours at airports, stuffing yourself into a cramped 737 (or smaller), and have your legs go numb.

or

B. Take a HSR train. May take a bit longer, but you'll be able to stick your feet up on cushy seats and see the scenery go by.

I know what one i'd pick.
My experience in the US is that one doesn't have the choice. For some reason investing in speedy rail transport hasn't been pursued by the governments there. As a result there seems to be small demand for rail transport. But I am sure that if there was investment in even the equivalent of non-HSR European speeds there would be much more demand to travel by rail.
  by ExCon90
 
No question--people have to see it and ride it before they have any idea what it's really like. The problem seems to be how to get at least one up and running.
  by george matthews
 
ExCon90 wrote:No question--people have to see it and ride it before they have any idea what it's really like. The problem seems to be how to get at least one up and running.
That is why it is so disappointing that the California high speed line is in trouble. I think if it actually got built it would be a success and would attract enough passengers to be a success.
  by David Benton
 
Maybe that's the angle the Gov is aiming for, get high speed trains running Bakersfield to Merced before his term is up , people ride it and will be demanding it be extended. I think he is right to get that section finished, rather than just continue with prep work etc on the entire route.
  by ConstanceR46
 
My point was: if you build it, they will come