Casey Jones
Train Attendant
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2017
- Messages
- 28
Nor do I.An interesting viewpoint, but I am not so sure I agree...
You make a lot of criticisms yet you offer no proof that they are valid. Also your reading comprehension is suspect as is evidenced by your above post. I never said Americans are not in a hurry. I said they are not in that much of a hurry. Post a point you would care to debate.Nor do I.An interesting viewpoint, but I am not so sure I agree...
A few points. Most of the projects that are in various stages of development (even if they aren't all to the construction phase) for the NEC are for precisely what he claims to want; improvements to allow more dependable and reliable service with the possibility to support additional trains (including the Acela-2s). The claim that Americans are not in a hurry, yet want timely travel is a contradiction. The Acela Express that he claims was force fed, is a commercial success and the major limit on its growth is the number of seats and number of trains that are available. The new trainsets (with more trains with more seats) will actually improve the bottom line while providing more capacity. None of this would have happened with the refurbishment of existing equipment that he suggest. The idea that the entirety of the European and Japanese rail systems where 100% destroyed in the war and that comparisons can't be made to them is nonsense as well.
I can admit I made a mistake in what I read, I do not claim to be perfect.You make a lot of criticisms yet you offer no proof that they are valid. Also your reading comprehension is suspect as is evidenced by your above post. I never said Americans are not in a hurry. I said they are not in that much of a hurry. Post a point you would care to debate.
The SST comparison was to help make the point that enormous outlays of dollars for minimal results are simply not worth it. Were the taxpaying public presented a choice of a dedicated infrastructure costing billions, not to mention the environmental upheaval, or an upgraded in place system, which could be accomplished for a fraction of the cost, I am confident they would choose the latter which gives credence to my statement that "the American public is not in that much of a hurry".What point or comparison is being made by "not in that much of a hurry?" Is this just looking at rail travel in the US as compared to elsewhere in the world? Does it also include air travel? I'm not sure arguing that the comment said "not in a hurry" instead of "not in that much of a hurry" helps explains things all that much.
Also, I too think that it is absolutely reasonable to compare and look at European and Asian rail systems. For the most part, high speed rail did not emerge immediately after the war in the late 1940s and early 1950s but later in the 1960s, 1970s, and on, around the time the US was experimenting with the Metroliner. Other countries continued to make advances while the US largely stopped. And it's perfectly reasonable to compare the Japanese approach of building essentially a completely stand-alone system to the French approach of building new high speed lines but using legacy lines in dense urban areas to the German approach of building shorter segments of high speed line and upgrading existing legacy trackage and look at which might be more appropriate to various US regions. Seems that the California approach is roughly analogous to the French model and the NEC plans are somewhat similar to the German model.
The bit about "constructed/replaced by Marshall Plan" is just not true in general. Most of Europe's railroads were substantially repaired and put back into service on their existing ROW with some minor changes before any resources poured in under the Marshall Plan. Of course some minor adjustments were made where the opportunity permitted. So to claim that nothing was rebuilt until Marshall Plan arrived is just patently false. Could you please give specific examples of what sort of improvements you are talking about using Marshall Plan funding and exactly when and where they were put in place, so that we can have a meaningful discussion instead of the current hand waving generalities? Please try to be specific."high speed rail did not emerge immediately after the war in the late 1940s and early 1950s but later in the 1960s, 1970s"
The above is true however high speed in Europe used the ROW that was constructed/replaced by the Marshall Plan. The notion that another poster had that it was rebuilt on the exact pre-WWII ROW is nonsense. Where curves once existed because of obstructions i.e. buildings that were no longer there the ROW was allowed to proceed in a straight line. This is not so on the NEC where the ROW, with minor deviations, dates back to the 1800’s is still taking a circuitous route to service large population centers. A "stand alone" system will not happen on the NEC (refer to the original article).
suggest that the railways had already recovered their pre-war capacity and then some before Marshall Plan was put into place. So clearly that would indicate that they had been reconstructed in place as is and were pretty much upto pre-war capacity, thus supporting my contention that they were already built in place before any further resources from Marshall Plan were expended to improve things here and there, and obtain more rolling stock.Europe’s transportation infrastructure was in fact quickly repaired.
As Figure 8 shows, by the last quarter of 1946 almost as much freight
was loaded onto railways in Western Europe as had been transported in
1938. Including British railways, total goods loaded and shipped in the
last quarter of 1946 amounted to ninety-seven percent of pre-war traffic.
Weighted by the distance traveled—measured in units not of tons carried
but multiplying each ton carried by the number of kilometers traveled—
1947 railroad traffic was a quarter higher than pre-World War II traffic.
European recovery was not significantly delayed by the lack of track and
rolling stock.
You can take it anyway you choose but your point lacks. You are essentially saying that from the cessation of hostilities in 1945 that the railways were "substantially reconstructed" by 1948? That is your point? Less than three years to rebuild a country's rail system? Dresden is indicative of the devastation wreaked on Germany, France et al by the Allied bombing campaign. Your point is dull.You are arguing a point that is not contested. Dresden also was not really a recipient of Marshall Plan at all. Being in the Eastern Block, it was the beneficiary of the Soviet Molotov Plan.
The railways in the western block were substantially reconstructed before Marshall Plan was instituted. that is my point. I see that you have carefully avoided addressing that issue and diverted attention to something quite irrelevant. That's OK by me. I take that as your really don't have any objection to my point on the subject.
Interesting historic ad....
It did happen. The current Acela schedule shows a 2 hrs 45 min run time D.C.-NYC. And is reaches speeds of up to 150 mph for several miles. LOL.Interesting historic ad....
I rode the "Nonstop Metroliner" in the early seventies from New York to Washington when it was carded for 2 hours and 30 minutes...and we arrived Union Station almost two minutes early....
Enter your email address to join: