China considering building high-speed railway to U.S.

[stevewfl]

China considering building high-speed railway to U.S.
May 11th 2014 9:51AM

Imagine you're on a nice, long train ride in the United States. You close your eyes for a quick nap and wake up in... China? Yup. That could happen if China goes through with a proposed high-speed railway linking it to the U.S.

The project, nicknamed the "China-Russia-Canada-America" line, would be over 8,000 miles long and was first reported in China's state-run Beijing Times newspaper. The paper interviewed a railway expert from the Chinese Academy of Engineering.

The Economic Times reports that, according to the expert, the "bullet trains can run at 350 km per hour, enabling passengers to travel from northeastern China to the US in less than two days."

http://www.aol.com/article/2014/05/11/china-considering-building-high-speed-railway-to-u-s/20883832/?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000058&

[gPink]

It'll be easier to survey their kingdom.

[VirginiaJim]

I don't think this is a good idea...

[George R. Young]

Ah, yes, laying track on the permafrost.

[Rhino]

"northeastern China to the US in less than two days"

I don't understand, you can do it now in 12 hours for under $1000. Does anyone think it will cost less on a bullet train then a 767?

[gPink]

Troop train?

[stevewfl]

"northeastern China to the US in less than two days"

I don't understand, you can do it now in 12 hours for under $1000. Does anyone think it will cost less on a bullet train then a 767?

much cheaper for cargo and the delivering of chinese goods we so love to consume

[ZG]

much cheaper for cargo and the delivering of chinese goods we so love to consume

 

[Racer Boy]

I assume the train will burn coal!

[tweeter55]

I assume the train will burn coal!

Only until it crosses our borders. Then it will need a very long drop cord.

[Rhino]

much cheaper for cargo and the delivering of chinese goods we so love to consume

a 350 kph track is VERY expensive. Would it really be less expensive to ship cargo that way versus container ships? I have no idea, just wondering.

[Rick Hall]

Reads like something from theonion.com

Rick

[stevewfl]

Reads like something from theonion.com

Rick

I thought it sounded far-fetched too, until I read it on multiple sources 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2014/05/09/china-may-build-an-undersea-train-to-america/

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/beijing-to-the-us-by-train-china-outlines-plans-to-connect-world-by-high-speed-rail-network-9342749.html

http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2014/05/12/a-high-speed-train-from-the-u-s-to-china-will-it-leave-the-station/

[Cold Streak]

High speed trains really don't make much sense in the USA, for any reason.  It is cheaper and faster to fly anywhere around the country or to different parts of the world.  A large container ship can haul more freight than a train.  It might take a bit longer but the fuel usage would be about the same and the infrastructure cost is way less. 

One thing no one ever seems to consider when wanting to build high speed trains is terrorism.  With an airplane you have a much greater chance of controlling it than you ever will with a train.  With an airplane you control who gets one and what they are carrying.  Then when it's in the air it is pretty safe as not too many terrorists have surface to air missiles.  With a train you can also control who gets on and what they are carrying, but the train will be on the ground the entire trip, crossing numerous bridges and going through many towns.  Anywhere along that route a bomb can be planted with disastrous results.  I'm afraid high speed trains are out of the question for the US.  They make some sense in Europe where the distances are shorter and the public is accustomed to train travel. 

[Outback_Jon]

I'm afraid high speed trains are out of the question for the US.  They make some sense in Europe where the distances are shorter and the public is accustomed to train travel.

There are some areas in the US that they make some sense.  The Acela train on Amtrak's Northeast Corridor (Boston to DC) makes sense in theory.  A high speed link between Boston, NYC, Philly, and DC would be really useful.  If it worked like it is supposed to.  But it is slowed with too many speed limited areas, grade crossings, etc.  If they started from scratch building a high speed line, it could be effective.  (Not to imply that it would be profitable, since Amtrak hasn't managed to ever do that...)

A good supply of Rearden Metal might help...   

[stevewfl]

build it and they will come

[VirginiaJim]

That's what I'm afraid of...so I really hope it doesn't get built.

[just gone]

That's what I'm afraid of...so I really hope it doesn't get built.

You can all relax, as there's not a chance in....hades, and certainly not in Alaska, nor anywhere south of the Canadian border.
Now if it was an oil pipe line instead of a rail line...well that would be different. Although I'm not sure in which direction the oil would flow.

The best way to get free publicity for what you are currently doing and/or planning to do, is to come up with something outlandish (literally), so that people take notice of you.
I believe below is what they really wanted to get across, and they did, most of us read it.

...the technology to build the tunnel is already in place and will reportedly be used on a tunnel linking China to Taiwan - a distance of nearly 94 miles.

.....the country has already started work on both a Pan-Asian and Eurasian railway