Thanks for the clarification. How about other issues, like
track radiuses needed to support high speed? Or just the
number of tracks. Like if you tried to run a train at 200mph,
would it work without it's own, seperate tracks? I'm
thinking you still have local trains going 50mph, using those
same tracks. It's not just Boston, NYC, DC. I'm suspecting
that may be a big part of the problem with Acela, no? That
you can't keep a wide open track in front of it? And then
if you need to widen the radius, install new track that's not
within the current right-of-way, etc, it would get very costly,
On Mar 10, 3:59 pm, "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-
What the hell does nuclear power have to do with trains?
You could take all the sunsidies to nuclear power and it would
be a drop in the bucket in creating a high speed rail service
in the northeast or connecting the midwest cities. It's not just
"fixing" tracks. There are HUGE problems. For example,
does a high speed 250mph train go across grade crossings
ANYWHERE in the world, let alone in a section of the country,
like the northeast where they occur multiple times in a mile?
Any go around turns with radiuses designed for 100mph?
What's the value of the homes, business, roads, highways,
streets, that are in the way of expanding those turn radiuses?
Yes, that's an advantage IF your final destination happens to
be the city itself. Between London and Paris, it's an advantage
IF your final destination is within the city itself. But it has
relevance to linking up the midwest USA as harry is advocating.
And if you apply it to say Boston to DC, the cost of getting that
250mph train that could compete with an airplane, would make
the ticket so expensive it would be the next Concorde. At 100mph,
the ticket is already the price of an airline ticket.
Not to mention it seems rather odd that the Keystone folks,
who's business it is to build the pipeline, who's money is on
the line, would be building it if it's not competitive with the
railroad for moving oil.
On 3/11/2013 2:31 PM, email@example.com wrote:
The Keystone folks get the sweet, sweet corporate welfare aka taxpayer
subsidies. That's how it's competitive. That, and their ability to use
eminent domain against property owners trying to hold out for more money.
That's another railroad win - no need to force property owners off
their land, since the railroad is already in place.
On 3/12/13 9:55 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
Water runs downhill even here. :-)
I don't think erosion would be any worse after the installation than
before. We have several pipelines nearby. I think one farmer told me
the pipeline company reburied some on his farm.
Erosion might be worse immediately after the pipe is buried if the
pipeline crews don't tamp the soil. It would stabilize over time, I think.
There is a lot of pipe buried for irrigation. It's normally about 8"
diameter and buried 5' deep. That isn't normally tamped. I can't say
I've noticed or heard of extra erosion in those spots. I go for years
at a time without going to a particular field though and looking at the
field layout isn't on my mind.
We have had some underground wire hit by farm equipment after several
year's erosion. That was signal wire that was buried about 30" deep.
It doesn't happen often but the possibility is still there. Farmers
don't generally work the soil more than about six inches deep in this
Yawn.... That has been used as much by the railroad
folks more than for any pipeline ever built, so it's a moot point.
There is no need, for the most part, to force anyone off their land
because of the Keystone pipeline. They need
an easement to put the pipe underground. For that, owners
get a tidy sum. I saw a rancher on TV last month very
happy with the amount he got. They put the pipeline through
his pasture, pay him a lot of money and after it's done
he doesn't even know it's there. Now the railroad, they do
force folks off their property, at least more so then a pipeline.
Cows can still graze on land above a pipeline.
With railroad tracks, not so much........
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.