I flew in this yesterday

[Jim Peace]

Flew in this yesterday...not a Mooney but fun none the less....

Tokyo-Osaka

estimate about 200 mph

[Jim Peace]

It has the 201 windscreen mod

[StevenL757]

Ask them about the annual inspection cost each year...

[kortopates]

They are very nice. Here is the Chinese version I rode in. It ran at 350 km/hr and more recently they slowed it to 300 supposedly to save some electricity.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[EricJ]

I rode the maglev in Shanghai about eight years ago from downtown to the airport.   431 km/h = 267.8mph.   Definitely the fastest I've ever been on land.
 

 

 

[Tommy]

I always wonder why USA doesn't have high speed rail...

[carusoam]

Tommy, they do...  trans Florida traveling...

The East Coast has some special Amtrak trains named Acela on long continuous rails....

Educating people to stay off the tracks has become a real important topic...

There are laws against walking on highways as well.

A whole bunch of safety and security issues arise with high speeds.... lots of fences and limited access...

 

The fastest speed recorded on one of my portable Garmin devices was taken on that train to Osaka.

Another was in a Peugeot on the autobahn...  

 

When a train goes by you at 100mph... it pushes a lot of air with it... They don’t go near the platforms at speed.  You probably won’t know what hit you if you are walking on the tracks....

 

Tommy,

The US is a big, continuously modernizing, country.  You should come visit!

the politicians are busy lowering taxes, while hiring everyone outside the government.... next in the plan is raises for working people and infrastructure updates... new bridges and wider roadways to handle more traffic everywhere....

Best regards,

-a-

[Jim Peace]

2 hours ago, Tommy said:

I always wonder why USA doesn't have high speed rail...

Soon...MCO-MIA

[wcb]

5 hours ago, Jim Peace said:

Soon...MCO-MIA

The primary reason we do not have high speed rails is that the freight company's actually own/run the actual tracks.  The tracks themselves are built for heavy freight and lower speeds.  In most places if freight and passenger are on the same rail it is the passenger train that has to yield to freight.  The only way to truly get high speed here is a new set of tracks built only for high speed.  Texas is now trying to add high speed between Houston, Dallas, Austin, San Antonio and back (a big loop).

[Stephen]

8 hours ago, Tommy said:

I always wonder why USA doesn't have high speed rail...

We have lots of Mooneys! Our high speed tail goes from anywhere to everywhere,  scheduled at all times.

 

[Hank]

9 hours ago, Tommy said:

I always wonder why USA doesn't have high speed rail...

See above about rail ownership. California is trying to build hugh speed rail up the coast; the last I remember, the boodoggle is running about 15X budget. Ohio is also working on this, Cinci-Columbus-Cleveland. The budget is also stupid high, and the high speed train will make the trip almost as quickly as yiu can drive it, at the posted speed limit . . . .

So it boils down, in my opinion, to politicians with zero business or project expertise trying to be in charge of a multibillion dollar, multidecade project, with no oversight and no accountability. It just won't get done, we don't have enough extra billions of dollars.

What we do have is a really good highway system and lots of airlines, because who wants a 200 mph train ride coast to coast (3000 miles at 200 mph = 15 hours) when the airlines will take you there in 5 hours? I don't think anyone is expecting passenger comfort or service to be any better in the "high speed" trains, would you enjoy an airline-like travel experience that takes three times as long, for about the same price? Thus our lack of almost all passenger train service here--they are too slow for the distances involved, which are already well-covered by airlines.

[Stephen]

3 hours ago, Hank said:

politicians with zero business or project expertise trying to be in charge of a multibillion dollar, multidecade project, with no oversight and no accountability.

...what could go wrong there?

 

Also, the distances, population densities ...

.... and governmental power vs private interest (eminent domain -v- private property rights) make make countries with a higher power asymmetry favoring the government better candidates for high speed rail:

(US is # 7)

 

[Hank]

But I hqve ridden the old (previous generation) Bullet trains in Japan, both the northern Blue trains and the southern Green ones. Very nice, even at only 260-ish kmh (~160 mph). The new ines look much sleeker and more aerodynamic! Go Shinkansen!

BUT:  their tracks are elevated, serve only the Shinkansen trains, have no crossings, and are closed down every nught for maintenance; the last train used to leave Ueno Station in Tokyo at 2100, and the next one was 0630-ish. Missed it once, hotel rooms there are expensive!

[mooniac15u]

43 minutes ago, Hank said:

See above about rail ownership. California is trying to build hugh speed rail up the coast; the last I remember, the boodoggle is running about 15X budget. Ohio is also working on this, Cinci-Columbus-Cleveland. The budget is also stupid high, and the high speed train will make the trip almost as quickly as yiu can drive it, at the posted speed limit . . . .

So it boils down, in my opinion, to politicians with zero business or project expertise trying to be in charge of a multibillion dollar, multidecade project, with no oversight and no accountability. It just won't get done, we don't have enough extra billions of dollars.

What we do have is a really good highway system and lots of airlines, because who wants a 200 mph train ride coast to coast (3000 miles at 200 mph = 15 hours) when the airlines will take you there in 5 hours? I don't think anyone is expecting passenger comfort or service to be any better in the "high speed" trains, would you enjoy an airline-like travel experience that takes three times as long, for about the same price? Thus our lack of almost all passenger train service here--they are too slow for the distances involved, which are already well-covered by airlines.

There hasn't been any activity on the Ohio Hub for years.  Kasich gave back all the federal funding in 2010 and the project was shelved in 2015.

[Bolter]

11 hours ago, Tommy said:

I always wonder why USA doesn't have high speed rail...

 

1 hour ago, Hank said:

See above about rail ownership. California is trying to build hugh speed rail up the coast; the last I remember, the boodoggle is running about 15X budget. Ohio is also working on this, Cinci-Columbus-Cleveland. The budget is also stupid high, and the high speed train will make the trip almost as quickly as yiu can drive it, at the posted speed limit . . . .

So it boils down, in my opinion, to politicians with zero business or project expertise trying to be in charge of a multibillion dollar, multidecade project, with no oversight and no accountability. It just won't get done, we don't have enough extra billions of dollars.

What we do have is a really good highway system and lots of airlines, because who wants a 200 mph train ride coast to coast (3000 miles at 200 mph = 15 hours) when the airlines will take you there in 5 hours? I don't think anyone is expecting passenger comfort or service to be any better in the "high speed" trains, would you enjoy an airline-like travel experience that takes three times as long, for about the same price? Thus our lack of almost all passenger train service here--they are too slow for the distances involved, which are already well-covered by airlines.

Seems like similar reasons to why Australia does not have high speed rail.

-dan

[Skates97]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

See above about rail ownership. California is trying to build hugh speed rail up the coast; the last I remember, the boodoggle is running about 15X budget. Ohio is also working on this, Cinci-Columbus-Cleveland. The budget is also stupid high, and the high speed train will make the trip almost as quickly as yiu can drive it, at the posted speed limit . . . .

So it boils down, in my opinion, to politicians with zero business or project expertise trying to be in charge of a multibillion dollar, multidecade project, with no oversight and no accountability. It just won't get done, we don't have enough extra billions of dollars.

What we do have is a really good highway system and lots of airlines, because who wants a 200 mph train ride coast to coast (3000 miles at 200 mph = 15 hours) when the airlines will take you there in 5 hours? I don't think anyone is expecting passenger comfort or service to be any better in the "high speed" trains, would you enjoy an airline-like travel experience that takes three times as long, for about the same price? Thus our lack of almost all passenger train service here--they are too slow for the distances involved, which are already well-covered by airlines.

Actually it is supposed to be up the Central Valley with the initial segment from Bakersfield to just past Fresno, because there's all kinds of people that want to ride a bullet train between those two metropolises. They call it the Bullet train to nowhere...

[Hank]

1 hour ago, mooniac15u said:

There hasn't been any activity on the Ohio Hub for years.  Kasich gave back all the federal funding in 2010 and the project was shelved in 2015.

Good!!

[Hank]

8 minutes ago, Skates97 said:

Actually it is supposed to be up the Central Valley with the initial segment from Bakersfield to just past Fresno, because there's all kinds of people that want to ride a bullet train between those two metropolises. They call it the Bullet train to nowhere...

If it goes the long way in Cali, not the short way across it, from Alabama it's still "along the coast" whether water is visible or not . . .    Thanks for the clarification. What are the rider projections vs. project budget, and travel time vs. driving (if that will actually be an option).

[Skates97]

11 minutes ago, Hank said:

If it goes the long way in Cali, not the short way across it, from Alabama it's still "along the coast" whether water is visible or not . . .    Thanks for the clarification. What are the rider projections vs. project budget, and travel time vs. driving (if that will actually be an option).

Not sure about rider projections but they were originally saying it would be a 2:40 trip (it's about a 6 hour drive) from San Francisco to LA and if everything was completed on schedule it would have services beginning in 2029. They are starting with the "easy" section in hopes that if they build it and sink enough money into it that future governors won't abandon the project because they are already in too deep. Then they are hoping that fares from riders using that first segment (middle of nowhere) will provide funds to complete it to someplace actually useful. Sounds like a sound business plan to me... (Meanwhile you can fly commercial LAX to SFO for about $100.)

Here's a couple articles if you feel like reading. One from the Orange County Register and one from the San Francisco Chronicle this year. I think this quote sums it up.

"We’re ten years into the wasteful and impractical effort to build a bullet train from San Francisco to Los Angeles, and the first 119-mile segment — the “easy” segment — is already 77 percent over budget."

https://www.ocregister.com/2018/04/03/what-the-bullet-train-boondoggle-can-tell-us-about-the-delta-tunnels/

https://www.sfchronicle.com/news/article/Is-California-high-speed-rail-still-a-train-to-12757303.php

[N201MKTurbo]

8 hours ago, Hank said:

See above about rail ownership. California is trying to build hugh speed rail up the coast; the last I remember, the boodoggle is running about 15X budget. Ohio is also working on this, Cinci-Columbus-Cleveland. The budget is also stupid high, and the high speed train will make the trip almost as quickly as yiu can drive it, at the posted speed limit . . . .

So it boils down, in my opinion, to politicians with zero business or project expertise trying to be in charge of a multibillion dollar, multidecade project, with no oversight and no accountability. It just won't get done, we don't have enough extra billions of dollars.

What we do have is a really good highway system and lots of airlines, because who wants a 200 mph train ride coast to coast (3000 miles at 200 mph = 15 hours) when the airlines will take you there in 5 hours? I don't think anyone is expecting passenger comfort or service to be any better in the "high speed" trains, would you enjoy an airline-like travel experience that takes three times as long, for about the same price? Thus our lack of almost all passenger train service here--they are too slow for the distances involved, which are already well-covered by airlines.

I rode first class on the Eurostar from Paris to London through the Chunnel. It was WAY more comfortable then any airliner I've ever been on. And we got like two meals in the hour or so it took!