By: Jake Bailey

Jake Bailey — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:33:32 +0000

Perhaps this would be of interest:
1403 Leeward Road Anderson, SC 29625-5927 20 November 1997
Public Affairs Officer
FEDERAL RAILROAD ADMINISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 400 Seventh St. SW
Washington, DC 20590
Re: Safety Suggestion: Development of RAILBLAZER, a Robotic Pilot Vehicle System for Railway Train Safety
Gentlemen:
As a retired engineer and part of the citizenry of this nation, I have become very concerned about the terrible railway accidents occurring here and in foreign countries and the carnage left in their wake. I wish to propose a solution, which is well within the state of the art today. For reference, I have dubbed it RAILBLAZER.
DESCRIPTION: RAILBLAZER REFERS TO A SELF-CONTAINED UNMANNED ROBOTIC VEHICLE SYSTEM OPERATING, THROUGH A SOFT INTERFACE, IN CONCERT WITH A MAIN RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVE TO WARN OF EN ROUTE TRAVEL HAZARDS WHICH WOULD ENDANGER THE CONNECTED TRAIN SYSTEM OR OTHERS.
RAILBLAZER, RUNNING AHEAD OF THE LOCOMOTIVE-TRAIN SYSTEM, WOULD BE THE PILOT VEHICLE OR TRAVELING SENTINEL, SENSING ABNORMALITIES AND OBSTRUCTIONS AND WARNING THE FOLLOWING MAIN LOCOMOTIVE OF ACTUAL OR INCIPIENT HAZARDS. THIS MANDATES THAT IT PROCEED AHEAD OF THE TRAIN AT A DISTANCE EXCEEDING THE LOCOMOTIVE’S STOPPING ABILITY, WHICH VARIES WITH ITS SPEED, WEIGHT, BRAKING ABILITY, AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, AND OTHER FACTORS. THIS DISTANCE WOULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE OUTREACH OF ITS SENSING SYSTEMS FOR IT WILL BE CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING CONDITIONS AT ITS INSTANTANEOUS LOCATIONS AS WELL. THIS VEHICLE WOULD BE DESIGNED TO DETECT HAZARDS, ALARM THE MAIN LOCOMOTIVE, AND TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT ITSELF IF POSSIBLE. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD SERVE AS A SACRIFICIAL VEHICLE, TAKING THE HAZARDOUS ENCOUNTER IN SUBSTITUTION FOR THE MAIN TRAIN SYSTEM.
RAILBLAZER WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THE MAIN LOCOMOTIVE. IT WOULD HAVE TO SENSE OBSTACLES, PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTIONS, OUT-OF-TOLERANCE TRACK OR ROADBED CONDITIONS (VIZ. TRACK MISALIGNMENTS, MOVEMENTS, SPACING, ETC.), ITS OWN UNSCHEDULED OR ERRATIC MOTIONS, OR ANY OTHER ABNORMALITIES. ALARMS AND CRITICAL DATA WOULD HAVE TO BE COMMUNICATED (IN ALL WEATHER, DISTANCE, AND TERRAIN CONDITIONS) TO THE MAIN LOCOMOTIVE, EVEN INITIATING THE AUTOMATIC STOPPAGE OF THE TRAIN SHOULD THE OPERATOR(S) NOT REACT SOON ENOUGH.
THE VEHICLE STRUCTURE SHOULD BE DESIGNED FOR LIGHT WEIGHT TO PROVIDE FUEL ECONOMY AND TO MINIMIZE COLLISION DAMAGE TO OTHERS, YET PROTECT THE COMPONENTS AND FACILITIES HOUSED WITHIN. THIS SUGGESTS A FRANGIBLE STRUCTURE TO SOME DEGREE. THE WEIGHT COULD BE MINIMIZED BY A PROVISION FOR IN-TRIP REFUELING FROM THE MOTHER LOCOMOTIVE, REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT FOR STORAGE OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF FUEL. THE OUTER SHAPE AND FAIRING SHOULD BE AERODYNAMICALLY STREAMLINED. RAILBLAZER
MUST BE MORE MANEUVERABLE THAN THE MAIN TRAIN SYSTEM IN ORDER TO ADJUST ITS POSITION FOR STATION KEEPING (RUNNING AND RE-FUELING) UNDER PREVAILING CONDITIONS SUCH AS; GRADES, WEIGHT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, ETC. WHICH AFFECT MOMENTUM AND BRAKING EFFECTIVENESS.
THIS VEHICLE WOULD HAVE TO SENSE ITS OWN MOTION (BASIC AND DERIVATIVES) IN ALL AXES AND PROVIDE ALARMS ON THAT BASIS. IT WOULD HAVE TO KNOW IF IT WERE UPSET OR TUMBLING BECAUSE OF SOME OBSTACLE OR ACTION AND BE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE TO A HIGH DEGREE DURING SUCH TIMES.
THIS ROBOTIC VEHICLE COULD HAVE SOME TRACK CLEARING CAPABILITY IF FEASIBILITY PERMITS.
ALTERNATIVELY, OR IN EARLY DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES, ON-BOARD PROVISIONS COULD BE MADE FOR A HUMAN OPERATOR TO OBSERVE AND ASSIST IN THE OPERATION AS AN ADDITIONAL PRECAUTION. THE OPERATOR OR HUMAN MONITOR WOULD BE PROVIDED WITH MONITORS, CONTROLS, VOICE COMMUNICATIONS, SAFETY SYSTEMS, AND ESCAPE DEVICES. OTHER THAN THESE PROVISIONS, THE BASIC VEHICLE DESIGN WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS FOR THE UNMANNED VEHICLE. IN THIS CONCEPT, ONLY ONE HUMAN WOULD BE EXPOSED (IN A MORE CONTROLLABLE VEHICLE) AS CONTRASTED WITH THE PRESENT SITUATION WHERE AN ENTIRE TRAINLOAD OF PEOPLE ARE VULNERABLE.
For my own edification, I have Written some outline design-development criteria. I would be most happy to polish that up and send it to you if it would help your evaluation of my suggestion.
My hope is that this proposed state-of-the-art vehicle would avert some of the tragic accidents happening on the railways of this country and in foreign countries. With the advance designs of train systems in the works, it is unfortunate that safety is sacrificed just because our train systems don’t know the hazards which lurk ahead. All of the regular periodic maintenance inspections of the tracks and roadbeds are of little value if a mudslide engulfs the tracks or a high voltage power pole falls across the tracks. There are so many things which can immediately turn safe conditions into hazards. This is not just a performance improvement program which I am suggesting, but a humanitarian effort. I’d like to see the U.S.A. take the lead in this.
Thank you for your consideration of my suggestion.
Sincerely,
y2A / /2/’t¬ß;
,Jake S. Bailey
TEL 864-262-6433 FAX 864-2622-0727
Copy: Mr. James E. Hall, Chairman
NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD 490 L’Enfant Plaza SW
Washington, DC 20594
National Transportation Safety Board Washington, D.C. 20594
Office of Railroad Safety
Telephone: 202-314-6430 Facsimile: 202-314-6497
January 16, 1998
Mr. Jake S. Bailey 1403 Leeward Road
Anderson, South Carolina 29625-5927
Dear Mr. Bailey:
Thank you for your November 20, 1997, letter recommending the development of “Railblazer,” a robotic pilot vehicle system for railway train safety. While we share your concern regarding rail accidents, the National Transportation Safety Board’s mission is to determine the probable cause of transportation accidents and formulate safety recommendations to improve transportation safety and prevent similar accidents from occurring. The Safety Board does not have enforcement or regulatory authority.
We are aware that you have also submitted this information to Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), which is the appropriate agency to address your concerns. You may be interested to know that on November 20, 1997, the FRA published in the Federal Register (Volume 62, Number 224) a proposed order of particular applicability to your concept. The proposed order addresses automatic train control and advanced civil speed enforcement systems for Northeast Corridor railroads.
Your concern about en route travel hazards is justified. The Safety Board is cognizant of the risks posed by en route hazards and has aggressively addressed the issue of Positive Train Separation (PTS) since 1970, when two Penn Central trains collided head-on in Darien, Connecticut. I have enclosed a copy of our most recently published report which addresses the Safety Board’s position regarding PTS.
Sincerely yours,
¬£~~~~//
Robert C. Lauby Director,
Office of Railroad Safety
Enclosure
jake bailey
FILE: RAILBLAZ.DOC
BASIC REQUIREMENTS
RAILBLAZER
23 NOVEMBER’1997
RAILBLAZER REFERS TO A SELF-CONTAINED, UnMANNED ROBOTIC VEHICLE SYSTEM OPERATING, THROUGH A SOFT INTERFACE, IN CONCERT WITH A MAIN RAILWAY LOCOMOTIVE TO WARN OF EN ROUTE TRAVEL HAZARDS WHICH WOULD ENDANGER THE CONNECTED TRAIN SYSTEM OR OTHERS.
PERFORMANCE CRITERIA
RAILBLAZER, RUNNING AHEAD OF THE LOCOMOTIVE-TRAIN SYSTEM, WOULD BE THE PILOT VEHICLE OR TRAVELING SENTINEL, SENSING ABNORMALITIES AND OBSTRUCTIONS AND WARNING THE FOLLOWING MAIN LOCOMOTIVE OF ACTUAL OR INCIPIENT HAZARDS. THIS MANDATES THAT IT PROCEED AHEAD OF THE TRAIN AT A DISTANCE EXCEEDING THE LOCOMOTIVE’S STOPPING ABILITY, WHICH VARIES WITH ITS SPEED, WEIGHT, BRAKING ABILITY, AMBIENT ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, AND OTHER FACTORS. THIS DISTANCE WOULD NOT BE REDUCED BY THE OUTREACH OF ITS SENSING SYSTEMS FOR IT WILL BE CONTINUOUSLY MONITORING CONDITIONS AT ITS INSTANTANEOUS LOCATIONS AS WELL. THIS VEHICLE WOULD BE DESIGNED TO DETECT HAZARDS, ALAPM THE MAIN LOCOMOTIVE, AND TAKE ACTION TO PROTECT ITSELF IF POSSIBLE. OTHERWISE, IT WOULD SERVE AS A SACRIFICIAL VEHICLE, TAKING THE HAZARDOUS ENCOUNTER IN SUBSTITUTION FOE THE MAIN TRAIN SYSTEM.
RAILBLAZER WOULD HAVE TO REMAIN IN CONSTANT COMMUNICATION WITH THE MAIN LOCOMOTIVE. IT WOULD HAVE TO SENSE OBSTACLES, PHYSICAL OBSTRUCTIONS, OUT-OF-TOLERANCE TRACK OR ROADBED CONDITIONS (VIZ. TRACK MISALIGNMENTS, MOVEMENTS, SPACING, ETC.), ITS OWN UNSCHEDULED OR ERRATIC MOTIONS, OR ANY OTHER ABNORMALITIES. ALARMS AND CRITICAL DATA WOULD HAVE TO BE COMMUNICATED (IN ALL WEATHER, DISTANCE, AND TERRAIN CONDITIONS) TO THE MAIN LOCOMOTIVE, EVEN INITIATING THE AUTOMATIC STOPPAGE OF THE TRAIN SHOULD THE OPERATOR(S) NOT REACT SOON ENOUGH.
THE VEHICLE STRUCTURE SHOULD BE DESIGNED FOR LIGHT WEIGHT TO PROVIDE FUEL ECONOMY AND TO MINIMIZE COLLISION DAMAGE TO OTHERS, YET PROTECT THE COMPONENTS AND FACILITIES HOUSED WITHIN. THIS SUGGESTS A FRANGIBLE STRUCTURE TO SOME DEGREE. THE WEIGHT COULD BE MINIMIZED BY A PROVISION FOR IN-TRIP REFUELING FROM THE MOTHER LOCOMOTIVE, REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT FOR STORAGE OF LARGE QUANTITIES OF FUEL. THE OUTER SHAPE AND FAIRING SHOULD BE AERODYNAMICALLY STREAMLINED. RAILBLAZER MUST BE MORE MANEUVERABLE THAN THE JVIAIN TRAIN SYSTEM IN ORDER TO ADJUST ITS POSITION FOR STATION KEEPING (RUNNING AND RE-FUELING) UNDER PREVAILING CONDITIONS SUCH AS; GRADES, WEIGHT, ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS, ETC. WHICH AFFECT MOMENTUM AND BRAKING EFFECTIVENESS.
THIS VEHICLE WOULD HAVE TO SENSE ITS OWN MOTION (BASIC AND DERIVATIVES) IN A.LL AXES AND PROVIDE ALARMS ON THAT BASIS. IT WOULD HAVE TO KNOW IF IT WERE UPSET OR TUMBLING BECAUSE OF SOME OBSTACLE OR ACTION AND BE ABLE TO COJVIMUNICATE TO A HIGH DEGREE DURING SUCH TIMES.
THIS ROBOTIC VEHICLE COULD HAVE SOME TRACK CLEARING CAPABILITY IF FEASIBILITY PERMITS.
~/-
jake bailey
FILE: RAILBLAZ.DOC
23 NOVEMBER’1997
ALTERNATIVELY OR IN EARLY DEVELOPMENT PROTOTYPES. ON-BOARD PROVISIONS COULD BE MADE FOR A HUMAN OPERATOR TO OBSERVE AND ASSIST IN THE OPERATION AS AN ADDITIONAL PRECAUTION. THE OPERATOR OR HUMAN MONITOR WOULD BE PROVIDED WITH MONITORS, CONTROLS, VOICE COMWJNICATIONS, SAFETY SYSTEMS, AND ESCAPE DEVICES. OTHER THAN THESE PROVISIONS, THE BASIC VEHICLE DESIGN WOULD BE ESSENTIALLY THE SAME AS FOR THE UNMANNED VEHICLE. IN THIS CONCEPT, ONLY ONE HUMAN WOULD BE EXPOSED (IN A MORE CONTROLLABLE VEHICLE) AS CONTRASTED WITH THE PRESENT SITUATION WHERE AN ENTIRE TRAINLOAD OF PEOPLE ARE VULNERABLE.
DESIGN-DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA
ICC – INSTRUMENTATION, CONTROL, AND COMMUNICATION SUBSYSTEMS
MPF – MOTIVE POWER AND FUEL SUBSYSTEM
PMR – POSTMORTEM RECORDING SUBSYSTEM
CMP – TIME-SHARED AND BACK-UP COMPUTER SUBSYSTEM WITH SELF-DIAGNOSTICS
RAILBLAZER
STRUCTURAL
TRACKWORTHY
WEATHER WORTHY HOUSING FOR ALL SUBSYSTEMS
SUPPORT MPF
PROTECT INTEGRITY OF ICC, EVEN DURING UPSET
PROTECT PMR
LIGHT WEIGHT
FRANGIBLE TO MINIMIZE COLLISION DAMAGE TO OTHERS
AERODYNAMICALLY STREAMLINED
ENVIRONMENTAL COMPATIBILITY
NON-NOXIOUS PARTICULATE OR LIQUID EMISSIONS
NON-OFFENSIVE LIGHT AND SOUND EMANATIONS
NON-OFFENSIVE ELECTROMAGNETIC OR THERMAOL EMANATIONS
jake bailey
MANEUVERABILITY
FILE: RAILBLAZ.DOC
23 NOVEMBER-1997
ACCELERATION AND SPEED EXCEEDING THAT OF LOCOMOTIVE
PRIMARY: RAPID DECELERATION USING ELECTRO-DYNAMIC BRAKING
BACK-UP: NON-LOCKING MECHANICAL BRAKING
STATION KEEPING RELATIVE TO THE MAIN LOCOMOTIVE
NORMAL OPERATION (EXCEEDS THE STOPPING DISTANCE OF THE TRAIN) ADJUSTED FOR SPEED CHANGES OF LOCOMOTIVE (CRUISE, CONGESTED AREAS AREA, ETC.)
EMERGENCY SLOWING
IN-TRIP REFUELING
AUTOMATIC SPEED CHANGES OR SELF-STOPPING FOR HAZARDOUS SITUATIONS
MOTION CORRECTIONS WHEN INCIPIENT HAZARDOUS SIDJATIONS ARE PREDICTED
INSTRUMENTATION
ALL-WEATHER MULTI-DIRECTIONAL OBSTACLE SENSING RADAR (SEARCH AND TERRAIN)
VIDEO IMAGING
IR
PANNING SCANS AS NECESSARY (ARTICULATING ANTENNAE)
SENSE ROTATIONAL RATES, DIRECTIONS, AND DERIVATIVES (ACCELEROMETERS, GYROSCOPES, ETC.)
SENSE LINEAR SPEED AND DERIVATIVES (ODOMETERS, ACCELEROMETERS, TERRAIN RADARS, ETC.)
SENSE TRA.CK TOLERANCES; GAUGE, ALIGNMENTS, .JOINTS, CURVATUHE, IRREGULARITIES,
ICE BUILD-UP, MOVEMENT, ETC.
CHECK CONDITION OF MOVEABLE TRACK SEGMENTS (SWITCHED) AND TRACK INTERSECTING SEGMENTS FOR TOLERANCE, ALIGNMENT, MOVEMENT, ETC.
SENSE ROADBED IRREGULARITIES
SENSE SAFETY SIGNAL PERFORMANCE AT INTERSECTIONS, ETC.
SENSE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
SENSE STATION KEEPING WITH LOCOMOTIVE
SENSE MALFUNCTIONS IN ELECTRONIC SUBSYSTEMS
SENSE MALFUNCTIONS IN HOUSEKEEPING SUBYSTEMS AND MPF
SENSE ALL OTHER EMERGENCY AND TROUBLESHOOTING ALARMS
SENSE STABILITY AND PROXIMIITY OF VEHICLES ON ADJACENT TRACKS
jake ba.i ley
CMP CONTROL
FILE: RAILBLAZ.DOC
23 NOVEMBER-1997
ALL COMMUNICATIONS AND SUBSYSTEM COMMANDS
ALARMS AND INITIATORS FOR STOPPING THE LOCOMOTIVE
PROVISION FOR OVERRIDE BY LOCOMOTIVE (OPERATOR OR SYSTEM)
DATA: CONTROL SIGNALS, ALA~IS, AND IMAGES
COMPUTER HANDSHAKES
DATA CHECKING (PARITY .. DUPLICATION, ETC.) AND CORRECTING
COMMUNICATIONS
MODULATED RF CARRIER SYSTEM WITH REDUNDANT CHANNELS
TRACK CONDUCTOR
TRACK-SIDE & OTHER STATIONARY TRANSCIEVER SYSTEMS
SATELLITE RELAY
ALL-WEATHER OPERATION
ALL-ATTITUDE VEHICLE (TUMBLING) CONDITIONS
CODED AND NON-TAMPERABLE
5 MILE MINIMUM LINK UNDER OBSTACLE CONDITIONS CURVES
TUNNELS
MOUNTAINS
BOULDERS
LANDSLIDES
WEATHER
EMI
PMR
ALARMS
FOUR-LEVEL:
HEED (NOTEWORTHY) CAUTION (ALERT) WARNING (CRITICAL) DANGER (PANIC)
AL.ARM CONDITIONS DETERMINED OR PREDICTED BY ON–BOARD COMPUTER
SENT THROUGH COMWJNICATIONS LINKS
OTHER ANNOUNCEMENTS FLARES
jake bai ley
ROCKETS SPOT LIGHTS
FILE: RAILBLAZ.DOC
23 NOVEMBER-1997
SIGNALS TO OTHERS OF APPROACHING TRAIN
OMNIDIRECTIONAL VISIBLE AND AUDIBLE FOH ONE UNOBSTRUCTED MILE
ENVIRONMENT PENETRATING
ARTICULATING/FLASHING WARNING LIGHTS
BELLS/WHISTLES
ON-BOARD
READ DATA FROM SUBSYSTEM INSTRUMENTATION
PROCESS DATA ON-BOARD CHECK VALUES TOLERANCES
TREND ANALYSES
COMPARE TO MATHEMATICAL MODELS OF PERFORMANCE PREDICT OUTCOMES
CATEGORIZE DATA
CATEGORIZE ALARM LEVELS
INITIATE CONTROL ACTIONS
FORMAT AND SEND ONLY CRITICAL PARAMETERS TO THE LOCOMOTIVE SYSTEM
LOCOMOTIVE
IN ADDITION TO BASIC STATE-OF-THE ART DESIGN FEATURES INCORPORATED INTO THE MAIN LOCOMOTIVE DESIGN, THE FOLLOWING WOULD BE ADDED:
INTERFACE WITH RAILBLAZER
VIA THE COMMUNICATION LINKS THE LOCOMOTIVE WOULD HAVE A COMPATIBLE INTERFACE WITH THE CONTROL, INSTRUMENTATION, AND MONITOR SUBSYSTEMS CORRESPONDING TO THE THOSE ON BOARD THE ROBOTIC VEHICLE AND NECESSARY TO RESPOND TO, VERIFY, VALIDATE, SUPPLEMENT, COMMAND, OVERRIDE, CONTROL, AND ADJUST THEM.
jake bailey
MONITORS:
FILE: RAILBLAZ.DOC
23 NOVEMBER~1997
VISUAL MONITORS OF ITS INSTRUMENTED DATA RELATED TO THE RAILBLAZER MISSION
COMMUNICATION SYSTEM STATUS STATION KEEPING STATUS RAILBLAZER OPERATIONAL STATUS
VISUAL PRESENTATIONS OF ALL VIDEO IMAGING BY RAILBLAZER
VISUAL MONITORS OF CRITICAL DATA AND ALAlli~S FROM RAILBLAZER
VISUAL SCHEMATIC-TYPE PRESENTATION OF PARAMETERS AND ALARMS
AUDIBLE ALARMS
CONTROLS
COMMANDS AND OVERRIDES FOR ROBOT
COMPATIBLE RESPONSES TO RAILBLAZER INITIATED ACTIONS SUPPORT NORMAL OPERATIONS
EMERGENCY STOPPING
CRITICAL MALFUNCTION OR FAILURE IN RAILBLAZER SUBSYSTEMS OTHER PANIC SITUATIONS
CMP
PROCESS DATA COMMUNICATED FROM RAILBLAZER DATA BIT VERIFICATION
FORMAT DATA FOR CORRESPONDING SUBSYSTEMS FORMAT DATA FOR COMMANDS
TREND ANALYSES
VALIDATE DATA BASED ON MATHEMATICAL MODELS
DETERMINE AUTOMATIC RESPONSES
DETERMINE STATION KEEPING STATUS & COMPARE WITH RAILBLAZER DATA

By: sloane

sloane — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 18:46:57 +0000

I would love to have high-speed trains…but I’m skeptical… I would rather go for broke. If we’re going to get trains, I would rather go massively, head-over-heels into debt and hope that the war-level spending will stimulate the economy and create jobs and leave us with something useful…rather than a train that barely goes faster than my car–but provides less convenience and costs more….
John Tantillo has a marketing and branding blog on which he publishes weekly brand winner/loser post. Last week, he named “The Train To Nowhere” the loser, and he makes some very good points, asserting that it does not respond to any real need but instead follows the “build-it-and-they-will-come” model adopted by the now infamous American automakers. But with the added side-effect of disincentivize the development of alternatively-powered vehicles, with any (unlikely) success also putting further strain on already-struggling airlines. Since the supposed “high-speed” rail would not even be considered as such in other countries, Tantillo characterizes this proposal as greenwashing: “Thus another sin against marketing: window-dressing your brand as something it is not.”
Full post: John Tantillo’s Brand Winner… And Loser: The U.S. Navy and the Train To Nowhere.

By: Demetrius

Demetrius — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 16:02:08 +0000

I didn’t believe in high speed rail until I visited Japan and saw how amazing it could be. I think high speed rail is a no-brainer. Getting a bunch of commuter cars off the roads to free them up for trucks and other commercial transportation and significantly reduce shipping costs is just invaluable in the long term. Just like the interstate highway system before it, high speed rail is expensive, but worth the investment. Infrastructure is the lifeblood of industry.

By: WK

WK — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 11:43:34 +0000

In England, they have more rail than we have roads, things are starting to change. Las Vegas inner city rail system, mainly around the strip,and expandind beyond that, San Jose downtown moved completely to rail replacing congested bus transit.

Comments on: Obama’s bullish on high-speed rail

By: Jake Bailey

By: sloane

By: Demetrius

By: WK