When I worked the "road trains" occasionally I would run this trackage to Conway Pa. Thats gonna be a real mess! https://www.wkyc.com/article/news/l...stine/95-e196ec7a-23b6-4a6d-b1f1-5448615c2dc7
The way it worked was all hazardous cars were to be blocked in or nearest the middle of all trains. Those twenty would be where the problem lies fire/explosion-wise in the clips.... some of those chemicals can burn for days or close to a week.
News has it as vinyl chloride: "vinyl chloride is used to make PVC plastic and vinyl products. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels in air has resulted in central nervous system effects (CNS), such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Chronic (long-term) exposure through inhalation has resulted in liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation" Burns easy too.
News has it as vinyl chloride: "vinyl chloride is used to make PVC plastic and vinyl products. Acute (short-term) exposure to high levels in air has resulted in central nervous system effects (CNS), such as dizziness, drowsiness, and headaches. Chronic (long-term) exposure through inhalation has resulted in liver damage. Cancer is a major concern from exposure to vinyl chloride via inhalation" Burns easy too.
I am in favor of national high-speed rail service. My idea would be to use (as much as possible) existing track. Freight railroads do things very differently then does passenger service. With freight (for the most part) speed doesn't make much difference. A power plant simply wants to know how long it will take to get the coal to the plant. If it's three days, fine. If it's five days that's also fine, but what the power plant wants to know is the time involved. For passengers, the faster the better. If there was honest 100 mph rail service from Florida to New England, I would never drive that horrible I-95 again. If the rails were safe for 100 mph plus speeds, there would never be freight derailments. I do realize that most truly high-speed rail service (150 mph+) uses dedicated track, but I'm an American and am used to travelling third-world style.
Here's Forbes article on why we don't have high speed rail.. https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/...-trains-like-europe-and-asia/?sh=6f128bf1c080 The author left out one important factor.. the airline industry. We have the most used, efficient and comprehensive air travel system in the world. In 2018 just shy of 900,000 passengers flew our skies. While China will overtake us in years to come as thier society continues to develop, it will be a long time, if ever before their per capita numbers are what ours are. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_airline_passengers I flew from Minneapolis to Dallas a couple weeks ago.. given the choice of what would probably be a $100 one way high speed train ticket, vs a $240 ticket on a Airplane... that choice is easy.. I will take the 550 mph airplane. JW
This is just about 50 miles northeast of me. Definitely a bad situation. News reporters said they could taste it in the air. The US doesn't have a big passenger rail presence but we have an outright massive freight rail system. I think that is where people get confused about the rail system being underutilized in the US. Most people don't see it because they aren't riding on trains-but all of their stuff is.
What about the days of steam powered passenger service? They cranked those monsters up back then to "unfathomable" speeds if I'm not mistaken. Why is this not possible now?
Certainly the EPA and emissions plays into why steam is not a viable power source as well as the fact that it simply isn't as efficient or cost effective as diesel however the rails are so congested with freight traffic that trying increase passenger traffic isn't a simple process.
The 4-8-4 New York Central Niagara and the 4-6-4 Hudson that headed some of the railroad's fastest passenger service had to slow to 80 mph to scoop water from pans laid between the rails. Europe and Japan's high-speed rail systems operate at a profit. The line from Paris to Marseilles paid for itself in 10 years. I do agree with Jim that 550 beats 150, but add three hours on the front end of the flight, and one more on the back, and for distances of 500 miles or so, high speed rail is great and a hell of a lot more energy efficient then flying. The reality is that most of the nation's major commercial airports are at or near capacity at popular flying times and cannot be easily expanded. Rail is more expensive to build, but can be powered by means not involving anywhere near as much fossil fuel as air travel. As to the above comment by Joe - I don't disagree with it, but just as Diesel is more efficient then steam, electric can be much more efficient then Diesel-electric. Once you get the track built, steel wheel on rail is the most efficient way to move passengers and freight over land.
