[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SNCF_BB_9004_photo_1.JPG
[1] Side note: that bit from Bordeaux to Irun is quite possibly my favorite train line in the world. Absolutely beautiful views towards the Irun end.
For comparison, a tgv test run in 2007 got up to 575km/h on fancy new track, also with some prep but no damage, but operating at this speed would make little economic sense at this point.
Even better, this steam-powered train, reaching 126 mph (203 km/h) in year 1938! [0]
Why do I know about this? Because I played Railroad Tycoon as a teenager in ~1990, and got fascinated by trains.
[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LNER_Class_A4_4468_Mallard
> "If the idea is viable and the people behind it are competent, it should have attracted private investment, as there should be a potential to make profit selling the technology. After all, the proposal has been around for 23 years."
They are referring specifically to the development of the technology I.E. the trains and rail equipment. Not to an actual infrastructure project.
The argument being that governments should find the infrastructure, and buy technologies developed using private funds.
Indeed this what we see in the rail industry where companies like Siemens develop rail “packages” which are then sold to multiple infrastructure projects with only minor customisation and modifications.
This is in contrast to the example project where a team wanted $250mil to develop new technologies, and also deploy them. Rather than just deploying an already developed technology.
TGV and Shinkansen go really far! But what makes people in France or Japan take the train a lot is much more around local trains that are just going at normal speeds.
Maybe in cities the wind is an issue.
It's worth pointing out that since the 1950s the government has been doing just that and more to build the vast network of interstate highways and state roads. People don't bat an eyelash at demolishing nature for a monster interchange, but propose more rail and suddenly it's so important to consider the environmental impacts and the eminent domain issues.
The I710 expansion, for example, was finally axed a few years ago after six decades of opposition from South Pasadena and the surrounding cities. At one point the state was considering a plan to tunnel under the town for about a $billion a mile because the opposition was so intractable (well funded and connected) before Caltrans gave up and started selling all the housing they'd been accumulating for decades for the project.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but my impression is that this is only true if one excludes the capital costs associated with the railroad (tracks, right of way, and I think also rolling stock). If you factor in the infrastructure construction costs (and reasonable lifetimes for replacing rolling stock), a high speed trail line will never be profitable without significantly higher fare prices than are presently charged.
But that goes to further support your point that high speed rail can only be accomplished with government input.
To be fair, I think that the same argument can be made for the costs of interstate highway systems and passenger air travel.
Figures for the profitability of the individual lines, with construction costs included, can be found here [0] in French. You'll see several lines with yearly rates of return in the ~7-15% range depending on how you measure things. I'd call that excellent, especially given that there are other massive benefits (environmental, health, safety, national security etc) involved that are not included in that calculation.
That said, I may be forgetting to include something, so I may be wrong. But, like you said, only further supports the point that high speed rail can only be accomplished with government input :)
[0] http://geoconfluences.ens-lyon.fr/informations-scientifiques...
Supposedly some subways (eg Hong Kong?) own the land near the stations and use the rents to fund the subway, rather than just using fares.
A land value tax that goes back into public transit would probably work too.
Here's one, just follow the links to the group companies.
The same was true for streetcars in the USA, many streetcar companies built amusement parks in the countryside at the end of their lines to encourage weekend trips.
So high speed rail in California is always going to be a boondoggle.
And just look at what we put next to our Bart stations: giant parking structures. Sigh.
here's why i think they get customers. people don't like airports and plane travel, so they'll pay more for rail. car travel is unpleasant. cars are tiny and uncomfortable. their tolls are insane. like $50 in tolls for that same drive. less people have cars, and getting an license is a big expensive thing. they don't do roadtrips.
We learned about this in highschool history.
From wikipedia:
The Pacific Railroad Acts of 1862 were a series of acts of Congress that promoted the construction of a "transcontinental railroad" (the Pacific Railroad) in the United States through authorizing the issuance of government bonds and the grants of land to railroad companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railroad_Acts
All transportation is subsidized by government. Great investment; I'm completely on board. With the understanding that owners and operators pay back via taxes. (Whatever is fair, something modest.)
It seems that the tunneling was meant to solve this in urban areas. Open farmland is easier to manage, perhaps leasing the strip from the owners, gaining right-of-way over roadways by working with local governments.
From the article: "If the idea is viable and the people behind it are competent, it should have attracted private investment, as there should be a potential to make profit selling the technology. After all, the proposal has been around for 23 years."
High speed rail on a large scale is really something that has to come from the government. While there are small private HSR projects (e.x. Brightline, covering some 60 miles of the Florida coast), the big successes have all been governmental, and that shouldn't be surprising.
The uncomfortable part of HSR, of course, is that no matter how perfect your government is, it's going to involve bulldozing some people's homes, conflicting with other government projects, and interfering with nature. Don't get me wrong, I'm not part of team "screw the law, bulldoze straight lines between cities, people and nature be damned". But there do need to be sacrifices made. And a strong, coordinated government can pass the laws and write the checks to make that happen.
The interesting thing with HSR is that it is not about the technology. The TGV was operating at 300 km/h nearly 50 years ago, and that's the speed that most of the network operates at today. It's not about the safety (the TGV has never had a fatal accident in normal service) or even the cost (the TGV is also profitable!)
It's about the land. A fairly small strip of land in a straight line. My hope is that as people realize this, we'll do what has to be done and tear down a few villages in order to save the planet. But that's politically unpalatable, so instead we have Gadgetbahnen.