Quote:
Originally Posted by hammersklavier
This post is just dead wrong.
In conjunct with ardecila's post above, which gives us Example 1 (Germany), let us remember Example 2--the United Kingdom. There is only one true greenfield high-speed line in the UK, constructed in the early 1990s as the British approach to the Channel Tunnel. The other two main lines, the East Coast and West Coast, are upgraded traditional lines (the former LNER and LMS mains, respectively). Example 3 is Spain, which did not begin construction of its high speed lines in earnest until the 1990s. It began improvements to its traditional network in the '80s. Example 5 would be Italy...The only European nation that hews to your paradigm might be France, purely due to the age of LGV Sud-Est; most Western European nations had begun extensively improving their traditional networks in the '80s, and (outside of France) did not begin serious HSR implementation until the '90s.
|
Very good. You obviously know a lot more about rail than I. However, I still am in favor of true HSR on the NEC sooner rather than later
The cost of acquiring land will only get more expensive the longer we wait. Also, 10 years to increase speeds on the NEC by 10 mph just seems awfully slow to me, sorry if I seem impatient but it seems ludicrous IMO.