arbilab
Well-known member
Ouh, and sourry about that 18th-century argy-bargy with King Geourge, but he was being such a twit at the time, or sou I'm tould.
US Expat Describes The Best And Worst Things About England
- Thread starter joe_in_philly
- Start date
Help Support :
arbilab
Well-known member
Noute that the abouve are offered in the sense of humour, houpe they are received as such.
Bloody colonials
What affront! What cheek! By golly it is high time someone taught these rascalls a lesson in manners. Star spangled banner my jolly rump; I spangle stars all over your colonial behind, I'll have you know.
What affront! What cheek! By golly it is high time someone taught these rascalls a lesson in manners. Star spangled banner my jolly rump; I spangle stars all over your colonial behind, I'll have you know.
arbilab
Well-known member
Oh I've known people who spangled, but I never.
Wait a tick Rapunzel, you're a colony too. Back then the motherland was casting off all kinds of rubble, Barney.
Worse yet I live in Texas, where at one time Louisiana sent THEIR rubble. Imagine, being judged unfit to inhabit New Orleans! The former French telling the former Brits where they can't live. Now THAT'S an insult!
Wait a tick Rapunzel, you're a colony too. Back then the motherland was casting off all kinds of rubble, Barney.
Worse yet I live in Texas, where at one time Louisiana sent THEIR rubble. Imagine, being judged unfit to inhabit New Orleans! The former French telling the former Brits where they can't live. Now THAT'S an insult!
You could raise terrorism concerns about any major piece of infrastructure really.
You've got to also put it into context, there have been fewer terrorism-related incidents in the Republic of Ireland than almost any other major EU country. Terrorism isn't really an issue that crosses most people's minds down here at all.
On top of that, the IRA etc etc are all pretty much inactive now due to the Northern Ireland situation having moved forward so far since the middle 1990s so, I wouldn't really think it would be any more of a concern than any other piece of infrastructure anywhere else.
The main reasons that it wouldn't ever be built are economic and technical.
The channel tunnel passes through chalk rock which is extremely easy to drill. It's a bit like putting a tunnel through cheese and it's also quite a shallow crossing and it's very short.
Contrast that with the Irish sea crossing from Dublin to Holyhead. First of all it's 120km vs 50km for the channel tunnel to France.
Secondly the Irish sea is a lot deeper and the seabed is a mixture of seriously hard rocks including granite which would make drilling very, very challenging.
Then on the economic side of it. The population of the Republic of Ireland's only 4.5 million and Northern Ireland 1.8 million so, 6.3 million on the entire Island of Ireland.
The crossing options would be Dublin-Hollyhead : Which takes you to a relatively remote part of North Wales which is still a long distance to London or SE England.
Or, Larne (Northern Ireland) to Stranraer (Scotland) which is an extremely remote point of Britain.
So, basically you'd end up with an astronomically expensive tunnel which took you to a remote rural part of Wales and then there are no HSR links from there to London.
To make matters even more "interesting" Ireland uses its own gauge for rails. They're slightly broader than international standard rails (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in / 1435mm) where as Irish rails are 5 ft 3 in (1600 mm). So, British trains couldn't even run over Irish tracks and visa versa without major complications and gauge-changing systems on the wheels.
So, I think we'll probably stick to flying for the foreseeable future!
At present this is as close as we get to HSR here up to 200km/h
These are the Intercity trains that run all of our long distance routes other than Cork-Dublin which has a pointier version.
I still prefer the train though in some ways to driving because you can kick back, get a bite to eat, a decent coffee and you've a power sockets and WiFi on board which makes the journey a bit more relaxing and productive than driving on a motorway.
That's the Cork-Dublin train :
Regular Intercity 22000 network trains : (all 'long distance' routes)
That's what commuter rail looks like in Cork (where I'm based). Ireland's second city (about 300,000 in the general vacnity so a far cry from London!)
Just thought I'd give you guys a flavour of what the place looks like
Here's the sprawling metropolis lol :
Finally :
My more usual way of arriving home:
post was last edited: 11/8/2013-05:49]
You've got to also put it into context, there have been fewer terrorism-related incidents in the Republic of Ireland than almost any other major EU country. Terrorism isn't really an issue that crosses most people's minds down here at all.
On top of that, the IRA etc etc are all pretty much inactive now due to the Northern Ireland situation having moved forward so far since the middle 1990s so, I wouldn't really think it would be any more of a concern than any other piece of infrastructure anywhere else.
The main reasons that it wouldn't ever be built are economic and technical.
The channel tunnel passes through chalk rock which is extremely easy to drill. It's a bit like putting a tunnel through cheese and it's also quite a shallow crossing and it's very short.
Contrast that with the Irish sea crossing from Dublin to Holyhead. First of all it's 120km vs 50km for the channel tunnel to France.
Secondly the Irish sea is a lot deeper and the seabed is a mixture of seriously hard rocks including granite which would make drilling very, very challenging.
Then on the economic side of it. The population of the Republic of Ireland's only 4.5 million and Northern Ireland 1.8 million so, 6.3 million on the entire Island of Ireland.
The crossing options would be Dublin-Hollyhead : Which takes you to a relatively remote part of North Wales which is still a long distance to London or SE England.
Or, Larne (Northern Ireland) to Stranraer (Scotland) which is an extremely remote point of Britain.
So, basically you'd end up with an astronomically expensive tunnel which took you to a remote rural part of Wales and then there are no HSR links from there to London.
To make matters even more "interesting" Ireland uses its own gauge for rails. They're slightly broader than international standard rails (4 ft 8 1⁄2 in / 1435mm) where as Irish rails are 5 ft 3 in (1600 mm). So, British trains couldn't even run over Irish tracks and visa versa without major complications and gauge-changing systems on the wheels.
So, I think we'll probably stick to flying for the foreseeable future!
At present this is as close as we get to HSR here up to 200km/h
These are the Intercity trains that run all of our long distance routes other than Cork-Dublin which has a pointier version.
I still prefer the train though in some ways to driving because you can kick back, get a bite to eat, a decent coffee and you've a power sockets and WiFi on board which makes the journey a bit more relaxing and productive than driving on a motorway.
That's the Cork-Dublin train :
Regular Intercity 22000 network trains : (all 'long distance' routes)
That's what commuter rail looks like in Cork (where I'm based). Ireland's second city (about 300,000 in the general vacnity so a far cry from London!)
Just thought I'd give you guys a flavour of what the place looks like
Here's the sprawling metropolis lol :
Finally :
My more usual way of arriving home:
post was last edited: 11/8/2013-05:49]
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
Love high-speed trains!
I can get to Milan in an hour, Florence in 30 minutes, Venice in 1,5 hours, Rome in 2 hours and Naples in 3,5 hours!
Even getting to Naples, unless using fast-lanes and preferred check-in at the airport, is quicker by train because you already are in the city centre!
And you don't even notice traveling at over 300 km/h!
And as MRX said if train is not an option, you can get anywhere in Europe for fares that 90% of the time are less than the local trains!!!! (A round trip to Rome is around 120€, I could spend the same or most of the time less to get to and from London or Paris with one of the low cost carriers!)
I can get to Milan in an hour, Florence in 30 minutes, Venice in 1,5 hours, Rome in 2 hours and Naples in 3,5 hours!
Even getting to Naples, unless using fast-lanes and preferred check-in at the airport, is quicker by train because you already are in the city centre!
And you don't even notice traveling at over 300 km/h!
And as MRX said if train is not an option, you can get anywhere in Europe for fares that 90% of the time are less than the local trains!!!! (A round trip to Rome is around 120€, I could spend the same or most of the time less to get to and from London or Paris with one of the low cost carriers!)
Unfortunately, all of our long distance trains here are still diesel. There's never been any electric HSR here as the population centres don't really justify the expenditure (or at least that's the excuse anyway).
So, we max out at 100mph diesel-electric.
I do like high-speed rail on the continent though. It's a lot more relaxing than flying, especially with all this post 9/11 security stuff (although I think we're a little less over the top than the TSA in the US)
But, to get back on topic. I think in general in Europe you'll find big cities are just very expensive so homes shrink. Most medium/small cities tend to have pretty decent size homes in my experience anyway and that's where the majority of the European population lives. We've a *lot* of small to medium cities quite close together in most counties. The only big exceptions are London and Paris really where there's huge centralisation.
Nice table on Wikipedia
Germany's mostly medium-sized / small cities and lots of them. Same with the Netherlands, Belgium, and much of Northern Europe.
en.wikipedia.org
So, we max out at 100mph diesel-electric.
I do like high-speed rail on the continent though. It's a lot more relaxing than flying, especially with all this post 9/11 security stuff (although I think we're a little less over the top than the TSA in the US)
But, to get back on topic. I think in general in Europe you'll find big cities are just very expensive so homes shrink. Most medium/small cities tend to have pretty decent size homes in my experience anyway and that's where the majority of the European population lives. We've a *lot* of small to medium cities quite close together in most counties. The only big exceptions are London and Paris really where there's huge centralisation.
Nice table on Wikipedia
Germany's mostly medium-sized / small cities and lots of them. Same with the Netherlands, Belgium, and much of Northern Europe.
List of urban areas in the European Union - Wikipedia
aquacycle
Well-known member
Rail links to London
I live about 200 miles away from London. Although this isn't a great distance compared with the US, it's considered a relatively long distance here. It's about 3 hours drive. It was certainly a strain when I was in a relationship with a guy from London.
I was in the capital last week for a gig - it took me 2 hours to get there on a direct train and only cost £8.90 each way on restricted, pre-booked tickets.
The UK doesn't yet have a major HSR train route. There is a big plan to impliment a HSR link to London from the major cities (Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh and Leeds I believe) in the very near future, but the cost of this is causing some controversy. However, as Gabriele has stated above, their are HSR links all over Europe. I can be in Amsterdam in 50 minutes direct from Leeds Bradford Airport and from there, I can get all over Europe by train.
I live about 200 miles away from London. Although this isn't a great distance compared with the US, it's considered a relatively long distance here. It's about 3 hours drive. It was certainly a strain when I was in a relationship with a guy from London.
I was in the capital last week for a gig - it took me 2 hours to get there on a direct train and only cost £8.90 each way on restricted, pre-booked tickets.
The UK doesn't yet have a major HSR train route. There is a big plan to impliment a HSR link to London from the major cities (Birmingham, Manchester, Edinburgh and Leeds I believe) in the very near future, but the cost of this is causing some controversy. However, as Gabriele has stated above, their are HSR links all over Europe. I can be in Amsterdam in 50 minutes direct from Leeds Bradford Airport and from there, I can get all over Europe by train.
Well, there's one true high speed link in the UK 'High Speed One' or the Channel Tunnel Rail link is full TGV-standard carrying EuroStar TGV-derrived trains and has high speed commuter trains on it (The Javelin)
200 miles would be considered huge distance to commute anywhere, including the US.
The only difference in the US is that people will tend to not think so much about driving cross-country. It doesn't take any less time though.
I occasionally drive from the South coast of Ireland to Southwestern France which is about 700km of driving and a 14 hour over-night cruise ferry link from Cork to Rosscoff which is actually a very pleasant way of starting a vacation.
Driving's fine if you're not in a rush.
Loads of Northern Europeans drive to the Mediterranean right across the whole continent every summer. It's not that different to the US in that respect really other than a lot of British and Irish people tend not to do it because of ferry crossings and having the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car.[this post was last edited: 11/8/2013-06:31]
200 miles would be considered huge distance to commute anywhere, including the US.
The only difference in the US is that people will tend to not think so much about driving cross-country. It doesn't take any less time though.
I occasionally drive from the South coast of Ireland to Southwestern France which is about 700km of driving and a 14 hour over-night cruise ferry link from Cork to Rosscoff which is actually a very pleasant way of starting a vacation.
Driving's fine if you're not in a rush.
Loads of Northern Europeans drive to the Mediterranean right across the whole continent every summer. It's not that different to the US in that respect really other than a lot of British and Irish people tend not to do it because of ferry crossings and having the steering wheel on the wrong side of the car.[this post was last edited: 11/8/2013-06:31]
There's a major economic reason for European high speed
I think many of us forget that the main reason for European (particularly French) focus on very high speed rail was quite simple : The 1973 oil crisis and a serious concern that the continents' transportation networks were massively dependent on aviation fuel and diesel.
The UK was less concerned because it had access to North Sea oil reserves where as France in particular had absolutely no oil and very limited natural gas reserves. That's one of the main reasons why they pushed ahead with massive investment in high-speed electrical rail.
France also pushed ahead with a nuclear power programme that's absolutely unprecedented anywhere. Over 75% of French energy is nuclear sourced!! That's become a bit more controversial these days as the love affair with nuclear energy has soured quite a lot since Chernobyl and Fukushima. But there are a whopping 58 nuclear power plants in France and over 185 in the European Union in general (nearly twice as many as the USA).
There's still new nuclear power coming on stream, especially in France and also probably in the UK if they ever get it through politically, but the big push is now really on renewables with an aim to have the entire EU on an average of 20% renewables by 2020. It's already well on the way.
So, the electric trains and all of that will still have a major role to play, even if nuclear energy ultimately phases out in the countries that use it.
The oil crisis legacy is also part of the rational for taxing energy quite highly to prevent future 'shocks' i.e. it squeezes energy consumption down quite low by making the cost of energy artificially high, so people invest in more efficient appliances and cars and it makes industries adapt to that mode of life while the governments get a big tax return which can go into ensuring there's investment in green energy etc (in theory anyway).
The tax 'cushion' also means that if there's a sudden spike in energy costs, we are able to reduce the % tax and keep them relatively stable. So, it all sort of makes sense in terms of economic forward thinking. At least, that's how it's supposed to work in theory anyway. However, it doesn't always work out in practice i.e. you get governments maintaining high energy tax while oil / gas prices rise.
In general in Europe though there's a huge political fear of an over-dependence on natural gas imports from Russia or on Middle Eastern oil as they're prone to problematic price hikes that can wreck your economy!
I think many of us forget that the main reason for European (particularly French) focus on very high speed rail was quite simple : The 1973 oil crisis and a serious concern that the continents' transportation networks were massively dependent on aviation fuel and diesel.
The UK was less concerned because it had access to North Sea oil reserves where as France in particular had absolutely no oil and very limited natural gas reserves. That's one of the main reasons why they pushed ahead with massive investment in high-speed electrical rail.
France also pushed ahead with a nuclear power programme that's absolutely unprecedented anywhere. Over 75% of French energy is nuclear sourced!! That's become a bit more controversial these days as the love affair with nuclear energy has soured quite a lot since Chernobyl and Fukushima. But there are a whopping 58 nuclear power plants in France and over 185 in the European Union in general (nearly twice as many as the USA).
There's still new nuclear power coming on stream, especially in France and also probably in the UK if they ever get it through politically, but the big push is now really on renewables with an aim to have the entire EU on an average of 20% renewables by 2020. It's already well on the way.
So, the electric trains and all of that will still have a major role to play, even if nuclear energy ultimately phases out in the countries that use it.
The oil crisis legacy is also part of the rational for taxing energy quite highly to prevent future 'shocks' i.e. it squeezes energy consumption down quite low by making the cost of energy artificially high, so people invest in more efficient appliances and cars and it makes industries adapt to that mode of life while the governments get a big tax return which can go into ensuring there's investment in green energy etc (in theory anyway).
The tax 'cushion' also means that if there's a sudden spike in energy costs, we are able to reduce the % tax and keep them relatively stable. So, it all sort of makes sense in terms of economic forward thinking. At least, that's how it's supposed to work in theory anyway. However, it doesn't always work out in practice i.e. you get governments maintaining high energy tax while oil / gas prices rise.
In general in Europe though there's a huge political fear of an over-dependence on natural gas imports from Russia or on Middle Eastern oil as they're prone to problematic price hikes that can wreck your economy!
Thanks for all that info on high speed rail. My comment about the IRA was more tongue-in-cheek than serious. Here in Oz they've been talking about high speed rail at times, but with cheap air fares there is no real incentive to put in place the expensive infra-structure needed for HSR. I don't particularly like public transport and avoid it as much as possible, which is pretty much all the time. For me driving for three hours is nothing. I've driven 3000 km in less than 72 hours - it's no big deal, I love driving.
Europe is compact and Europeans have always relied heavily on public transport. I couldn't get over how clean and efficient the London and Paris subways were when I was there. Here in Sydeny they just can't get it right. Our trains are rarely on time, they smell and are grotty, they are cold in winter and hot in summer (they do have aircon supposedly), and they seem to attract mentally ill people. Public transport is expensive and takes me longer to get anywhere than it does by car.
Europe is compact and Europeans have always relied heavily on public transport. I couldn't get over how clean and efficient the London and Paris subways were when I was there. Here in Sydeny they just can't get it right. Our trains are rarely on time, they smell and are grotty, they are cold in winter and hot in summer (they do have aircon supposedly), and they seem to attract mentally ill people. Public transport is expensive and takes me longer to get anywhere than it does by car.
For HSR to work though you really need population densities that are going to give you catchments of at least 5 to 10 million people at the termini of the lines or an ability to serve a lot of medium size cities en-route.
I don't think that's achievable in Australia. You could have something like a HSR link from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra but, it's highly unlikely you'd even be able to justify connecting Brisbane and absolutely no way it would make sense to other parts of Australia which are very sparsely populated really apart from the area immediately around Perth.
I mean the total Aussi population's only 22.6 million vs the EU population of 507 million.
The EU's pretty geographically large, but HSR doesn't cover most of it and the majority of HSR journeys would be under 400km even if the network allows you to go much further it stops making time-sense after that kind of distance as the journey times are too long.
Spain's quite an exception to this as it's gone off and build billions upon billions of Euro worth of ultra high tech HSR some of which isn't really justifiable at all and some new lines are seeing very little use or are even being moth-balled!! They definitely do need it in areas which get huge volumes of tourists though. Spain has almost 60m tourists / year, that's just short of the total number of people who visit the entire USA in a year. It's a hugely popular place.
I think though HSR would make a huge amount of sense in the USA but, just not covering the entire USA.
It would make absolute sense covering the entire Northeastern US and the great lakes area linking in Boston, New York, Chicago, and maybe reaching into some of the bigger cities in the Midwest and all the smaller ones en route.
You could also definitely have a Californian HSR doing a single long line from San Diego to LA to San Fran and taking in all the communities between.
From a huge tourism visit point of view Miami - Tampa - Orlando would be another obvious network.
Probably Dallas-Huston and somehow connecting Austin would make sense too.
I think though realistically the NE and California would be the most likely places it would make sense. You could easily imagine a French-style TGV or German style ICE network across those cities in the NE linking everything within 3 hours max. It would be a huge competitor for the airlines and would cut a lot of need for endless short haul flights.
I think the Boston - New York - Chicago - Washington DC general area is quite comparable to Paris - London - Brussels - Frankfurt - Amsterdam area in Europe which is the area most densely served by HSR.
...
I think you have to use the right tools for the right job though. HSR works across high-volume shorter distances. It should be used to compete with frequent short hop flights, not long-haul transcontinental ones.
Nobody's going to take a train across the entire USA as an alternative to an aircraft, even at 350km/h it's still going to be quite a long trip.
At present nobody really takes HSR across long distances in Europe either. You don't typically take a train from say London to Madrid unless you've a lot of time on your hands and really want to see the countryside!
Public transport usage in Europe varies enormously though depending on where you are. It makes sense in bigger cities but you get somewhere like here in Cork and only 8% of the population regularly use public transport with the vast majority of people commuting by car.[this post was last edited: 11/8/2013-10:06]
I don't think that's achievable in Australia. You could have something like a HSR link from Melbourne to Sydney via Canberra but, it's highly unlikely you'd even be able to justify connecting Brisbane and absolutely no way it would make sense to other parts of Australia which are very sparsely populated really apart from the area immediately around Perth.
I mean the total Aussi population's only 22.6 million vs the EU population of 507 million.
The EU's pretty geographically large, but HSR doesn't cover most of it and the majority of HSR journeys would be under 400km even if the network allows you to go much further it stops making time-sense after that kind of distance as the journey times are too long.
Spain's quite an exception to this as it's gone off and build billions upon billions of Euro worth of ultra high tech HSR some of which isn't really justifiable at all and some new lines are seeing very little use or are even being moth-balled!! They definitely do need it in areas which get huge volumes of tourists though. Spain has almost 60m tourists / year, that's just short of the total number of people who visit the entire USA in a year. It's a hugely popular place.
I think though HSR would make a huge amount of sense in the USA but, just not covering the entire USA.
It would make absolute sense covering the entire Northeastern US and the great lakes area linking in Boston, New York, Chicago, and maybe reaching into some of the bigger cities in the Midwest and all the smaller ones en route.
You could also definitely have a Californian HSR doing a single long line from San Diego to LA to San Fran and taking in all the communities between.
From a huge tourism visit point of view Miami - Tampa - Orlando would be another obvious network.
Probably Dallas-Huston and somehow connecting Austin would make sense too.
I think though realistically the NE and California would be the most likely places it would make sense. You could easily imagine a French-style TGV or German style ICE network across those cities in the NE linking everything within 3 hours max. It would be a huge competitor for the airlines and would cut a lot of need for endless short haul flights.
I think the Boston - New York - Chicago - Washington DC general area is quite comparable to Paris - London - Brussels - Frankfurt - Amsterdam area in Europe which is the area most densely served by HSR.
...
I think you have to use the right tools for the right job though. HSR works across high-volume shorter distances. It should be used to compete with frequent short hop flights, not long-haul transcontinental ones.
Nobody's going to take a train across the entire USA as an alternative to an aircraft, even at 350km/h it's still going to be quite a long trip.
At present nobody really takes HSR across long distances in Europe either. You don't typically take a train from say London to Madrid unless you've a lot of time on your hands and really want to see the countryside!
Public transport usage in Europe varies enormously though depending on where you are. It makes sense in bigger cities but you get somewhere like here in Cork and only 8% of the population regularly use public transport with the vast majority of people commuting by car.[this post was last edited: 11/8/2013-10:06]
What really pisses me off is that Bombardier, a Canadian company, is one of the world leaders in hi speed rail and we don't have one anywhere in the country. For 30 years all we hear is talk and studies followed by more talk and studies. There's only one maybe two real corridors that it would work.. Toronto to Montreal, perhaps with extensions down to Windsor/Detroit and north to Quebec City.. the other being between Calgary and Edmonton but I'm beginning to think I'm never going to see them in my lifetime. When I moved back here in 06 there were two trains a day.. one from Sarnia to Toronto and the 2nd was the Amtrak from Chicago to Toronto which stopped here.. Amtrak discontinued it a few years ago. Harken back to when I was a kid in the early 60's etc and there was probably about 5 trains a day in both directions.
Bombardier acquired a few European companies over the years, including BREL, British Rail Engineering Limited which was the company that manufactured much of the UK's rolling stock including the HST "High Speed Train" which is the UK's 1970s Diesel-powered 125mph service that has way outlived its intended life span.
Irish Rail used a version of BREL's Mark 3 rolling stock as the core of their intercity fleet until a few years ago. They're all now awaiting the scrap yard because apparently it was cheaper to replace them with more energy-efficient DMUs than refurbish them and make them compliant with disability legislation. So they only lasted 1983 - 2010 or so.
But, yeah, I agree - it seems a bit daft that they didn't do any between some of the closer-together Canadian and maybe even US/Canadian cities.
They did do the Alcela Express in a joint venture with Alstom though. OK, it's not near TGV speeds, but for North American rail it's fast.
Speaking of HSR - The French TGV still holds a world speed record, beating even maglev systems!
It managed 574.8km/h on normal rails (no magnets!)
(357.1 mph)
It would take you from New York to Washington DC in 39 minutes!
See youtube linked below:[this post was last edited: 11/8/2013-13:01]
Irish Rail used a version of BREL's Mark 3 rolling stock as the core of their intercity fleet until a few years ago. They're all now awaiting the scrap yard because apparently it was cheaper to replace them with more energy-efficient DMUs than refurbish them and make them compliant with disability legislation. So they only lasted 1983 - 2010 or so.
But, yeah, I agree - it seems a bit daft that they didn't do any between some of the closer-together Canadian and maybe even US/Canadian cities.
They did do the Alcela Express in a joint venture with Alstom though. OK, it's not near TGV speeds, but for North American rail it's fast.
Speaking of HSR - The French TGV still holds a world speed record, beating even maglev systems!
It managed 574.8km/h on normal rails (no magnets!)
(357.1 mph)
It would take you from New York to Washington DC in 39 minutes!
See youtube linked below:[this post was last edited: 11/8/2013-13:01]
dj-gabriele
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 1,685
there was probably about 5 trains a day in both directions
Picture my jaw dropping... (very few trains!)
here Trenitalia (the national railways company) has a high speed train every 15 or 20 minutes from Rome to Milan and its competitor NTV has trains every half an hour or so every day and this is not counting local, night and intercity trains that might connect the two cities and those in between!
Of course this is valid in both directions.
Trenitalia trains were made by Fiat Ferroviaria and AnsaldoBrera, now FiatFerroviaria is part of Alstom and the newest ones are from a joint venture of AnsaldoBrera and Bombardier while the NTV trains are totally from Alstom, both operate with 300+ km/h design speed while the new generation of Frecciarossa 1000, the latest train from Trenitalia will get up to 360 km/h and 400+ design speed, further decreasing travel times making Rome to Milan in under 1:50 hours and total interoperability with French, German, Spanish, Swiss, etc... trains
Picture my jaw dropping... (very few trains!)
here Trenitalia (the national railways company) has a high speed train every 15 or 20 minutes from Rome to Milan and its competitor NTV has trains every half an hour or so every day and this is not counting local, night and intercity trains that might connect the two cities and those in between!
Of course this is valid in both directions.
Trenitalia trains were made by Fiat Ferroviaria and AnsaldoBrera, now FiatFerroviaria is part of Alstom and the newest ones are from a joint venture of AnsaldoBrera and Bombardier while the NTV trains are totally from Alstom, both operate with 300+ km/h design speed while the new generation of Frecciarossa 1000, the latest train from Trenitalia will get up to 360 km/h and 400+ design speed, further decreasing travel times making Rome to Milan in under 1:50 hours and total interoperability with French, German, Spanish, Swiss, etc... trains
I agree with a lot of the article. I'm pleased that she now realises how much Americans are squandering the planets limited resources, compared with the Brits. It is clear that she is living in Sussex, one of the most expensive parts of England for house prices, so her comments in that respect are gross generalisations.
The part about education seemed to just be factual, not giving an opinion so I don't know whether she regards this as better or worse than USA.
It is interesting that she makes no mention of guns (or the absence of them) in UK.
The part about education seemed to just be factual, not giving an opinion so I don't know whether she regards this as better or worse than USA.
It is interesting that she makes no mention of guns (or the absence of them) in UK.
HSR & United States
Since we've been hijacked already! *LOL*
True HSR in the United States is a different apple than Europe due to differences mandated in locomotive and rolling stock construction.
Trains in the USA must be built to withstand impact with among all things other (freight) trains. This is because the two (passenger and freight) often share same tracks. This results in locomotives and cars that are often very heavy, so as with anything else such as cars or planes there are penalties for hauling around all that extra weight. Even the Acela had to be beefed up to meet USA standards.
Being as all this may, the USA prior to WWII had the most modern and fastest passenger rail service in the world. Indeed much of the early work for HSR came from American railroads. You had trains like the PRR's GG1 that could hit speeds of 100mph or more but were limited often by federal safety laws. Even back in the days of steam the Hiawatha service could hit speeds of 100mph (or higher, equipment wasn't around to obtain exact readings).
For HSR to work you need a dedicated ROW with few or no grade crossings. You also need (by USA law) in cab signaling versus track side). But the most important you must have a ROW that is pretty much straight. This is where the Acela from Washington D.C. to Boston runs into trouble.
There are stretches where the Acela could hit speeds over 100mph, however much of the ROW has curves, grade crossings, shared with other trains and so forth that limit speed. No point in reaching maximum speed only to have to slow down in a few minutes for this or that "problem".
Sadly railroads are very infrastructure intensive which involves vast sums. Unlike airplanes and airlines that only need airports trains need ROW, stations, terminals, yards, etc... All of which cost money to build, maintain and often are taxed.
Post WWII when Americans fell in love with the automobile (with lots of help from federal and local governments), railroads began their decline and eventually death gasps.
During WWII the federal government relied very much on Untied States RR companies and they rose to the challenge. IIRC something like 75% of troops and a higher number of material was moved by railroads. Due to all that heavy work plus war time restrictions on purchasing/building new equipment after the war RRs saw their stock literally beaten up and worn out from use. Some did order new trains( the switch from steam to diesel) and roll out new services (the California Zephyr) it became clear that for long haul routes, cars, buses and later air travel was going to win. Inter-city service was killed by the cars and the mass move out of cities to the country. Persons no longer went "down town" to shop or whatever, but drove to the new malls and what not located near where they lived.
Problem in creating HSR in the United States now is much ROW has been abandoned and or torn up. It is one thing to realign or whatever existing tracks, but to start from scratch...
en.wikipedia.org
Since we've been hijacked already! *LOL*
True HSR in the United States is a different apple than Europe due to differences mandated in locomotive and rolling stock construction.
Trains in the USA must be built to withstand impact with among all things other (freight) trains. This is because the two (passenger and freight) often share same tracks. This results in locomotives and cars that are often very heavy, so as with anything else such as cars or planes there are penalties for hauling around all that extra weight. Even the Acela had to be beefed up to meet USA standards.
Being as all this may, the USA prior to WWII had the most modern and fastest passenger rail service in the world. Indeed much of the early work for HSR came from American railroads. You had trains like the PRR's GG1 that could hit speeds of 100mph or more but were limited often by federal safety laws. Even back in the days of steam the Hiawatha service could hit speeds of 100mph (or higher, equipment wasn't around to obtain exact readings).
For HSR to work you need a dedicated ROW with few or no grade crossings. You also need (by USA law) in cab signaling versus track side). But the most important you must have a ROW that is pretty much straight. This is where the Acela from Washington D.C. to Boston runs into trouble.
There are stretches where the Acela could hit speeds over 100mph, however much of the ROW has curves, grade crossings, shared with other trains and so forth that limit speed. No point in reaching maximum speed only to have to slow down in a few minutes for this or that "problem".
Sadly railroads are very infrastructure intensive which involves vast sums. Unlike airplanes and airlines that only need airports trains need ROW, stations, terminals, yards, etc... All of which cost money to build, maintain and often are taxed.
Post WWII when Americans fell in love with the automobile (with lots of help from federal and local governments), railroads began their decline and eventually death gasps.
During WWII the federal government relied very much on Untied States RR companies and they rose to the challenge. IIRC something like 75% of troops and a higher number of material was moved by railroads. Due to all that heavy work plus war time restrictions on purchasing/building new equipment after the war RRs saw their stock literally beaten up and worn out from use. Some did order new trains( the switch from steam to diesel) and roll out new services (the California Zephyr) it became clear that for long haul routes, cars, buses and later air travel was going to win. Inter-city service was killed by the cars and the mass move out of cities to the country. Persons no longer went "down town" to shop or whatever, but drove to the new malls and what not located near where they lived.
Problem in creating HSR in the United States now is much ROW has been abandoned and or torn up. It is one thing to realign or whatever existing tracks, but to start from scratch...
Hiawatha (Amtrak train) - Wikipedia
The Americans are not really squandering the world's resources - I know that's what we are told all the time, but America actually puts a lot of money and resources back into the world economy, which is why everyone worries when the US economy catches cold. The US has enough resources to be completely self-sufficient and a net exporter of energy as well. It's just proselytising from the left, who have turned bitching about the US into an art form.
As for HSR in Oz, there is some merit if it ran along a corridor from Melbourne to Surfers/Brisbane. That is Australia's most heavily populated region, but as I said, flying is cheap and quick and fulfills our needs. I reckon developing heavy rail is much more important to take the pressure off our trucking industry, which is the life-line of our nation. So, in essence we should actually build better freeways to facilitate safer and speedier goods transport by road, since that is and will continue to be a growing area of transportation.
Now, all we need is to separate ourselves from the Singapore oil exchange and start pricing our own oil and gas to facilitate cheaper energy for domestic use. That would be the right way to go forward.
As for HSR in Oz, there is some merit if it ran along a corridor from Melbourne to Surfers/Brisbane. That is Australia's most heavily populated region, but as I said, flying is cheap and quick and fulfills our needs. I reckon developing heavy rail is much more important to take the pressure off our trucking industry, which is the life-line of our nation. So, in essence we should actually build better freeways to facilitate safer and speedier goods transport by road, since that is and will continue to be a growing area of transportation.
Now, all we need is to separate ourselves from the Singapore oil exchange and start pricing our own oil and gas to facilitate cheaper energy for domestic use. That would be the right way to go forward.
For All Railroads One Thing Is Constant
Passenger service is fine, but freight pays the bills.
It was that way back in the day and still is so for the most part today. This is why passenger rail requires often heavy government subsidies or RRs will cease offering. Even as railroads were abandoning passenger service back in the 1950's and such, many kept or wanted to keep freight service. Mind you much was cut back because of trucks especially short haul routes, but for long haul train is still often the number one choice especially if goods are not time sensitive.
Passenger service is fine, but freight pays the bills.
It was that way back in the day and still is so for the most part today. This is why passenger rail requires often heavy government subsidies or RRs will cease offering. Even as railroads were abandoning passenger service back in the 1950's and such, many kept or wanted to keep freight service. Mind you much was cut back because of trucks especially short haul routes, but for long haul train is still often the number one choice especially if goods are not time sensitive.
rustyspaatz
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2013
- Messages
- 253
As for transportation- the way forward is drone carriers. This will be much faster, and will eliminate the very expensive and environmentally damaging roadway networks that's are in constant need of repair or widening.
As for the use of dryers in the UK. I'm no expert, or Ex-Pat, but I do love the Brits.
Are we really to believe that Hyacinth Bucket did not have a perfectly matched washer-dryer tucked away in her single story suburban abode. If she could afford Royal Doulton with hand-painted periwinkles, by God, she wouldn't let Richard leave her to be caught going to the local laudry. What would Mrs.Counselor Nugent think? And Violet, Oh yes. Violets Country cottage? Tough call. It did have double glazing, though.
Daisy and Anslo, with sister Rose in toe? Oh, I laugh. Who ever heard of a Counsel flat with laundry machines, much less one with a dryer. They really could have used a dishwasher, yeah?
Yes its true that most Eastenders all use the launderette.
However, in the movie Educating Rita which is, blimey, going on 30 years, Julie Roberts character had an unmatched, front load washer and dryer, right in the middle of her shabby kitchen. Plugs exposed, sloppily attached and all.
Seriously, though. Americans are NOT an example of how to live. The lifestyle here is propped to encourage the usage of precious natural resources, and to eviscerate from the society, any ration thoughts responsibility for those very actions.
As a result we have idiots looking to contaminate large swaths of ground water in an effort to extract natural gas to heat the behemoth structures. Fracking is not acceptable as people in the UK and other rational countries have stated.
Though the U.S. has a small portion of the worlds 6 billion plus population, we use 25% of the energy, and create the pollution that goes along with that.
not acceptable.
If the best a person a ex US citizen can do is complain about a lack of closet space, or basement space... be grateful it keeps one from becoming a HOARDER. Have you seen that show? NO ONE can hoard like an American. Yes there are a few Brits that have tried, but no one can look and be as pathetic as an American hoarder. You don't want to end up like that.
Unlike Canada, Australia, and other countries, which are still actually a part of England, albeit at more than arms length, the U.S. is the bastard, ADD afflicted, step child that had to break away. As a result, we've ended up with some "interesting characters" and thus some predictable simple minded policies here.
Have you seen our elections and our health care? Yes, its getting better but my God, the ONLY industrialized country that does NOT have free health care for all. That is inferior and embarrassing. There is no rational excuse.
We can do better.
America is NOT an example to be replicated. There are giant holes in its policies, one being its 20-something attitude of unquestionable supremacy.
As for the use of dryers in the UK. I'm no expert, or Ex-Pat, but I do love the Brits.
Are we really to believe that Hyacinth Bucket did not have a perfectly matched washer-dryer tucked away in her single story suburban abode. If she could afford Royal Doulton with hand-painted periwinkles, by God, she wouldn't let Richard leave her to be caught going to the local laudry. What would Mrs.Counselor Nugent think? And Violet, Oh yes. Violets Country cottage? Tough call. It did have double glazing, though.
Daisy and Anslo, with sister Rose in toe? Oh, I laugh. Who ever heard of a Counsel flat with laundry machines, much less one with a dryer. They really could have used a dishwasher, yeah?
Yes its true that most Eastenders all use the launderette.
However, in the movie Educating Rita which is, blimey, going on 30 years, Julie Roberts character had an unmatched, front load washer and dryer, right in the middle of her shabby kitchen. Plugs exposed, sloppily attached and all.
Seriously, though. Americans are NOT an example of how to live. The lifestyle here is propped to encourage the usage of precious natural resources, and to eviscerate from the society, any ration thoughts responsibility for those very actions.
As a result we have idiots looking to contaminate large swaths of ground water in an effort to extract natural gas to heat the behemoth structures. Fracking is not acceptable as people in the UK and other rational countries have stated.
Though the U.S. has a small portion of the worlds 6 billion plus population, we use 25% of the energy, and create the pollution that goes along with that.
not acceptable.
If the best a person a ex US citizen can do is complain about a lack of closet space, or basement space... be grateful it keeps one from becoming a HOARDER. Have you seen that show? NO ONE can hoard like an American. Yes there are a few Brits that have tried, but no one can look and be as pathetic as an American hoarder. You don't want to end up like that.
Unlike Canada, Australia, and other countries, which are still actually a part of England, albeit at more than arms length, the U.S. is the bastard, ADD afflicted, step child that had to break away. As a result, we've ended up with some "interesting characters" and thus some predictable simple minded policies here.
Have you seen our elections and our health care? Yes, its getting better but my God, the ONLY industrialized country that does NOT have free health care for all. That is inferior and embarrassing. There is no rational excuse.
We can do better.
America is NOT an example to be replicated. There are giant holes in its policies, one being its 20-something attitude of unquestionable supremacy.
