That high ?

For comparison we had steam trains which ran faster than that over 70 years ago and the new link between London and the midlands wil run at up to 250mph.

An engineering friend explained just how much work they had to do to handle those speeds. Some of that track is 50-60 yrs old. Curves, over and underpasses all needed special attention. (an underpass at 100 MPH creates a shockwave that can knock a train off its tracks, if there is any defect or problem.)

Much like today's high efficiency gas engines, or much like a toddler learning to walk unassisted, our rail industry will upgrade, despite the best efforts of the GOP. This is one very welcome step, and I'll bet you that a year from now, they increase the number of trains because of the increased demand and convenience from starting in Downtown Chicago, and ending up in the city center of Grand Rapids or Detroit.

It is quite complicated to plan upgrades to their service because public and railroad company funding is involved. Amtrak also has to figure where it is possible to go fast. There is no point in traveling at 110 mph just to catch up to a slow freight train on the same track.

our high speed track isn't used for freight as far as I'm aware.

nt

But High Speed Rail is more than 200 mph

But if I were forced to go TO Detroit I would be quite content to go about .1 mph with several delays.

We had choices and Detroit looked to be our best bet..so far, so good!..been 5 years

nt

Ok, it's a Steely Dan lyric

Glad to hear it. This will be an extention of the Acela Service which travels 150 mph up the Philadelphia-Boston corridor.

Heard on the news today.. gas will be OVER $4 a gallon by March. When this happens... short trips of 100-300 miles by car will be much more expensive .

Rail then becomes a great alternative.

That is insane. No way the rails and those trains can handle that.