Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:19 pm



Quoting Klaus (Reply 96):
actually tackle the current challenges and to hell with coming generations who won't have any benefits at all but will be forced to deal with large volumes of highly toxic waste basically forever.

No, the very idea here is that this generation will for pay the "loppusijoitus" or "final depository" of those "large quantitites" you see using its own money. After 2100 or so the table will be clean. The depository is designed to withstand another ice age with 2kms of ice on top of the rock, and you're saying that's not good enough?

Quoting Klaus (Reply 96):
95% is actually not a good figure for essential infrastructure.

Ok, you were joking right? If you can develop a nuclear power station that autorepairs itself annually while in use, and also reloads fuel on the fly (well some types do, but not this one) your 100% is a-coming.

Do come up here to learn more of an engineered solution that actually works! They have the guided tours to some stations, so be seen inside one, perhaps for the first time?

But of course I know that your disposition would not let you accept that nuclear can be safe and cost-effective.


In 2008, the Olkiluoto power plant generated a total of 14 380 GWh of electricity, which covered ca. 17.0 percent of the Finnish consumption. With a load factor of 93.7%, Olkiluoto 1 (OL1) produced 7 066 GWh. Olkiluoto 2 (OL2) produced 7 314 GWh and boasted a load factor of 96.9%. TVO's share in the Meri-Pori coal power plant brought the total production of the Company to 15 197 GWh.

The net sales of TVO amounted to 245 million EUR in 2008, and the gearing ratio was 33.1%. The balance sheet showed a profit of 9.4 million EUR for 2008, which is contributed to the sale of the shares in Polartest Oy, a company that engages in inspection activities. TVO's deposits in the State Nuclear Waste Management Fund totalled 1 001 million EUR.
(my emphasis)

http://www.tvo.fi/www/page/2994/

Perhaps we should start another thread?
 
User avatar
seb146
Topic Author
Posts: 22646
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Tue Mar 03, 2009 4:48 pm



Quoting WunalaYann (Reply 99):
Since most trains in most developed countries run on electricity, the mere notion of l/100 km or miles per gallon is simply not applicable.

Besides, what transport mode carries 1,030 passengers at 320 km/h with a safety record that puts the ultra vast majority of airlines to shame? A hint - it is three letters, the first of which being "T" and the last two are "GV".

This is something else I do not understand: We, in the Northwest, get most of our electricity from either hydroelectric or wind. We do have a couple of nuclear plants, but I don't think they run often. We also have one coal plan (that I know of) that only seems to fire once a year or so. That said, I don't see how passenger trains in the Northwest are still on diesel. True, they share the rails with freight trains, but, how hard is a cantenary system to put up?

Also, all those advocating for road instead of rail, what about the collateral damage? Wear and tear (oil changes, breaks, windshield wiper replacement, tire replacement) plus, engine problems and if your car gets into an accident, who pays for that? Also, if you are driving, you also run the risk of possibly hitting a deer or a drunk driver hitting you. There is so much less stress taking the train! Go back and read my post 56, also.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:09 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 80):
-
Passenger trains always have priority over freight trains. Which means that it is the freight trains which have to stop to let passenger trains pass.
--
Not in America. Passenger trains run on tracks owned by freight companies.... and passenger traffic yields to freight traffic.

-
Well, to have decent passenger-rail-traffic, this ought to be changed totally.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 80):
A) what is "reasonable" ? I mean NY-LA would be like Paris-Moscow, a distance I regard as a bit extreme for rail-travel.
--
I don't think LA-NY makes sense in any way for HSR... reasonable city pairs typically don't exceed 600 miles in distance.

-
absolutely right. European (sorry, WEST European, not Russia) rail-companies generally look at rail-links of between 100 kilometers and 1000 kilometers. Most experts place the upper limits at some 800 kms which is less than 600 miles.

Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 80):
as a social case, but not as a business one

-
in case of France, airlinks in recent decades were reduced due to the TGV. Many airlinks even commercially collapsed due to fast trains. "Social" case is however a very soft description for the fact that most European rail companies are state-owned and so can afford to absorb their investments in a timeframe of a decade. Which puts them at an advantage over aircarriers which increasingly are privately owned and have to absorb investments within a few years. BUT infrastructure expenditures have to be looked at in a longterm frame, and if done that way, it is a PROFITABLE thing. Take an extreme case, the new Gotthard-Tunnel in Switzerland. It is a tunnel starting deep in the German speaking "Uri" valley and cutting through the mountains and exiting some 50 kms south deep in Italian speaking Ticino. It is, in combination with a western rail-link from Basel/Berne to the Ticino, a project of national importance, beyond "business" consideration. BUT you ought to bear in mind, that the resulting business for Switzerland will cover the costs within some 30 years already. It is supposed that the original Gotthard Tunnel more than covered its costs in favour of the national economy already within some 40 years.
 
JakeOrion
Posts: 1090
Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 11:13 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:13 pm



Quoting DocLightning (Reply 5):
We need that train. It'll relieve so much congestion I can't even begin to describe it.

Here you go:

http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/

Problem is, construction is suppose to start in 2011, and from there, it is projected to be completed in 8 to 11 years...

So, we are looking at 2019 the earliest for operational status.
Every problem has a simple solution; finding the simple solution is the difficult problem.
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:33 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 101):
Wear and tear (oil changes, breaks, windshield wiper replacement, tire replacement) plus, engine problems and if your car gets into an accident, who pays for that?

You do. And why not?

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 101):
There is so much less stress taking the train!

Sure, but can you force people to ride the train? I think you'd need a lot of shotguns to force people out of their minivans. And the end result does not save energy. So what is the point?
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Tue Mar 03, 2009 5:37 pm



Quoting JakeOrion (Reply 103):
Problem is, construction is suppose to start in 2011, and from there, it is projected to be completed in 8 to 11 years...

So, we are looking at 2019 the earliest for operational status.

Regrettable, sure, but NOT a problem. Such things need time. Many rail-projects and highways-projects need far more than a decade for completion. When Switzerland decided to build a federal network of highways it was in the middle of 1960. Works started in 1962. The network started to be of some use in 1970, but only became really useful in about 1990, 30 years later. And only in coming April, the West-Highway around Zurich with a massive tunnel will be opened, with the first ideas about such a solution being discussed in about 1968, more than 30 years ago.
-
You have to see that planners and engineers who work on such projects possibly only will see their projects at work after having retired, but will have to be happy to be still alive then !
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8524
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Tue Mar 03, 2009 7:12 pm

Quoting Flighty (Reply 97):

I don't think that's necessarily true, particularly in main corridors and even more so in corridors with bad weather. But I don't see it happening in the private sector without tolls on highways or privatizing the highways system.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 102):
in case of France, airlinks in recent decades were reduced due to the TGV. Many airlinks even commercially collapsed due to fast trains.

You could say the same thing of the U.S. highways destroying the old private passenger rail system, though.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 102):
state-owned and so can afford to absorb their investments in a timeframe of a decade. Which puts them at an advantage over aircarriers which increasingly are privately owned and have to absorb investments within a few years.

Well that's not really fair either. The U.S. rail industry has been operating for almost 200 years privately. Capital-intensive projects are not out of reach of private enterprise, as long as it isn't beaten like a cash cow and regulated to death.

[Edited 2009-03-03 11:15:53]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:23 pm



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 102):
Well, to have decent passenger-rail-traffic, this ought to be changed totally.

What do you propose? Nationalizing the railroads that do mighty-fine on their own?

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 106):
Well that's not really fair either. The U.S. rail industry has been operating for almost 200 years privately. Capital-intensive projects are not out of reach of private enterprise, as long as it isn't beaten like a cash cow and regulated to death.

10-4! Thank you!
 
User avatar
seb146
Topic Author
Posts: 22646
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Tue Mar 03, 2009 10:34 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 104):
Sure, but can you force people to ride the train? I think you'd need a lot of shotguns to force people out of their minivans. And the end result does not save energy. So what is the point?

For the family living in Portland to take a weekend in Seattle, it might not make much sense. But, for the business traveller or, like me, a single person, it makes perfect sense. For $40, I get a seat round trip Portland-Seattle in about 3 hours. That's it. In my car, I would spend $60 or more in gas. Then, there is the oil ($25 at a Jiffy Lube type place), and spending anywhere from 2.5 to 4 hours depending on traffic. Sure, I could set what time I leave, but that does not guarantee what time I arrive. Plus I have to pay for parking in downtown Seattle, which could run up to $10 or $15. So, me, by myself in my car, I spend about $100. Or, on the train, I spend $40. And, if the line were electrified, that would reduce foreign oil dependence.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 104):
You do. And why not?

Yes, but if I can save money and save time, why wouldn't I?
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5415
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:33 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 106):
Capital-intensive projects are not out of reach of private enterprise,

That's debatable. Private enterprises are not always able to get financing for very costly projects as easily as the government does. And the private sector always seeks more immediate return on investment.

Building a high speed railway is very expensive and, even when done properly and with a decent market, usually needs over a decade to pay for itself. Private companies, even if they could get that sort of financing, would seldom want to wait that amount of time to make some money out of it, especially if the margins won't be very high.

All of this regardless of whether that investment would benefit the population in general.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5043
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 3:02 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 104):
Sure, but can you force people to ride the train?

Whoever said anything about forcing anybody to do anything? If you provide a good, competitive service, the passengers WILL come.

Quoting Flighty (Reply 104):
And the end result does not save energy. So what is the point?

You've been touting that for a while now, but I haven't seen you back it up. Here's what I found on the energy efficiency of HSR vs. car vs. plane:

In mpg (or gasoline equivalent for the electric train): Note that this is for typical usage, i.e. with typical load factors, using real-world figures (i.e. for the trains, real passenger occupancy on real existing routes were used):

aircraft: 50 mpg
Toyota Prius: 96 mpg
Highway coach: 170 mpg
High-speed train: 380 mpg

If one takes the newest operational French HST, the TGV Duplex (double-deck), the number even goes to 506 mpg.
Source: http://strickland.ca/efficiency.html

These numbers seems to suggest something completely different from what you've been stating here for a while.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:37 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 107):
Well, to have decent passenger-rail-traffic, this ought to be changed totally.
--
What do you propose? Nationalizing the railroads that do mighty-fine on their own?

-
No, but those in charge realizing that passenger trains should have priority-right-of-way over freight trains, and that freight trains have to wait. Common sense and private ownership are not contradictory.
-

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 106):
Capital-intensive projects are not out of reach of private enterprise, as long as it isn't beaten like a cash cow and regulated to death.

-
Capital intensive projects ARE in reach of private enterprise. The "old" Gotthard Tunnel I mentioned above was financed, carried through and brought to profit by private railroad-owner Alfred Escher. His company amazingly was nationalized AFTER having absorbed the in those times incredible costs of some of his major projects. Many European railroad companies ARE profitable but ARE "beaten like a cash cow". In the case of Switzerland, the main problem for rail companies (the Federal company as well as Cantonal and municipal and private companies) is not so much regulation as such but the permanent involvement of politics and the uncountable public votes about everything even of minor importance.
-

-

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 109):
the private sector always seeks more immediate return on investment.

-
Sure, and so, the private sector IS at a DISadvantage, as "modern" investors want profitability within half a decade, while it .................

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 109):
Building a high speed railway is very expensive and, even when done properly and with a decent market, usually needs over a decade to pay for itself.

-
..... can only be reached within at least 15 years or more probably in many cases after 20 or 30 years. And this also is the case in regard to highways and even airports.
 
User avatar
seb146
Topic Author
Posts: 22646
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 5:59 pm



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 111):
No, but those in charge realizing that passenger trains should have priority-right-of-way over freight trains, and that freight trains have to wait. Common sense and private ownership are not contradictory.

I don't understand how, if passenger trains are lighter and shorter, why do they have to pull over and wait for a heaver, longer, and slower freight train. This makes passenger trains run late and makes people dislike passenger train service in the United States.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:21 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 112):
No, but those in charge realizing that passenger trains should have priority-right-of-way over freight trains, and that freight trains have to wait. Common sense and private ownership are not contradictory.

I don't understand how, if passenger trains are lighter and shorter, why do they have to pull over and wait for a heaver, longer, and slower freight train. This makes passenger trains run late and makes people dislike passenger train service in the United States.

As I said, passenger trains should NOT have to wait, but have the right of way. It is the freight trains which are to wait for the passenger trains. In case of doubt even on side tracks, waiting for the passenger trains to pass. And "lower category" (slower) pax trains to wait for the "higher category" (faster) pax trains. Which means that a high-speed-pax-train is NOT to wait.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 6:36 pm

Quoting Seb146 (Reply 112):

I don't understand how, if passenger trains are lighter and shorter, why do they have to pull over and wait for a heaver, longer, and slower freight train.

Simple, passenger ticket revenue would not cover the losses in the kinetic energy of the heavy freight trains, and the time & cost penalty of standstill freight for the customers.

[Edited 2009-03-04 10:37:31]
 
User avatar
seb146
Topic Author
Posts: 22646
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:27 pm



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 114):
Simple, passenger ticket revenue would not cover the losses in the kinetic energy of the heavy freight trains, and the time & cost penalty of standstill freight for the customers.

That does not make sense, either. I have been on Cascades many times between Portland and Seattle. They use Talgo trainsets, just to give an idea. I have also seen Coast Starlight between Seattle and Los Angeles. Those trains are much shorter and take much MUCH less time to pass than a heavy freight train. I have been on pax trains when both my train and the freight were moving at the same time. But, for a freight train to come to a complete stop then start again, you make it sound like freight would be days late when, in reality, it might only be 2 hours or less late.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:46 pm



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 113):

As I said, passenger trains should NOT have to wait, but have the right of way. It is the freight trains which are to wait for the passenger trains. In case of doubt even on side tracks, waiting for the passenger trains to pass. And "lower category" (slower) pax trains to wait for the "higher category" (faster) pax trains. Which means that a high-speed-pax-train is NOT to wait.

,
But the freight railroads own the tracks. You expect them to wait on a passenger train? To get those sort of terms, you would have to be prepared to pay an absolutely outragous amount in trackage fees, and I would even then expect them to allow it again when the contract is up for renewal.
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 8:35 pm



Quoting Scorpio (Reply 110):
the newest operational French HST, the TGV Duplex (double-deck)

Which has been in operation since 1996...  Wink

The one rolling stock type I am anxiously awaiting is the AGV (Automotrice à Grande Vitesse), with commercial speed of 360 km/h, and an increase in electricity consumption of roughly 7% compared to the Dupleix. Granted, both are twin-decks, but man, 360 km/h on existing high-speed railtracks...  thumbsup 
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8524
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:55 pm



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 109):
Private enterprises are not always able to get financing for very costly projects as easily as the government does.

Well they can't just take the money from people. They have to ask nicely, promise to pay it back, and can get denied at any time. In the private sector taking money without permission is considered theft, though the government plays by different rules.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 109):
And the private sector always seeks more immediate return on investment.

Building a high speed railway is very expensive and, even when done properly and with a decent market, usually needs over a decade to pay for itself. Private companies, even if they could get that sort of financing, would seldom want to wait that amount of time to make some money out of it, especially if the margins won't be very high.

The transcontinental Great Northern Railway was built entirely in the private sector. No government land grants like the others. That's enough to throw reasonable doubt in that argument unless they were able to get a quick ROI, which IMHO seems doubtful.

Quoting Francoflier (Reply 109):

All of this regardless of whether that investment would benefit the population in general.

It has to benefit people. Otherwise the number of customers would be zero, and money would have been wasted and there would be no profits.

Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 111):
Many European railroad companies ARE profitable but ARE "beaten like a cash cow".

Franco and MAF, another impediment to investments in this grand scale by the private sector is that risky investments tend to require high profits. If high profits are achieved, your company will be put squarely in the highest tax bracket, scuttling the risk-reward analysis and possibly the project too. Progressive taxation suddenly becomes quite regressive when you switch points of view.

Yet another risk is political risk, particularly in areas like major infrastructure. U.S. rail companies were subjected to a variety of regulations, including price and extensive labor regulations. An article in wikipedia iirc said that labor laws said that workers could not work more than 100 miles or so a day. Imagine that in France today with the TGV. A badly thought out rule for sure, just pointing out a curious example.
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 2:33 am



Quoting Scorpio (Reply 110):
These numbers seems to suggest something completely different from what you've been stating here for a while.

Those HST efficiency numbers strike me as over-polished in some way.

"In 2005, Amtrak reported 39 passenger miles per gallon"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_efficiency_in_transportation



This is much closer to what I would predict for American diesel powered trains. It is pretty bad fuel efficiency, about equivalent to a DC-9-30 flying typical missions (seats full). Or, a 737-700 flying typical load factors.

When you shift to electrical propulsion, we get into mostly semantic arguments about how that electricity was generated. Some electric trains have diesel generators onboard to provide the electricity. They are still "electrical," they just obtain that energy in the most cost effective way. It turns out that way is through diesel, typically.
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:01 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 119):
They are still "electrical," they just obtain that energy in the most cost effective way. It turns out that way is through diesel, typically.

No single HST in any country that has proper, dedicated high speed railtracks runs on anything other electricity. Whether you look at the Shinkansen, ICE, TGV or variations on the Pendolino theme, it is all the same - anything that runs faster than 220 km/h (the threshold beyond which RTMS rules impose in-cab signalling and therefore seggregates HST from standard trains) in Europe, Japan, Korea and Taiwan draws its power from overhead wires.

After that, it becomes a case of cycle of life for whichever energy source power plants use to generate the current in the wires.

For what it is worth, the subjective on-board experience also factors in. I find that the travelling experience on board a TGV simply, utterly, completely, definitely hands flying its sorry backside, even in business class. The possibility to stand up, walk, stretch, go to the restaurant, lie down, etc. is such a nice change from airplanes. I also find seats much more comfortable, regardless of class, and I just do not have to put up with the deafening, constant rumbling of jet engines. I can conduct a whispered conversation with my neighbour on a train, not on a plane.

So for trips of less than 3h30 block time, I say bring on high speed train.

 Smile
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:25 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 96):
Quoting AverageUser (Reply 93):
a portion of my electricity bill goes into a fund that finances the project that will seal up the Finnish nuclear waste in Finnish rock for forever

I don't doubt that that is the intention. I doubt that that will be the reality, especially over the multiple millenia it would take to contain the toxic waste. Our own concept of such a storage facility for "forever" is currenty collapsing as we speak

I know the geological setting of the Finnish storage, what is the problem with the German one. Dry granites in Finland are not going anywhere fast. What is the problem with the German storage.

The story about GHG input to U production seems a bit mixed to me.

Almost all the references on Google to Roxby Downs, the worlds largest U deposit are from green groups.
http://www.monash.edu.au/news/newsline/story/1147
Here is a diatribe from a Dr Mudd - splendid name as his paper is as clear as!!
"For example, mining at Roxby Downs is responsible for the emission of over one million tonnes of greenhouse gases per year and this could increase to four million tonnes if the mine is expanded," he said

Whoa there, one million tonnes of GHG and in 2004 Roxby Downs produced about 4390 t of U and was planned to be producing about 10,000 tpa in 2007 when Dr Mudd was having his say. I cannot easliy find the exact production, but that will be close.

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=271720

Suggests:
1 GW electric for a year =

more than 2 million tons of coal

200 tons of natural uranium / 20 tons of enriched uranium / 1 ton actually split in a PWR


2 million t of coal is about 6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide and the one million tonnes of emissions from Roxby Downs would therfore be equivalent to 300 million tonnes potential emissions. That seems a fair trade to me, unless I have slipped a few noughts in my back of the envelope efforts. Added to which for Roxby, about 60% of the carbon dioxide should really be attributed to the other metals, copper and gold being mined.

Maybe if you are scratching around getting U from the Chattanooga shale in the US things would be a good deal worse, but then the irony is that the Chatt might be mined anyway as it is an oil shale and we cannot do without our cars can we? But sources like Roxby are the main ones for U for the foreseeable future, so let us use their data.

Fastest train for me has been the 125s in the UK, and they were such an improvement over the Flying Scotsman, they were not funny. So I can only read WY about the French trains and be jealous. I wonder if the TGVs have the same gear changes as the Citroen - not that they would need them, but surely that is no reason not to be eccentric!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:46 am



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 109):
Quoting PPVRA (Reply 106):
Capital-intensive projects are not out of reach of private enterprise,

That's debatable. Private enterprises are not always able to get financing for very costly projects as easily as the government does. And the private sector always seeks more immediate return on investment.

Building a high speed railway is very expensive and, even when done properly and with a decent market, usually needs over a decade to pay for itself. Private companies, even if they could get that sort of financing, would seldom want to wait that amount of time to make some money out of it, especially if the margins won't be very high.

All of this regardless of whether that investment would benefit the population in general.

Hmmm, that reminds me of the rather interesting numbers about Sydney Airport in this morning's SMH
http://business.smh.com.au/business/...rt-into-the-red-20090304-8oj5.html
Interest bill on $8b debt pushes Sydney Airport into the red

To simplify the story, when the airport was sold to Macquarie Airports in June 2002, the debt was $1.2 billion. In the seven years since then debt has risen to $8.1 billion. And that debt seems to be after a couple of capital injections in the past year. There have been some alterations (I have stayed away from the word improvements, having got lost in their carpark a few times over the past couple of years). There is no way they represent 7 billion of work however. Earnings for the most recent year were $460.7 before interest and tax.

And this is supposed to be an efficient and desirable way of running a public asset?

It is clear that there is more financial engineering being used at the airport than civil engineering.

So it is not only whether private enterprises can get funding, but also what sort of financial engineering they decide to do with it Francoflier.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5415
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 8:31 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 118):
Well they can't just take the money from people. They have to ask nicely, promise to pay it back, and can get denied at any time. In the private sector taking money without permission is considered theft, though the government plays by different rules.

Anything that has to do with public funding relies heavily on politics. If local voters aren't in favor of funding a multi billion dollars project for a HST line, then the local political candidates pushing for the project probably won't get elected. Of course, in any society there are those projects that would benefit a lot of people, though not the majority, and indirectly the state/country, but will not get funded because the majority of voters will not benefit from said project and won't want to see their tax dollar go to it.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 118):
It has to benefit people. Otherwise the number of customers would be zero, and money would have been wasted and there would be no profits.

No question there, and as I said above, such a project would not newcessarily have to benefit the majority of the population to be efficient. A HST line between a major city pair will only be enjoyed by inhabitants of those 2 cities, the rest of the state will probably vote against funding it, whether such a line would be profitable and beneficial to the state or not.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 122):
So it is not only whether private enterprises can get funding, but also what sort of financial engineering they decide to do with it Francoflier.

Well, at the end of the day, you have to decide who to entrust those projects to: The corrupt government or the greedy and inept management of a private company...  scared 
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 9:45 am



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 123):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 122):
So it is not only whether private enterprises can get funding, but also what sort of financial engineering they decide to do with it Francoflier.

Well, at the end of the day, you have to decide who to entrust those projects to: The corrupt government or the greedy and inept management of a private company..

How is the parameter CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS/GREEDY AND INEPT MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE COMPANIES going this year? I just looked with my hand lens and could not find the result of the calculation! And you were not including illegal activities of companies.

In the case of Sydney airport, I would love to see a history of how they got from 1.2 billion in debt to 8.1 billion in under 7 years, while dragging money out of all passing near the airport like you would not believe.

At least if a government were to wreck a major project in that way it would be clearly recognised and at least round here the neckties parties would be out whereas with private industry it is ho hum what next? Mind you as I typed that, I realised that the Public Private type efforts are deliberately made so difficult to analyse that all parties probably escape with their necks intact.
 
Scorpio
Posts: 5043
Joined: Thu Oct 04, 2001 3:48 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:05 am



Quoting Flighty (Reply 119):
"In 2005, Amtrak reported 39 passenger miles per gallon"

What does Amtrak have to do with high-speed rail? Amtrak uses slow, heavy diesel-powered trains for the most part, running on tracks not really suitable for passenger service. On top of that, they operate many sleeper services, which will always be more cost-intensive since they take up considerably more room per passenger.

Your argumentation was that energy efficiency of HST service was not better than that of other means of transport, and was thus not really worth investing in. The link I posted very clearly contradicts that. Amtrak really doesn't enter into this discussion, since the service they operate is about the furthest you can get from what we're talking about here: high-speed service.
 
User avatar
Francoflier
Posts: 5415
Joined: Wed Oct 31, 2001 12:27 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 10:43 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 124):
How is the parameter CORRUPT GOVERNMENTS/GREEDY AND INEPT MANAGEMENT OF PRIVATE COMPANIES going this year?

The "Private companies" side definitely took a hit of late...  biggrin 

Quoting Baroque (Reply 124):
In the case of Sydney airport, I would love to see a history of how they got from 1.2 billion in debt to 8.1 billion in under 7 years, while dragging money out of all passing near the airport like you would not believe.

I don't think you want to know...

Quoting Baroque (Reply 124):
the Public Private type efforts are deliberately made so difficult to analyse that all parties probably escape with their necks intact.

Well, it's a debate of 'immunity' vs. 'gloden parachute'.
I'll do my own airline. With Blackjack. And hookers. In fact, forget the airline.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 12:53 pm



Quoting Francoflier (Reply 126):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 124):
In the case of Sydney airport, I would love to see a history of how they got from 1.2 billion in debt to 8.1 billion in under 7 years, while dragging money out of all passing near the airport like you would not believe.

I don't think you want to know...

Well I sort of do want to know, but then I might want to slit my wrists so probably on balance you are right. But someone ought to write a book on how to go so far in debt while running an airport returning near half a billion a year.

I wondered which way to put the equation - a choice between a tiny number and tending to infinity. It is fascinating that the devotion to private industry is so strong that even trillions of criminal or close to criminal loss is not causing at least a major revision in the overall model for their management.

What is irritating is that the adherence to the private capital model tends to make it an a priori assumption that if you have a potential nation building activity like a high speed train it cannot be built and run by the state. Aside from anything else, there are so many demonstrated methods of running state enterprises to take advantages of most of those from the private model. Just a matter of taking your choice. With GM taking another rumble towards oblivion tonight ....... Oh wait, I forgot, that will be good for us all. Yippee. Especially as they are rumoured to have killed the railways (disclaimer, I do not actually believe that!).
 
User avatar
seb146
Topic Author
Posts: 22646
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:13 pm



Quoting Flighty (Reply 119):
"In 2005, Amtrak reported 39 passenger miles per gallon"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_ef...ation

I would that includes all Amtrak service, which is mostly long-distance coach service, so it would include sleeper and diner and lounge. Look at these figures from the article:

"A trial of a Colorado Railcar double-deck DMU hauling two Bombardier Bi-level coaches found fuel consumption to be 128 US gallons for 144 miles, or 1.125 mpg. The DMU has 92 seats, the coaches typically have 162 seats, for a total of 416 seats. With all seats filled the efficiency would be 468 passenger-mpg."

That is pure coach.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:24 pm



Quoting Seb146 (Reply 128):
With all seats filled the efficiency would be 468 passenger-mpg.

Can someone run a figure to equate electric trains with this? I guess we would have to use MJ per something.

Here is a start for diesel

38.6 MJ/litre

45.4 MJ/kg

166,600 BTU/Imp gal

138,700 BTU/US gal


A US liquid gallon is ~ 3.8 litres

WY got any data?
 
PPVRA
Posts: 8524
Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2004 7:48 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 3:44 pm

Quoting Baroque (Reply 122):



Quote:
The Government has decided to continue the current approach to regulation of aeronautical prices at the major airports and has accepted the Commission’s recommendation that Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, Perth and Adelaide airports continue to be subject to price monitoring for a further six years.

http://www.treasurer.gov.au/DisplayD...pressreleases/2007/032.htm&min=phc

I've heard before that SYD was privately run, but I never looked into to see how liberalized it was. The outcome of my single google search to find this press release (and it came out at the very top) is exactly what I expected to find and entirely unsurprising.

Now, their owners bought the airport certainly because they thought they could make it work. Could have been a mistake, but it could certainly still be just plain old poor management. Not trying to excuse them here, just showing that they don't have full use of their hands. Price regulation is one of the major recurring themes back when the U.S. rail industry was faltering.

[Edited 2009-03-05 07:46:07]
"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 4:56 pm



Quoting Baroque (Reply 129):

Can someone run a figure to equate electric trains with this?

VR of Finland says their target for energy/rider/km for the year 2010 = 0,33 MJ/km, and actual performance was 0,43 MJ/km in 2001. 75% of all traction was electric. I could not find the number for passenger services, but I suppose it's closer to 85-90%. Sounds complicated.
In all, VR used 1,4 petajoules for passenger services in the year 2000.

link in Finn.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:08 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 116):
But the freight railroads own the tracks. You expect them to wait on a passenger train? To get those sort of terms, you would have to be prepared to pay an absolutely outragous amount in trackage fees, and I would even then expect them to allow it again when the contract is up for renewal.

-
Whomever owns whatever, the cargo trains HAVE to wait for the pax-trains, and that is not hours but a few minutes. And that the owners of the tracks will demand to be paid for their service is absolutely normal. If the owners of the pax-trains and the owners of the cargo-trains cannot find solutions, the pax-trains owners will have to build their own tracks. This may not be free of charge BUT may make sense, as the tracks of the cargo-networks possibly are not exactly of the kind needed for HST operations.

Quoting PPVRA (Reply 118):
Franco and MAF, another impediment to investments in this grand scale by the private sector is that risky investments tend to require high profits. If high profits are achieved, your company will be put squarely in the highest tax bracket, scuttling the risk-reward analysis and possibly the project too. Progressive taxation suddenly becomes quite regressive when you switch points of view.

-
This is not an investment problem but a task for the tax-advisers/tax-specialists. Investments accounting-wise kill off most of the profits. Building train-networks is anyway NOT "risky" investments. If high profits, after a decade get achieved, a good accounting shows a loss of value of the structures and so not so much profit. And on the basis of the various calculations, re-investments will be done, as there are new material in all sectors including new trains.
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:15 pm



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 132):

-
Whomever owns whatever, the cargo trains HAVE to wait for the pax-trains, and that is not hours but a few minutes. And that the owners of the tracks will demand to be paid for their service is absolutely normal. If the owners of the pax-trains and the owners of the cargo-trains cannot find solutions, the pax-trains owners will have to build their own tracks. This may not be free of charge BUT may make sense, as the tracks of the cargo-networks possibly are not exactly of the kind needed for HST operations.

They charge an arm and a leg as it is. The cost for them to even consider giving preference to the alien trainsets would be absolutely astronomical. Building your own tracks would take decades to pay off, especially since the hayday of land grants is over.

So as I said, depending on who is operating the trains, this may or may not be an issue. A government can absorb the capital costs, a private operator cannot.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:19 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 133):
The cost for them to even consider giving preference to the alien trainsets would be absolutely astronomical.

-
No, the costs for this would be absolutely minimal. Again, it is not waiting for hours, it is waiting a few minutes.
 
MOBflyer
Posts: 150
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 9:42 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Thu Mar 05, 2009 6:55 pm



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 134):

-
No, the costs for this would be absolutely minimal. Again, it is not waiting for hours, it is waiting a few minutes.

The cost they would charge would be atronomical... and they are trying to improve their own reliability ratings. They charge an outragous amount as it is to Amtrak... which they say they are giving them a reduced rate to what a private company would get because of the burden that Amtrak lifted off their shoulders and such....

I wouldn't be surprised if there was actually NO PRICE for which the freight carriers would settle to yield to pax trains.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Fri Mar 06, 2009 12:48 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 121):
I know the geological setting of the Finnish storage, what is the problem with the German one. Dry granites in Finland are not going anywhere fast. What is the problem with the German storage.

Dealing with Asse : Where Should Germany Store Its Nuclear Waste? - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Sure, one may have illusions of granite being completely and infinitely safe by comparison, but the main issue remains: Following a short binge of wasting energy like there's no tomorrow, delaying efforts to develop a long-term sustainable energy strategy, hundreds of future generations who have absolutely no benefits from the (likely) short fission-nuclear age will still get saddled with a highly toxic and through millenia potentially catastrophic waste dump that will need to be contained, maintained and periodically renovated.

Of course when the cost overruns, unexpected geological weaknesses and other unanticipated problems hit them, the reckless politicians and industrial leaders who caused them will long be dead. Which will probably be a good thing. I can only speculate about future generations' position towards outright lynching
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:12 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 136):
Sure, one may have illusions of granite being completely and infinitely safe by comparison

Dear Klaus, I see you often advise people adapt a more scientific way of thinking in some of the other threads. It's strange, then, that when the geologists and metallurgists disagree with you here, they'll suddenly become "men of illusions".

Quoting Klaus (Reply 136):
and through millenia potentially catastrophic waste dump that will need to be contained, maintained and periodically renovated

In this final disposal case that I brought up, there will be no maintenance. Once the cave in granite is sealed, no person will ever enter the site again for no reason.

more: http://www.posiva.fi/englanti/

The decay of typical PWR spent fuel: activity vs time (Wikipedia)
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:28 am



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 131):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 129):

Can someone run a figure to equate electric trains with this?

VR of Finland says their target for energy/rider/km for the year 2010 = 0,33 MJ/km, and actual performance was 0,43 MJ/km in 2001. 75% of all traction was electric. I could not find the number for passenger services, but I suppose it's closer to 85-90%. Sounds complicated.
In all, VR used 1,4 petajoules for passenger services in the year 2000.

According to my stuttering maths, Seb's diesel comes out at about 0.196 Mj/km. But that is an individual train against ? a system. Somewhere we need to take speed into account.

Going back to your number Seb, I assume it is the point to point number and not a cruise figure??
 
Flighty
Posts: 9963
Joined: Thu Apr 05, 2007 3:07 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:32 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 136):
hundreds of future generations who have absolutely no benefits from the (likely) short fission-nuclear age will still get saddled with a highly toxic and through millenia potentially catastrophic waste dump that will need to be contained, maintained and periodically renovated.

I tend to think the advances in physics and chemistry will make us glad we had the useful nuclear waste within a few decades. Why would it take 3,000 years to come up with a technological solution? That is pessimistic, although I do think caution is good in these matters. We could be manipulating space and time with our thoughts, by that time.
 
WunalaYann
Posts: 2128
Joined: Mon Mar 07, 2005 12:55 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:50 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 129):
WY got any data?

I humbly admit that I do not.

I remember seeing a very comprehensive table of "oil equivalent tonnes" for cross-modal analyses but that was a while ago (5 years, time flies), and I just do not have access to that material anymore.

I am happy to look around on the web and report when I have a bit more time (read - when the boss is not breathing down my neck  biggrin  ).

Cordial salutations.  Smile
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Fri Mar 06, 2009 2:54 am



Quoting PPVRA (Reply 130):
Now, their owners bought the airport certainly because they thought they could make it work. Could have been a mistake, but it could certainly still be just plain old poor management. Not trying to excuse them here, just showing that they don't have full use of their hands. Price regulation is one of the major recurring themes back when the U.S. rail industry was faltering.

Not sure if you have missed it but the real question is who has done what with the best part of 7 billion since the joint was purchased and what in heck have those lending this money been thinking about. Had the airports been publicly owned (STILL) you would have a chance of figuring out where it went, as is not a chance. Probably most been siphoned off via various strange charges to the main entity Mac Bank and paid out to the folk in the millionaires factory. The beneficiaries have mostly now retired, in other words, this is a complex semi legal method of theft. Masquerading under the guise of private enterprise.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 136):
Quoting Baroque (Reply 121):
I know the geological setting of the Finnish storage, what is the problem with the German one. Dry granites in Finland are not going anywhere fast. What is the problem with the German storage.

Dealing with Asse : Where Should Germany Store Its Nuclear Waste? - SPIEGEL ONLINE

Sure, one may have illusions of granite being completely and infinitely safe by comparison, but the main issue remains:

Oh GOD - SALT. What can I say? I wondered vaguely and then thought, oh no, they would not be that silly. Well no solution for a salt depository. With a bit of luck, most will sink, and the saline contaminated water will be dense so it will tend to rise less than if it was fresh water. Other than that, many geos told anyone who would listen not to go near salt back in about oh 1965. By about 1975 salt was really out, strangely enough due to it being explored in one of the most stupid places - Hutchison salt bed in Kansas. This bed is thin, and is like a Swiss cheese with oil wells, most of which are uncased. As oil has been pumped from the sub salt fields, it has drawn down fresh water which has enlarged the bores from about 6 inches to 10 inches to gaping chasms up to hundreds of metres wide.

So WADR, Klaus you cannot compare German salt disposal with Finnish dry granite disposal. Nothing much to add to AU's summary of what should happen with dry granite disposal.

It is also being a bit perverse to assume initial levels of radioactivity are present after a thousand years. Half lives really do cut into the levels. You have this simple relationship, if something is strongly emitting, it has a short half life. If it is a persistent emitter, it has a lower emission in any given period of time. So you can either have isotopes that are long lived emitters, or strong emitters, but not both. Of course you can mix em up, but it is better not to do that.

Can I direct attention to metamict zircons? These are zircons that have fractured in response to radioactive decay - mostly of U. The U tends however to remain fixed within the zircon. This is the basis for the disposal of high level wastes within a number of artificial minerals that emulate the properties of zircons - synrock.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/expert/realexpert/nuclearpower/09.htm

Klaus, the material put in your salt beds could usefully be placed in synrock, and after that, a dry granite would still be nice. You have plenty of them in a number of places in Germany.
 
ME AVN FAN
Posts: 12970
Joined: Fri May 31, 2002 12:05 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Fri Mar 06, 2009 6:28 pm



Quoting MOBflyer (Reply 135):
The cost they would charge would be atronomical... and they are trying to improve their own reliability ratings. They charge an outragous amount as it is to Amtrak... which they say they are giving them a reduced rate to what a private company would get because of the burden that Amtrak lifted off their shoulders and such....

-
Let me point it out again, that one of the most important rail projects of the 19th century, the Gotthard Tunnel, was successfully pulled through by a private tycoon, Mr Alfred von Escher, a man who was able to think both long term and pioneering. He specialized on big schemes like establishing the banking industry, launching universities, redirecting rivers into alternative lakes and making previously useless land useful and selling it at a profit, building up city quarters and selling the houses to co-operatives or private companies. He built up what still is the mainstay of the Swiss Federal Railways. For big projects, you need people with a pioneering spirit and not, to put it in the words of Napoleon, the "le petit bourgeois".
-
To the point above: A company to operate pax-trains of course has to negotiate useful deals with existing track-owners, land-owners etc. Relatively new British rail companies are doing exactly this. And as the tracks of the state-company owning the tracks of former British Rail (nationalized between 1945 and 1950 by the Labour government of Clement Attlee) in many cases are not exactly superb, many new rail-links are done with new tracks. If such things are possible in "old Britain" I might expect US-companies to overcome such obstacles at least as well.
 
AverageUser
Posts: 1824
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 6:21 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Sat Mar 07, 2009 9:33 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 136):
the reckless politicians

Thanks Klaus for the der Spiegel link. A very informative read, and fairly balanced one I should think as well. There's the technical aspect, which I hope I for one have demonstrated to be solvable, and the political aspect, which is advantageous for some to remain unsolvable.


Back to the other subject: I found an interesting Bombardier presentation on practical tests on some Swiss lines. Individual driving conventions seem to matter a lot for overall energy consumption especially when there are gradients on the line.


link-Bombardier
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Sat Mar 07, 2009 1:14 pm



Quoting AverageUser (Reply 143):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 136):
the reckless politicians

Thanks Klaus for the der Spiegel link. A very informative read, and fairly balanced one I should think as well. There's the technical aspect, which I hope I for one have demonstrated to be solvable, and the political aspect, which is advantageous for some to remain unsolvable.

Yes it is a good article but why ever go from salt to a swelling clay - the Opalinus clay? It is better in that the clay is impermeable, but then so is salt in the short term. Like the salt, the clay will have some degree of mobility. I suppose clay would be better than salt, but why ever go to yet another of the less stable rocks that are around? The Opalinus clay is not that thick, and like all sedimentary rocks shows variation both vertically and laterally. The clay will also be mobile, so that while fractures may tend to close, the clay will tend to flow into and close openings.

Granites do have fracture zones, but unaltered granites, away from fracture zones are highly impermeable. It is true that they are slightly less massive than had been supposed, but they are still one of the most massive rocks around - some gabbros would be similarly massive. And best of all, dry granites, are just that, dry. The Opalinus clay is going to have a bed moisture content between about 10% and 15%. Shakes head in wonder!

The nuclear industry has been guilty on a number of counts, oversell, and dumb solutions for disposal. However the anti-nuclear side of the scrap would be much better engaged in explaining how simple most of the problems are to fix than spawning a whole set of equally fallacious arguments.

On the greenhouse gas emissions, even if high grade U deposits were going to be in short supply, the Th cycle represents an alternative.

Either way, I would have thought that nuclear power - with proper waste disposal -was a good bet for supply of electricity for high speed trains.
 
User avatar
seb146
Topic Author
Posts: 22646
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:19 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:30 pm



Quoting ME AVN FAN (Reply 142):
If such things are possible in "old Britain" I might expect US-companies to overcome such obstacles at least as well.

One would think, but no. People in the United States want all this construction to be done but do not want to give up any of their land or money or time to get it done. They just want it to magicly appear in someone else's back yard. Let's say a pax line were built between Seattle and Portland. People would be upset with the location of the stations because they are too far or too close to their own homes. "Why can't Kalama have a station? Why can't Rochester have a station? Why can't BFE have a station? Why does La Center have to have a station? Why does Lacey have to have a station?" People would be upset with the location of the trackway because it is too close to their home. "Even though the tracks are 2 miles away and the train never has a reason to blow it's horn, it wakes me up every morning!" Then, if the train is actually running, there would be the chorus of "Nobody told me..." on ever angle. "Nobody told me a loud train would be ruining my quiet existance. Nobody told me a station would be so far away from my home. Nobody told me..." Even if a pax line were build in the median of the I-5 freeway, people would still be upset. Plus, Americans have been taught that the best way to travel is their own car and that no other form of transportation even comes close. Except air travel, if a person is going over 500 miles away.
You bet I'm pumped!!! I just had a green tea!!!
 
Klaus
Posts: 21577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Sun Mar 22, 2009 4:41 pm

Catching up with a thread I had abandoned for lack of time:

Quoting Baroque (Reply 144):
Granites do have fracture zones, but unaltered granites, away from fracture zones are highly impermeable. It is true that they are slightly less massive than had been supposed, but they are still one of the most massive rocks around - some gabbros would be similarly massive. And best of all, dry granites, are just that, dry.

The thing is that even granite can only provide short-term exculpation for the responsible deciders — but since that's all they looking for, it's deemed "good enough".

The matter remains that for a rather shortsighted benefit there will be millenia of aftermath to deal with, with potentially catastrophic consequences.

A specific chunk of Granite may appear "rock-solid" to us at this present time, but major seismic events can fracture it and connect contaminated cavities back to the biosphere. The problem is that band-aids like throwing toxic waste into a hole in the gorund are simply no match for the scale of the problem. They are just pacifiers for a fleeting moment in the political debate, with a really long phase of remorse afterwards.

Especially in the presence of less damaging alternatives that pretty much precludes any increased use of this technology even when ignoring the even worse aspects of nuclear proliferation.

Quoting Baroque (Reply 144):
The nuclear industry has been guilty on a number of counts, oversell, and dumb solutions for disposal. However the anti-nuclear side of the scrap would be much better engaged in explaining how simple most of the problems are to fix than spawning a whole set of equally fallacious arguments.

No, the main problem the nuclear lobby has is that it is unwilling to face the massive scale of the consequences both in risk and in time scale they produce for very limited and short-term benefits.

The massive disparity between the two sides makes this a crappy deal — and one that's not even necessary, it just appears convenient as long as one doesn't think about the scale of the consequences.
 
baroque
Posts: 12302
Joined: Thu Apr 27, 2006 2:15 pm

RE: High Speed Rail

Mon Mar 23, 2009 12:11 am



Quoting Klaus (Reply 146):
A specific chunk of Granite may appear "rock-solid" to us at this present time, but major seismic events can fracture it and connect contaminated cavities back to the biosphere. The problem is that band-aids like throwing toxic waste into a hole in the ground are simply no match for the scale of the problem. They are just pacifiers for a fleeting moment in the political debate, with a really long phase of remorse afterwards.

We will have to agree to disagree on this. Unless the major seismic event was a the development of a fault slap bang across the granite, a 9+ event that did not fracture the granite would have little or no effect on a properly designed store - it would demolish any nearby towns or cities but that is a different matter.

Underground openings are surprisingly resistant to at least moderate earthquakes. The local mines were hit by a 5.3 quake some years ago which demolished part of the cliff line, but caused NO underground falls. Bonus systems can be more dangerous underground than earthquakes - with some bonus system reward mining without advancing the roof support in the correct manner.

The structural geology history of an area is a pretty good guide to what could possibly happen.

Just holding waste for a thousand years gets rid of most of the radiation. Within a thousand years, all the "hot" elements have near completely decomposed and those with long half lives are not especially radioactive. Chemical stability is more of a concern than physical stability. Which is why the use of borosilicate glasses was not a good idea, physical instability followed by chemical instability. Synrock is both physically and chemically stable BTW.
 
Klaus
Posts: 21577
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:31 am



Quoting Baroque (Reply 147):
Just holding waste for a thousand years gets rid of most of the radiation.

"Just" is not the right word there, however, and that is the whole point. Because it is not "we" who's holding it through that time, it is hundreds of future generations who will have to live with our toxic heritage, living with all the risks we so graciously deemed "acceptable" for them even though we have no idea how to handle huge projects like that through millenia with the absolute reliability which is essential here. That's just delusional. We can't even provide the necessary reliability in the short term, much less for millenia to come!

It is just morally inexcusable, especially since nuclear fission is far from an ideal energy source even in the short term, nor is it really needed unless you deliberately stop thinking about viable (and far less problematic) alternatives which have none of these disadvantages.
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 21861
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: High Speed Rail

Mon Mar 23, 2009 7:54 am

I'm terribly sorry to be pedantic, but what does nuclear waste storage have to do with high-speed rail?
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Airontario, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], casinterest, cpd, DucatiRacer, N867DA, speedygonzales, stl07, stranger706, TheF15Ace, Tugger, winginit and 56 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos