$38.5 billion for a train from Merced to Bakersfield This is what California taxpayers need most of all. NEW: The price tag for the California High Speed Rail’s leg between Bakersfield and Merced may grown, again. Project leaders quietly warned last week it could grow up to $38.5 Billion, creating an even bigger project budget hole of $10.2B. https://t.co/5yobNVTjCy— Ashley Zavala (@ZavalaA) May 19, 2025
Feds want to cut off their funding: https://ktla.com/news/california/tr...g-for-california-high-speed-rail-project/amp/ https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...speed-rail-project-taxpayer-money-amount.html No track got laid, but taxpayers got screwed?
The entire thing is taxpayer funded, and it’s going to cost well over $35 billion for a train that goes from Merced to Bakersfield. Not even close to SF or LA.
I talk shit about the MAGAs support of an anti democratic Trump. But Egypt is ruled by a strong man, they will probably get speed rail before California. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-speed_rail_in_Egypt I don't know, give me a Democrat dictatorship that will make building dense housing, build transmission lines, nuclear power and high speed rail all over the country and I may be in favor of such dear leader.
Germany not only has high speed rail, but other trains that will run on hydrogen so no carbon emissions. Of course this will never happen in the so-called greatest nation on earth. Siemens begins manufacturing hydrogen trains for Bavarian rail
The hydrogen thing only really makes sense if you have nuclear or renewables to manufacture it. Honestly, if the process can be somewhat automated, it might make sense to produce and store hydrogen during peak solar events so as not to waste the excess energy, but I’m sure much smarter people than I have already looked into that.
I think hydrogen trains are as probable as hydrogen cars, basically they aren't. Bavaria seems to have a weird obsession with hydrogen over batteries, don't know why. Hydrogen for long time storage might become a thing, but the first and most important use case is hydrogen as a molecule to decarbonize chemical processes like steel or cement production.
I think it shows that it is not good for cars and smaller infra. It might work for large works, like @Homa mentioned with metal smelting and cement, among many others. Shipping carriers and trains are a possible implementation too.
I think this is basically right. I sometimes drive by a gas station in DC that put in hydrogen pumps as a demonstration project during Bush 43 first administration. There were DOE and other political types at the unveiling. The pumps were pulled a few years later.
Eh.. Comparing hydrogen fuel cells for cars and trains is not a fair comparison. The issue with hydrogen fuel cells for cars is the complete lack of a distribution network ("gas" stations). That problem does not exist for trains as they have a limited number of set points at which they can get refills. In fact, trains would be pretty ideal for a hydrogen fuel cell as you can build the hydrogen generation plants basically wherever they need to refuel the trains.
It is not only the lack of a distribution network which killed hydrogen cars, but the lack of (green) hydrogen itself. Both problems still exists for trains. And for trains there is already a proven and widely used alternative in the form of electricity. So sure you would need a smaller distribution system compared to cars, so the investment is less, but you would also have less upside because the only routes where hydrogen would be used, would be low traffic ones. Anything else has already been electrified (more than 60% of German railroads) making batteries and hydrogen useless. I would think that it would be easier for most of these low traffic routes to add some form of basic electrification, building on the already existing electric infrastructure (for trains and for other purposes), while using batteries to bridge the gaps, than building up an entirely new distribution system for a small number of hydrogen trains. Might be different for railway systems with a lower rate of electrification like the transcontinental lines in the US. But even then there are just so much better uses for green hydrogen. You can find a lot of examples in Liebreich's hydrogen ladder.
and here is something to make you depressed: Amtrak's busy Northeast Corridor bracing for 2026 World Cup - ESPN With the men's World Cup starting in June 2026, experts warn that the national rail system, already beleaguered by breakdowns and spotty service along the congested corridor, may not be up to the task. "You're going to add millions of people into that mix for a short period of time, and it's really going to crush capacity," said Jim Mathews, president and CEO of the Rail Passengers Association, a nonprofit organization that advocates for rail use.
VIA Rail Canada 2 days ago The Canada Strong Pass is here! As Canada’s national rail passenger service, VIA Rail is proud to support this initiative that encourages young Canadians and families to discover the country. From June 20 to September 2, children and young adults aged 24 and under will be able to travel for free or at a discount, from coast to coast, with the Canada Strong Pass.
is there a soccer team playing in Nova Scotia these days??? If not, then why would anyone want to visit???
Trump has now confirmed that the US will no longer be participating in California’s ridiculous rural HSR line https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article308913950.html
A cross-country train trip in Canada, from the east coast to the west coast, covers a distance of approximately 4,466 kilometers (2,775 miles). This journey, typically undertaken by VIA Rail's The Canadian, takes around four days to complete and spans multiple provinces and time zone. Between $2500 and $4500. Airfare cost starting at $300 R/T for 6 hr flight.