Newfie wrote:The USA is a special situation because of the regulatory requirements. FDOT crash worthiness requirements are such that American rail vehicles are about 59% heavier than in other countries .... this also means our roadbeds need to be heavier, the engines bigger, the trains slower.
Newfie wrote:Yes, except no one is talking about that.
And also, the goal should be towards degrowth. We don’t need more jobs, we need fewer people.
Newfie wrote:Yes, except no one is talking about that. [high-speed rail]
GHung wrote:Newfie wrote:Yes, except no one is talking about that. [high-speed rail]
Some are. High-speed rail is one of the transportation points in the "Green New Deal".
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environm ... sio-cortez
.Typically railroads in the Eastern United States ran speed signaling, while railroads in the west used route signaling, with some mixing of systems in the Midwest and South. This was due to the lower train density in the west combined with generally simpler track layouts. Over time, the route signaling railroads have incorporated segments of speed signaling through merger and have also adopted more speed-based aspects into their systems. Of the five major Class 1 railroads in the United States, CSX uses speed signaling, Union Pacific and BNSF use speed enhanced route signaling and Norfolk Southern uses a mix of speed and route signaling based on the original owner of the line. Commuter railroads and Amtrak all use speed signaling where they own or maintain the tracks they run on. Canadian railroads all use a strong system of speed signaling in Canada, but have some segments of route signaling on lines they have acquired in the United States.
Return to Conservation & Efficiency
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests