Mark Dash said:
Well your both kinda right…
Since when do French Canadians consider themselves to be part of the whole Canada, lol
They are more “French” then “Canadians”
============================================================
Actually, Hans was quite correct in pointing out my mistake. If Bombardier had been born in France and relocated to Canada, I might have taken some exception, but he was right and I was wrong.
However, I agree, the French Providences of Canada were settled by the French. So, in a manner of speaking, one might say that they are more French versus Canadian.
It’s all good.
Yeah, you guys are funny. Next will be Louis Chevrolet’s products were actually Swiss cars, not American cars. 
And any Mallet engine is a Swiss engine. 
But, but Louis learned machinery in, wait for it ,wait for it
FRANCE!!
Mark Dash said:
But, but Louis learned machinery in, wait for it ,wait for it
FRANCE!!
France and then Canada, funny,eh?!?
This whole things seams like a French conspiracy
and smells of Elderberries
Hans-Joerg Mueller said:
I don’t think they’re complacent, but they do set different priorities. For instance they have a special fund to finance large rail projects http://www.bav.admin.ch/alptransit/01376/01377/?lang=de The fund receives money from
a) heavy road users aka levies on transport trucks
Switzerland, as we are constantly reminded, is at a crossroads in Europe -EVERYONE drives trucks through it. Who drives trucks into and out of the USA?
Canada? Mexico?
Whoopee.
b) a portion of the taxes raised from the sale of petroleum products
c) VAT (value added tax)
All in all a broad base of sources, none of which would be welcome in other jurisdictions, but have been affirmed by the Swiss populace in referenda and in some instances initiated via popular initiatives.
You said it right there, buster. USA? Never going to happen.
As the statistics prove what is being built is heavily used i.e. it isn’t the usual “what comes first the chicken or the egg” routine.
Again, it’s horses for courses - a tiny packed-full country with the will and means to improve their transportation infrastructure at will, compared with a HUGE country, of which only the eastern side will reap any benefit at all from a HST. Where are the present HSTs in the US? Zooming across the prairies? I think not.
tac
Mark Dash said:
Well your both kinda right…
Since when do French Canadians consider themselves to be part of the whole Canada, lol
They are more “French” then “Canadians”
Ah, vous avez le dit, comme la!
tac
You can’t blame Rooster on this occasion!
It’s all the fault of the late Charles de Gaulle! 
When the French decided to build a new hi speed line Paris-Lyon…they drew a straight line between the cities and demolished anything in the way (farms and villages). Try that anywhere else and you would be blasted out of existence!!
Slightly OT, but that famous war-winning military rifle, the Garand, was the invention of a Canadian.
Of course, we can blame the Québecers for that dreadful concoction, poutine…considering the reputation that the French 'ave for ‘fine cuisine’ they sure go THAT wrong, eh?
tac
Ottawa Valley GRS
Ross Mansell said:
When the French decided to build a new hi speed line Paris-Lyon…they drew a straight line between the cities and demolished anything in the way (farms and villages). Try that anywhere else and you would be blasted out of existence!!
That’s cause most Your-o-peeing countries place valua on what’s best for the country above the individual rights of a citizen, your right, wouldn’t work here in the good ole US(of MY)A
Alan Lott said:
You can’t blame Rooster on this occasion!
It’s all the fault of the late Charles de Gaulle!
Thank you Alan!
Mark Dash said:
…
That’s cause most Your-o-peeing countries place valua on what’s best for the country above the individual rights of a citizen, your right, wouldn’t work here in the good ole US(of MY)A
Quite often that is also referred to as the common good.
And in some cases - depends on how well developed the democratic process is in a given country - those projects go to a vote. If the majority rejects it that railway line won’t be built. There are many ways to do things, some are a bit better than others. (http://rhb-grischun.ca/phpBB3/images/smilies/3.gif)
I think the best use for HST would be East Coast, West Coast, along the Mississippi (Chicago to Nawlins). It won’t work though if it is anything like what goes on in the NEC with all the curves, sharing track with slower trains and track that prevents higher speeds. Also a way to get the NEC through Boston and up to Portland, ME.
LAO
(How do you guys wander so far from the topic ??)
Larry Otis said:
I think the best use for HST would be East Coast, West Coast, along the Mississippi (Chicago to Nawlins). It won’t work though if it is anything like what goes on in the NEC with all the curves, sharing track with slower trains and track that prevents higher speeds. Also a way to get the NEC through Boston and up to Portland, ME.
LAO
Anywhere that alternative transport is running hourly - e.g. the airline shuttles parallel the NEC run every 1/2 hour and would have a tough time if the Acela cranked up to 200 mph. [Incidentally, Amtrak published a plan for a new high-speed route. It involved a few sacrifices here and there, but all for the Common Good.]
LA to SF is another shuttle hot-spot, so the CA High-Speed project is sensible but expensive.
LA to Vegas makes sense, if only to stop people falling asleep while the drive across the desert! The guys in Vegas have deep pockets and could easily afford it. But it has to go somewhere hear a transport hub with a BIG car park, not just Victorville. (There are multi-story car parks all the way up and down the Acela NEC.)
I don’t see why Chicago - New Orleons makes sense. Amtrak can barely justify one train a day, and it is a long route. Milwaukee - Chicago - Detroit has been suggested, but there are something like 1,000 grade crossings on the way.
BTW - did you realise the reason China invested heavily in HST is because it runs on electricity, which they can generate with local coal [to the detriment of our climate, perhaps.] Aircraft require imported oil.
Lets go ( Mag-Rail ) 300 mph up to 500 mph pluss.
And in order to make all that work, people will have to give up their cars…and that ain’t gonna happen. It’s too convenient.
It’s not so much that the CAR is convenient, but more that the RR doesn’t go the places you need to go! i.e. the market, the doctor, the Mall, etc. If I were use public transportation to get to a run day at TOC’s I would need to leave on Wed. to get there by Fri.! We all don’t live all packed together as they do in Europe, nor do I want too! The to Southern California and then you need a car to get around. If they (Government and Tree Huggers) want us to use the RR, then transport the car as well!
So few Trains go to places that I want to go, yes they do operate between the major cities which is nice, but mostly east to west! I want to go to Cheyenne and then south to El Paso to come back to LA and then north. You can but on a BUS!!
Packed together in Europe?..funny idea…
Pete Thornton said:
…
BTW - did you realise the reason China invested heavily in HST is because it runs on electricity, which they can generate with local coal [to the detriment of our climate, perhaps.] Aircraft require imported oil.
Some years ago our business neighbour was building PLC control panels to be used in Chinese coal-fired power plants - all of them to control the scrubbing operations. I was working for them part time after a little neighbourly chat and the owner’s “aha” moment. One of those “if you can spare the time” jobs.
