Passenger Trains > Who needs High Speed Rail?

Who needs High Speed Rail?

47 miles in seven minutes...403 mph!

---

It was the first test of the new AMD 403.

A rebuilt AMD 103, when used as rear DPU, it can be equipped with solid rocket boosters.

As an added benefit, it also clears the right of way for 50' each side of the center line.

The drawbacks are it can only be used on tracks with concrete ties, some cars at grade crossings have paint bubbled on their front fenders and foamers will now be required to wear asbestos lined safety vests.

;)

Actually it was faster... crew went to beans half way.

Anybody remember Amtrak's first timetable?

It showed the Broadway Limited going from Johnstown to Altoona at something like 100 mph (including Horseshoe Cruve, that would have been a hell of a ride, especially on Penn Cntral track).

I like this one better, though, because of the note that trains can make up time en route. It makes the insanity look believable to someone who doesn't look at it too hard.

GenePoon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Who needs High Speed Rail?
>
> 47 miles in seven minutes...403 mph!

But if I'm actually reading that right, it took them just over 24 HOURS to go 47 miles, or on the basic order of 2 mph.

That seems more believable for Amtrak.

lwilton Wrote:
-----------------------------------------------------
>
> But if I'm actually reading that right...

I don't think you're reading it right! :)
Although it doesn't give the date, one would assume that the 12:03 AM departure was on Friday the 27th.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 07/27/12 16:04 by pummer.

Too bad that didn't happen on April 1st! One time the Sunset showed as arriving Ontario, CA, eastward before it left Pomona, CA. In that case whoever entered the Pomona time into ARROW made an obvious typo, but computers don't care abouty those things.

Barry Draper

Are these entries made manually or is the info posted automatically? That's an awful lot of info for someone to be manually entering into a computer.

pummer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lwilton Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> ---
> >
> > But if I'm actually reading that right...
>
> I don't think you're reading it right! :)
> Although it doesn't give the date, one would
> assume that the 12:03 AM departure was on Friday
> the 27th.

I've spent a long time programming computer systems, including in the ancient past some that were considered "business information" systems. Generally in a system like that, the computer will only display the date with a time when the time advanced from the date of the previous time shown. Therefore if you see:
<no date> 12:03
<date> 12:47
as two entries, unless the programming is broken or the business rules are arcane (and broken), there was a date change between the two times shown. It may have been the next day, or more than one day, or the previous day, or 5 years later, but the two times are presumably not the same day.

Now, I've also seen a good many display systems that were programmed by amateurs and were totally broken in all manner of respects, and I would expect Amtrak's site falls into this category. So you may be quite right, the train may have covered those 50 miles in 3 minutes. Or I may be right and it took 24 hours. Or the system may had a hiccup and picked up one of those times from a year ago for absolutely no known reason at all.

lwilton Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I've spent a long time programming computer
> systems, including in the ancient past some that
> were considered "business information" systems.
> Generally in a system like that, the computer will
> only display the date with a time when the time
> advanced from the date of the previous time shown.
> Therefore if you see:
> 12:03
> 12:47
> as two entries, unless the programming is broken
> or the business rules are arcane (and broken),
> there was a date change between the two times
> shown. It may have been the next day, or more than
> one day, or the previous day, or 5 years later,
> but the two times are presumably not the same
> day.
>
> Now, I've also seen a good many display systems
> that were programmed by amateurs and were totally
> broken in all manner of respects, and I would
> expect Amtrak's site falls into this category. So
> you may be quite right, the train may have covered
> those 50 miles in 3 minutes. Or I may be right and
> it took 24 hours. Or the system may had a hiccup
> and picked up one of those times from a year ago
> for absolutely no known reason at all.

If you look at all information presented...

From Red Wing, Sheduled 8:52pm Jul 26, Actual 12:03am, Departed 3hr 11min late (3hr and 11 min after 8:52pm on July 26 would be 12:03am on July 27)

To StP/Minn, Scheduled 10:31pm Jul 26, Actual 12:10am Jul 27, Arrived 1hr 39min late (1hr and 39min after 10:31pm on July 26 would be 12:10am on July 27)

According to the sum of the information presented on the screeshot posted, the train made the trip from Red Wing to StP/Minn in 7 mins. LOL

I hope this puts an end to the constant complaining on this board about HSR funds being wasted....:-)

Dave