<The Big Crew Change: Turnover in the Oil Workforce The Oil Drum DrumBeat: March 18, 2007>

179 comments on The High Speed Passenger Rail Act, Draft 1

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version

Dryki on March 17, 2007 - 2:32pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

One thing I might add about T1 is that I see not only that business as usual is not in the new rules but also that mega projects are not to be begun, because mega projects are long-term projects that take 10, 20, maybe 25 years. Because we do not know exactly where we are going at this stage, it is very dangerous to begin mega projects. But people are still doing this. The Europeans have begun a freight train line from Barcelona to Kiev, which is roughly 2,600 kilometres. The idea of having freight trains is a very good idea, but it is a bit late now. If you have rails you might make the service a bit better, but you should not construct it from scratch because it will take 20 years and cost at least [20 billion pounds]. I do not think that such a project will ever be finished because the high oil prices will trigger rises in prices for all other commodities. You already see that steel is way above the usual prices. Copper has hit between $7,000 and $8,000, and it will go much higher than that. Nickel is $22,000. I think $22,000 is very cheap today; it will go much higher. All these commodities and all these metals will go very much higher, because it is the crude oil price which dictates the prices. Sugar is going up, orange juice is going up--everything is going up--because the price of crude oil is going up. It is the price of crude oil which more or less dictates all the other price hikes. In my opinion, you will have a correlation between all the price hikes in the future, and you can already see the first signs now. Bakhtiari Senate testimony in AU

The emphasis is mine. Any large projects that depend on centralized hierarchy are suspect for a number of reasons (Tainter, Homer-Dixon, Halliburton, FEMA). It would seem to me a plethora of small, local projects would be better place to start.

$3B is nothing. Not even one AEGIS destroyer. It would probably take twice that to make a first dent in a single state like Maine. A first dent meaning a meaningful number of people in some areas could give up automobiles entirely. There is no point in providing an alternative; one must provide a replacement. And that's assuming the construction of a system much more like the old green line in Boston than the modern gold plated welded rail version. A meaningful effort would be order of magnitude $100B/year and it could easily take a decade. [I'm only guessing at order of magnitude for the numbers.]

High speed is not necessary. 60mph in the open would be just fine. But it needs to handle mixed freight too.

There is no need to replace all of our air traffic. Much of it should be eliminated. [There goes my job.]

cfm in Gray, ME

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
mbnewtrain on March 17, 2007 - 5:21pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Yes, commidities have gone up as oil has gone up, but don't assume a steady link between the two. One year ago nickel was trading at $23,000 per metric ton, now at $49,000 per ton according to Bloomberg's site: www.bloomberg.com/markets/commodities/cfutures.html
The main reason for these metal prices rising is demand from China and India, plus some speculator's money moving from oil and gas to metals. If oil goes high enough to cause a recession then you will see commidities demand fall off by a few percent and price drop to perhaps half of current values for copper, nickel, steel and zinc.

Now on the rail proposal that advocates new lines running trains at 150 mph average speed. The capital cost for building one such route of 300 miles could easily be 5 or 6 billion.
A better proposal would be to upgrade existing routes with additional tracks so new right of way is not required - savings no. 1.
Then eliminate bottlenecks where freight train congestion can slow passenger trains - savings no. 2.
Then build trains that are more energy efficient using electric propulsion (overhead wire) for highest density routes that freight can also use, while introducing diesel hybrid with regen braking on lessor used lines - savings no. 3.
Then run trains at 150 mph top speed for express runs and 110mph for local stop trains - increased revenue no. 1. Then tie this upgraded rail system to some big city airports (perhaps making a suburban station into the airport stop) with direct access to the air terminals - increased revenue no. 2

A program of $5 to 10 billion per year for 20 years is needed for converting a substantial portion of our intercity passenger transport to rail. Start now and people will still have mobility when the real energy crisus comes in 10 years when the world has only 70 or 80% of current oil production. Wait ten years to start and the federal and state governments will not have the cash (tax revenue) because the economy will be wrecked.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Frugal on March 17, 2007 - 10:24pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

"High speed is not necessary. 60mph in the open would be just fine."

I totally disagree with that statement -- 60 mph is not high speed rail and will not attract nearly as many riders as a 150 mph system. If you don't believe me, check out what happened to rail ridership in Japan and Europe after real highpeed lines were built.

Remember that you are competing with both airplanes and automobiles, airplanes having much higher top speed than any rail system and automobiles with their point-to-point advantage.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Aniya on March 17, 2007 - 11:28pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

Hi Frugal,

I think the point was - will there be the capital for high speed?

Still, just anecdotal, but personally I know many people who would love to take the train but don't due to things that seem within the realm of "doable" - better reliability, schedules, cost (depends on trip), connections, a little more attention to safety/health features.

I wonder if the "point-to-point" can be helped in some way. Planes often also involve "point-to-point", depends on how far. For many purposes, all three are options, and train is out of the question at present, which seems "fixable".

Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Ilan on March 18, 2007 - 5:39am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top

I think we should be looking beyond the next few years. For now it appears essential that you need a 150mph service, but I am sure the capital costs greatly increase for higher average speeds. Also there will be a time in the not too distant future where air travel costs will go up so much that a decent long-distance rail system will be very competitive

I think the aim should be "moderately high speed" i.e. from 75mph-100mph. This will put it way ahead of any bus service. Also consider the maintenance costs, I am sure that such costs will increase if you need to maintain 150mph speeds.

and remember a good rail service will start and finish in a city center, not at an airport which requires a longer car/taxi/bus/train journey to get to any destination.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

179 comments on The High Speed Passenger Rail Act, Draft 1

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

| Show without comments | PDF version