In actuality, no. In terms of passenger-mile-gallons diesel electrics sip fuel compared to turbofans. The diesel cycle is just so much more efficient than the brayton cycle that there's no meaningful comparison between the two.
Like, that's not even controversial. It's how commuter rail can remain economical against buses.
The problem with nationwide rail is:
Atrophy of the established 19th century rail base.
Failure to develop routes to match population trends since the Eisenhower Administration.
The overall size of the country, which was always going to make coast to coast flights economical.
Extremely low average population density and long distances between the top 25 population centers.
I didn't? I was always talking about the overall efficiency of the entire system not just the fuel efficiency. I brought up diesel because these morons hate diesel in literally every other context.
Why else would I talk about the thousands of miles of track that will need constant maintenance vs an airport which is more centralized and thus simpler to maintain? They're also less flexible than air travel and automobiles.
The balance falls somewhere between the two. To achieve European or Japan like efficiency you need equivalent population. "Trains" don't replace cars... subways do. But to get to the point of subways you need incredibly high population density.
The high speed city-to-city routes continued to develop after the war because the Asian and European post war economies couldn't afford mass car ownership until the 70's or 80's.
Meanwhile the US was flying high with a postwar economy that saw basically the top 75 population centers get jet service with 707's.
To make high speed work in the US, you have to make it work between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and between Boston and Philadelphia. Until that works, there's nothing to build off of.
I don't see high speed rail being viable for the heartland. Unless we force everyone into two or three cities. It is financially inconceivable to run high speed rail between every little town out here.
The current generation of small town residents will not be replaced. They'll simply die off and create ghost towns. If a midwestern "town" doesn't now have a medical center, a community college, a proper grocery store, a Walmart, and a chain hardware store, in fifty years it'll probably be abandoned.
This will really accelerate if states institutionalize online primary education in an attempt to get in front of home schooling. In many small towns the school is the last remaining big employer.
In parallel, if a high speed network is established in the east and west coastal areas, it will begin to grow inwards to reach more top-25 cities.
In actuality, no. In terms of passenger-mile-gallons diesel electrics sip fuel compared to turbofans. The diesel cycle is just so much more efficient than the brayton cycle that there's no meaningful comparison between the two.
Like, that's not even controversial. It's how commuter rail can remain economical against buses.
The problem with nationwide rail is:
The nemesis of trains in America never was air transportation. It was always highways and interstates. THIS IS HOW MANY SHINKANSEN-SPEED TRAINS YOU'D NEED TO MAKE IT ALL WORK IN THE US. The cost would be in the trillions.
You need significantly more trains to compete with cars and air? Meaning they're less efficient?
Thanks, we agree. Efficient doesn't just mean fuel efficiency.
Don't shift goalposts like a leftist.
I didn't? I was always talking about the overall efficiency of the entire system not just the fuel efficiency. I brought up diesel because these morons hate diesel in literally every other context.
Why else would I talk about the thousands of miles of track that will need constant maintenance vs an airport which is more centralized and thus simpler to maintain? They're also less flexible than air travel and automobiles.
We aren't even actually arguing, we are agreeing.
The balance falls somewhere between the two. To achieve European or Japan like efficiency you need equivalent population. "Trains" don't replace cars... subways do. But to get to the point of subways you need incredibly high population density.
The high speed city-to-city routes continued to develop after the war because the Asian and European post war economies couldn't afford mass car ownership until the 70's or 80's.
Meanwhile the US was flying high with a postwar economy that saw basically the top 75 population centers get jet service with 707's.
To make high speed work in the US, you have to make it work between Los Angeles and San Francisco, and between Boston and Philadelphia. Until that works, there's nothing to build off of.
I don't see high speed rail being viable for the heartland. Unless we force everyone into two or three cities. It is financially inconceivable to run high speed rail between every little town out here.
You're correct, but there's more to it then that.
Rural counties are experiencing population loss.
The current generation of small town residents will not be replaced. They'll simply die off and create ghost towns. If a midwestern "town" doesn't now have a medical center, a community college, a proper grocery store, a Walmart, and a chain hardware store, in fifty years it'll probably be abandoned.
This will really accelerate if states institutionalize online primary education in an attempt to get in front of home schooling. In many small towns the school is the last remaining big employer.
In parallel, if a high speed network is established in the east and west coastal areas, it will begin to grow inwards to reach more top-25 cities.