French Train Hits 357 MPH !

[ARCHINSTL]

Following is a copy of what a friend sent me:
Here's the deal: You have to appreciate the speed from the shot taken from the bridge. I've been on the train from Paris to Avion and it was fast at 300 km/h but this is something else. I wonder how far back it has to begin slowing down for the station? Imagine going through a station at full speed!

This is a high speed train built by the Alstom rail group in Belfort, France. They share manufacturing facilities with the GE Energy Products Europe (EPE) Gas Turbine group. The video was provided by the GE EPE Chief Engineer in Belfort .
The train hit 574.8 Km/h which works out to 357.2 MPH or Mach 0.482. Wow! In particular, watch the train going under a bridge with people watching. This is FAST! And it is powered by electricity.

Now, watch the attachment! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LZH0txb016g

This is mind-blowing! To me, the most amazing shot is the one from the bridge, as mentioned above.
This would be waaay beyond the ken of my late Grandfather, who was a RR engineer starting in the late '90s (Note - 1890s, that is...).
Tom M.

[Petros]

I would thnk traveling by air would be less costly, more route flexiblity and guess what? no ground traffic or rail maintenance problems.

Those rails are much better quality than we have here in the US. Next time you see a freight train look how they flex, bend and shift the tracks they ride on, very scary if you ask me. The US tracks are nearly as straight or as durable, a train like that will not work here, and train transport is usually a bad deal in terms of operational costs. There are largely pork barrel government union job creators that are not competitive (cost wise) with other more modern means of transpiration.

[danzo]

Forget about the neglible cost difference, focus on passenger safety. Imagine what happens if a train hits anything (deer, cow, bridge support (like one did in Germany circa 2000)) at 350mph? I know, all kinds of safety precautions are in effect, but you simply can't deny that air travel is the safest, quickest mode known to man as it has been for decades. Despite my German heritage I simply don't understand this fascination with travelling at ridiculous speeds over land. There are more logical ways to express engineering prowess.

Petros I agree that American railways wouldn't support such a train in the same way that a we couldn't deal with no speed limits. Hell, we can barely park our cars competently. Cool video though.

[ARCHINSTL]

Note that I did not say that I would be willing to travel thusly...
Tom M.

[Mattel]

Did a bit of travel at 260kmph+ on the Shinkansen in Japan and on the French TGV and it beats air travel hands down. I wouldn't knock it till you try it. I would deny that air is better over a distance less than 1,000kms or so

A/ You get from the centre of a city to a centre of another city without taxi's, buses, cars to get you to an outlaying airport. In Melbourne for instance the airport can take you almost an hour to get to in peak hour. even before you check-in.

B/ Extremely safe similar figures to air.

C/ no security scanners, check ins, baggage hassles, waiting etc. take you luggage with you. heaps of room!. Buy a ticket right to the time the train leaves. walkaround. go to the cafe. have a shower. wi-fi etc. you buy a ticket online or at a suburban rail station and go sit on your seat that is all.

D/ is an awesome way to see the countryside.

However I think rail works best between nodes of high density rather than low density like the USA. Environmentally Rail is better than air but perhaps not if you are taking an all night sleeper where the amount of space you need means that the heavy train is moving lots of air. *from the great book http://www.amazon.co.uk/Confessions-Eco ... 1905811101.

[Petros]

a faster train is still just a souped up 19th century mode of obsolete transportation. I have ridden trains, they are quaint and more comfortable, but often slower than driving. I can fly to visit my parents in 3-4 hours (door to door time) and pay $99 advance, or about $220 "at the gate", drive in a long 19 hour push and pay about $120 in fuel, or take a "modern" train ride, take two days and spend much more. And there are places you can not go in a train, like Hawaii, or Japan, or England, or Australia....

[Mattel]

The irony of talking about trains being obsolete nineteenth century transport while we try to keep our old internal combustion cars on the road is not lost on me my friend. But roads will always be needed and so will rail

I disagree with rail being obsolete. The comparison of your train to a bullet train is like a cessna to a 747. In your country only the eastern seaboards density say NY-Phili-DC could utilise the benefit of fast rail. You need these concentrated cities to make it work.. Not sprawl or rural-urban. Also this is not as effective for distances of over 1,000kms. Your journey would not work so well in most of these countries for example in Japan and europe where airports are harder to get to by car and road traffic is prohibitive in the cities due to cities density. You are very lucky that both you and your parents must live within a short drive to an airport.

In japan you could not travel 515kms from the center of Osaka to Tokyo anyother way in under 2.5hours. In Melbourne if I left the centre of town I would be probably be taxi-ing down the runway to take off in that time.

Some wiki facts(?) for you.

During the Shinkansen's 45-year, nearly 7 billion-passenger history, there have been no passenger fatalities due to derailments or collisions,[14] despite frequent earthquakes and typhoons.

The Shinkansen is very reliable thanks to several factors, including its near-total separation from slower traffic. In 2003, JR Central reported that the Shinkansen's average arrival time was within six seconds of the scheduled time.

Travelling Tokyo-Osaka by Shinkansen produces only around 16% of the carbon dioxide of the equivalent journey by car, a savings of 15,000 tons of CO2 per year.[10]

The Tōkaidō Shinkansen is the world's busiest high-speed rail line. Carrying 151 million passengers a year (March 2008),[4] it has transported more passengers (over 4 billion, network over 6 billion)[5] than any other high speed line in the world.[6] Between Tokyo and Osaka, the two largest metropolises in Japan, up to thirteen trains per hour with sixteen cars each (1,323 seats capacity) run in each direction with a minimum headway of three minutes between trains. Though largely a long-distance transport system, the Shinkansen also serves commuters who travel to work in metropolitan areas from outlying cities.

Most of the world is not like the USA and in the case of China, vietnam, Brazil and other fast growing countries there is an uptake of this technology. Unfortunately the discussion about rail - like many infrastructure issues tend to be in the USA has turned into a political football.

[ARCHINSTL]

Another reason that our Amtrak gives slow service in many areas (my own state of MO for sure) is that the passenger trains must share the same rails as freight trains. In many outlying areas the tracks are single lines - not double tracks, so since the rails are owned by the RRs and they are in the freight business only, a freight takes precedence over Amtrak, so the latter is shunted to a side track while a (usually VERY long and much slower) freight uses the tracks.

My state of MO just recently completed (taxpayer $) a looong side track for this purpose in the Western part of the state. The idea (actually - hope) is that freights will utilize this to allow Amtrak to proceed. The main Amtrak line in MO has over 50 trains per day hauling just coal from the West to the East - and these puppies average 125 cars each - and are SLOW. This does not include the "regular" type freight trains hauling boxcars and containers.

"Commuter" passenger service HAS picked up dramatically here, at least between St. Louis and Kansas City and St. Louis to Chicago. The longer trips are, of course, mainly for vacations.
It's inexpensive - STL to KC is only $28, coach, no discounts. For roughly 250 miles, though, it takes just less than 6 hours v. slightly less than 4 via car, though, because of the shunts for freights and that it does stop 5 times to take on/deposit passengers between here and there. And of course, whether byrail or by air, you still have to depend on a rental car once you get there (unless visiting rleatives).
Tom M.