> It accommodates the state of the track (in most cases). To go faster would require wholesale replacement of most existing track, which is thought to be too expensive (but is the approach that was used in Japan and France).
It does not accomodate current tracks. No rail lines in the US are designed for speeds over 150 mph.
I should have said that a comparatively modest roadbed upgrade would allow this speed -- but only compared to the effort required for the higher speeds possible elsewhere.
Comments
> It accommodates the state of the track (in most cases). To go faster would require wholesale replacement of most existing track, which is thought to be too expensive (but is the approach that was used in Japan and France).
It does not accomodate current tracks. No rail lines in the US are designed for speeds over 150 mph.
I should have said that a comparatively modest roadbed upgrade would allow this speed -- but only compared to the effort required for the higher speeds possible elsewhere.
Ah, ok. I would caveat that it is the alignment you can use for high speeds, not necessarily the roadbed, but your point remains the same then.
> I would caveat that it is the alignment you can use for high speeds ...
Yes, and welded tracks, apparently a universal way to support high speed operations.