News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
I mean, that is a really big hurdle in and of itself. Or, at least, it should be.
But also? Assuming they go roughly as the crow flies (just dodging mountains), that is a LOT of territory where a train breaking down is a very serious issue. Not "death valley" bad, but still a case where rapid response is needed.
I personally think this is a good idea and will be a great way to demonstrate why improving rail infrastructure is a good idea. But there are a LOT of problems that need to be solved with this.
I don't know how many people are regularly going from LA to SF, but i think that is also going to be a much more realistic challenge. Because the area between those two cities are actually fairly populated. So you have the usual high speed rail issues of not being able to run at full speed for significant amounts of time, needing to use local tracks where available (ha, local tracks in the US?), etc. Which is probably why it is taking so long.
Also, nitpicks:
They're building it in the median of the interstate.
You also have the CA valley high speed rail facts completely wrong. They're building 100% new tracks and it has to nearly all support insanely high speeds >220mph.
... Yes, because there are no existing tracks*. Hence the laughter. Apologies if I was too subtle.
And building in the median of the highway is going to be interesting for how much this angers people over the next few years. But better for responsiveness.
As for high speeds: Yeah, time will tell on that one. Because highway and road noise is already bad enough. And looking at the gold standard for high speed rail (the Shinkansen): When you are in "rural" Japan, you are going insanely fast and it is glorious. When you are in cities or even towns, you slow down considerably. Still faster than local trains, but (not having looked at the numbers) I would assume comparable to the express trains that skip a lot of stops. And that is perfectly reasonable. I spent a few weeks in Japan not too long ago and my hotel was literally next to some above ground tracks. I grew up in a city so it barely bothered me, but the person I was traveling with acknowledged she would not be able to sleep until the trains stopped for the night.
*: Just because I am inevitably going to deal with some pedants. Yes, there actually are a lot more tracks than people would expect. But, generally, there is nowhere near enough redundancy or flexibility for it to matter. Because if you need to clear out the cargo trains to pass some passengers through, it actively costs money. And if your passengers only have a ten minute window, same problem.
I don't think any of the initial operating segment uses existing tracks. It's been taking a long time because funding is constantly being withheld so they don't have enough money to go any faster.