TT scale trains and models

Marquette wrote:

By the way:
Did you know that the most famous communist was Captain James T. Kirk of the starship Enterprise?

How so?

But, if the United Federation of Planets is communist, in that one situation, I'd be happy to be a communist... :)

I've grown up in a so-called "Communist" country. And I've learned much about Communism at school.

Communism never existed. What western countries call Communism, actually was Socialism. Precondition for Communism was that the whole world pulls together. Socialism was an interim solution with the aim to reach Communism.
So, Communism has always been an Utopia. And the key elements of Communism (as I've learned them at school) were described by Captain Kirk in some episodes of Star Trek as the core characteristics of the society he was living in.

No borders (at least on one planet) and no government. Only administrations on particular subjects. All laws were made so sustained that there is no necessity to change them. (=> no neccessity for a government)

No money and (except for a few personal things) no private property. Everything belongs to everybody. Everybody works voluntarily as far as their skills make them suitable. And those who can't work are supplied with what they need, although.

and so on...

(Of course, that's only valid for The Original Series. Later spin-offs had a different base.)

...kind of naive in my eyes.

But I guess, we are quite a bit off topic...

Marquette wrote:

Marquette wrote:Quebec City - Montreal - Toronto (and possibly even on to Chicago) is another one that is definitely possible (and indeed had a high speed service in the 1960s/1970s/1980s - the Turbotrain and then the LRC or whatever it was called).

This could also be an option although the distances between the larger cities seem to be quite a bit long to me.

As I said, the service already existed in the past, and was quite successful while it was in operation. Even now, with regular trains, it is very busy along the entire corridor Quebec City - Montreal - Toronto - Windsor.

As far as I know, LRC's are tilting trains. Tilting trains are usually used to increase the speed on conventional lines.
Modern high-speed traffic needs high-speed lines. So real high-speed traffic is clearly more expensive than tilting train service.
That's why tilting trains are not a good indicator for the effectivity of high-speed traffic.

In Germany tilting trains are only used where high-speed traffic would not be effective.

By the way:
@ Marquette:
Are you a Communist now or are you not?

LVG1 wrote:

Marquette wrote:As I said, the service already existed in the past, and was quite successful while it was in operation. Even now, with regular trains, it is very busy along the entire corridor Quebec City - Montreal - Toronto - Windsor.

As far as I know, LRC's are tilting trains. Tilting trains are usually used to increase the speed on conventional lines.
Modern high-speed traffic needs high-speed lines. So real high-speed traffic is clearly more expensive than tilting train service.
That's why tilting trains are not a good indicator for the effectivity of high-speed traffic.

In Germany tilting trains are only used where high-speed traffic would not be effective.

You're right about the LRC - but it also wasn't very fast - 95 mph max speed (153 km/h), and isn't what I'm using to make my statement: rather, the Turbotrain, which WAS a proper high speed train.

The Turbotrain, which was in operation from 1968 to 1982 with CN and later Via Rail, was powered by a Pratt & Whitney PT6 gas turbine and had a maximum speed of 170 mph (274 km/h) and in usual service operated at 120 mph (193 km/h), going from downtown Montreal to downtown Toronto in 4 hours.

By the way:
@ Marquette:
Are you a Communist now or are you not?

Now? No.

FYI, the Turbotrain "was one of the first gas turbine powered trains to enter service for passenger traffic, and was also one of the first tilting trains to enter service."

From wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UAC_TurboTrain

I don't think the fact it's tilting or not is really relevant, though. The point that I've been trying to make is that yes, there are quite a few routes on which high-speed passenger service - with or without newly-built trackage - would be quite viable in North America.

And indeed...

http://news.ontario.ca/mto/en/2011/11/h ... eased.html

In November of last year, a feasibility study's report (commissioned by the governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec) was released, that found that a new high-speed line on the Quebec City-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor corridor is indeed feasible.

Marquette wrote:In November of last year, a feasibility study's report (commissioned by the governments of Canada, Ontario and Quebec) was released, that found that a new high-speed line on the Quebec City-Montreal-Toronto-Windsor corridor is indeed feasible.

But you know that if you need a study to confirm a thesis, you will find experts who make a study which supports your standpoint?!?!?!
But don't let us argue about media savvy.

Who did actually say that it was not possible? I did not.
Of course, high-speed traffic is realizable also in America. It's only a question of subsidization.

High-speed traffic in America won't be a question of feasibility. The question is rather: How to find a good compromise between economic and ecological assets and taxpayer's interests.
I did not say: "High-speed traffic in America won't happen."
I said: "The answer to the question above will be hard to find—harder than in other countries which have high-speed traffic. So don't worry that it did not yet happen in America (except from the North-East Corridor). And don't worry if the implementation of more high-speed traffic will take a lot of time."

Has the intention of what I wrote really been so hard to understand?

By the way:
After high-speed technology has perfected in Japan and Europe, America won't have to pay so much for testing. So you will anyway get it less expensive than we.