Curtain Goes Down on US High Speed Rail

shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Shop deals on ebay
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
H

henryj

Conductor
Joined
Dec 19, 2008
Messages
1,589
Location
Houston, Texas
If you get your hand on the March issue of Trains read Fred's column. It starts out like this:

"I'm going to go out on a limb - but not a long one - and declare an end to the era of high speed trains outside the Northeast Corridor, just two years after that era bagan. Yes, kaput. I am amazed how abruptly it ended, how enthusiasm and political backing for the $10.5 billion federal government program simply dissolved."

"Many aspects of this saga were handled badly. Very few grants funded entire projects. Most paid for planning or the start of ambitious plans."

We will see if Frailey is really right on this, but I have to agree the projects that were getting the publicity, Florida and California, were just boondoggles.
 
California is most emphatically NOT a boondoogle.

As to Frailey's points: If the curtain has gone down, might ought to tell the spectators, actors, producers, etc. That are all still working like the curtain is still up and the dirt is shortly going to start moving and the concrete pouring. Don't recall it right now, but he had another one in the not so distant past that seemed to be somewhat fact free and disconnected from reality.

Don't preach the funeral over the living.

Added: I do nto cosider Florida a boondoggle eitehr. It is a STARTER SEGMENT of what will become a much larger system. Given teh terrain, florida is easy terrain to build in for HSR.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Based on my understanding the California HSR plan has not yet died, nor is it a boondoggle by any objective measure. It's expensive but so is adding more lanes to clogged freeways and highways. If California can't afford HSR then they probably can't afford more freeways and highways either. And, unlike grumpy old Florida, new trains in California are more likely to be properly interconnected with other local and long-distance transportation and be used by the people who actually live there. Florida can be a fun vacation spot and I would like to have HSR access between Miami and Orlando, but the majority of Floridians have made it clear they don't understand passenger trains and won't use them even if they're built with 90% federal funds. So, I suggest we take all of Florida's soon to be wasted money and give it to California where it will go to better use. Maybe after we have HSR up and down the West Coast we can give Florida another chance to redeem themselves. Maybe.
 
I think the only projects that will succeed are improving Acela service in the NEC and the California HSR system. The others will probably be killed some time or another, like ARC was. While I don't want them to die, I think it's inevitable. Florida and Wisconsin could use 6-7 normal Amtrak trains a day. Remember, an increase in frequency gets more riders than an increase in speed.

As for subsidies, Amtrak should be getting more to replace/add rolling stock for more routes, rather than developing HSR.
 
Train2104 said:
I think the only projects that will succeed are improving Acela service in the NEC and the California HSR system. The others will probably be killed some time or another, like ARC was. While I don't want them to die, I think it's inevitable. Florida and Wisconsin could use 6-7 normal Amtrak trains a day. Remember, an increase in frequency gets more riders than an increase in speed.

As for subsidies, Amtrak should be getting more to replace/add rolling stock for more routes, rather than developing HSR.
Click to expand...
I think those two, particularly Florida's, HSR projects were ill conceived. Many of us on here supported them because we are so desparate for any improvement in passenger rail we embrace anything we can. The money would be much better spend on improving what we have with more frequencies and little improvements in end to end times. Just getting back to the speeds and frequencies of the 1960's would be a major accomplishment. Here in Texas, just getting back to the late 1930's would be an accomplishment. lol. Can we just get a daily Sunset Limited maybe? Or a train to Colorado? Or corridor trains in the 'Texas Triangle' at any speed?

One area that may not be killed outright is the Illinois Chicago to St Louis corridor. It's not true HSR, just merely higher speed but it might just struggle on to completion.
 
Train2104 said:
Florida and Wisconsin could use 6-7 normal Amtrak trains a day. Remember, an increase in frequency gets more riders than an increase in speed.

As for subsidies, Amtrak should be getting more to replace/add rolling stock for more routes, rather than developing HSR.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin, by way of the Empire Builder and Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha Service, sees 8-9 normal Amtrak trains a day already.
 
I think the only projects that will succeed are improving Acela service in the NEC and the California HSR system. The others will probably be killed some time or another, like ARC was.
Click to expand...
I don't want to speak for anywhere else, but as an Illinoisan I'm somewhat familiar with Illinois' rail projects -- $1.2 billion in Federal grants if I recall correctly. Why would our projects be killed? Or not be a success? :angry2: :rolleyes:

1) Not only has the present governor strongly supported them, his otherwise very-conservative opponent in the last election supported them as well -- and still supports them as a member of the State Senate if I recall correctly. We didn't have anyone in Illinois running for office opposing rail as part of their platform, unlike Walker in Wisconsin or Kasich in Ohio.

2) An agreement for construction on the Chicago-Saint Louis route was reached months ago with the usually-reluctant Union Pacific. Track and signal work has already begun -- not planning or even engineering but steel and concrete on the ground.

3) The Chicago-St. Louis work builds upon improvements already made to Illinois-sponsored Amtrak service on that route and others, including additional frequencies. Those improvements have already resulted in double and triple-digit percentage increases in ridership since 2006 when the added trains began running.

I've said this before and I'll say it again: we need all kinds of passenger rail, including commuter, regional corridors, true HSR, and long-distance. It bothers me greatly that the emerging corridors in the stimulus "HSR" program -- the projects other than California and Florida -- are being slammed by passenger rail supporters from both sides: the gee-whizzers who want to build only true HSR, and the gradualism-only folks who think HSR will suck all the oxygen out of the room and oppose anything with an HSR label even if it's actually a very gradualist project.
 
CHI-STL is improved Amtrak service. That I support. By HSR in my last post I meant special/tilting trains, not all rail improvement projects.
 
Train2104 said:
CHI-STL is improved Amtrak service. That I support. By HSR in my last post I meant special/tilting trains, not all rail improvement projects.
Click to expand...
So, therefore, you must be against the Amtrak Cascades service, because those use special tilting trains.
 
John Bredin said:
I've said this before and I'll say it again: we need all kinds of passenger rail, including commuter, regional corridors, true HSR, and long-distance. It bothers me greatly that the emerging corridors in the stimulus "HSR" program -- the projects other than California and Florida -- are being slammed by passenger rail supporters from both sides: the gee-whizzers who want to build only true HSR, and the gradualism-only folks who think HSR will suck all the oxygen out of the room and oppose anything with an HSR label even if it's actually a very gradualist project.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Well put.
 
Train2104 said:
Trogdor said:
Train2104 said:
CHI-STL is improved Amtrak service. That I support. By HSR in my last post I meant special/tilting trains, not all rail improvement projects.
Click to expand...
So, therefore, you must be against the Amtrak Cascades service, because those use special tilting trains.
Click to expand...
IIRC, Cascades only goes 79MPH. We can do that with regular Amtrak equipment.
Click to expand...
The 79 mph is a regulation imposed by the nature of regulation relating to the signal system, not the equipment. It would take a lot of money to make the signal changes necessary to permit faster speeds, and with the multiple curves on the route would not really make much difference in run time. This service is not really a good example for either side of the arguement.
 
Eric S said:
Train2104 said:
Florida and Wisconsin could use 6-7 normal Amtrak trains a day. Remember, an increase in frequency gets more riders than an increase in speed.

As for subsidies, Amtrak should be getting more to replace/add rolling stock for more routes, rather than developing HSR.
Click to expand...
Wisconsin, by way of the Empire Builder and Chicago-Milwaukee Hiawatha Service, sees 8-9 normal Amtrak trains a day already.
Click to expand...
You mean, SE Wisconsin get eight trains per day. The rest of Wisconsin gets only once-per-day-each-way with the Empire Builder, and, thanks to some very wrongheaded opposition, politics, and lying, Madison still has no passenger service.

Folks here have been comparing us to Mississippi -- at least MS has passenger train service to its State Capitol. Same with Alabama, GA, and Arkansas. :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:
 
When the PTC comes online, are the tracks that the Cascades use capable of supporting 80+ mph operation? Or will PTC not necessarily allow 80+ running even on segments capable of it?
 
Train2104 said:
CHI-STL is improved Amtrak service. That I support. By HSR in my last post I meant special/tilting trains, not all rail improvement projects.
Click to expand...
What on earth does "special tilting trains" have to do with HSR. Very few of the real HSRs in the world, and certainly very few if any, of the fastest ones, use "special tilting trains" All that tilting gizmo just makes the train heavier. Better to just build a straighter ROW when you are building a new HSR line.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MattW said:
When the PTC comes online, are the tracks that the Cascades use capable of supporting 80+ mph operation? Or will PTC not necessarily allow 80+ running even on segments capable of it?
Click to expand...
It also depends on the design of the PTC. Afterall a signaling/control system is designed for operating a railroad at some design speed, and not just any arbitrary speed.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WICT106 said:
Folks here have been comparing us to Mississippi -- at least MS has passenger train service to its State Capitol. Same with Alabama, GA, and Arkansas. :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:
Click to expand...
Alabama? Montgomery is the capital of Alabama, not Birmingham.

Comparing Wisconsin to Mississippi? Sir, you have a long way to go to hope to be as good as Mississippi, in many ways.
 
George Harris said:
WICT106 said:
Folks here have been comparing us to Mississippi -- at least MS has passenger train service to its State Capitol. Same with Alabama, GA, and Arkansas. :angry2: :angry2: :angry2:
Click to expand...
Alabama? Montgomery is the capital of Alabama, not Birmingham.

Comparing Wisconsin to Mississippi? Sir, you have a long way to go to hope to be as good as Mississippi, in many ways.
Click to expand...
I stand corrected regarding the Capital of Alabama. You have reiterated the other points I was making, in that WI has made a mistake in rejecting the funds for the Rail service improvement. Walker has stirred up some opposition in his adamant rejection and obstinacy on the topic. All I can do is redouble some of my efforts, and get even more involved in rail advocacy. Walker won't be Governor forever.
 
The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:

  1. Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
  2. At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.

For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases much lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.

That said, however, the Talgo trains are able to operate a few mph faster than conventional passenger trains using Superliner equipment, thanks in part to their tilting capabilities, I'm sure.

Here's a video of one where the track speed limit for passenger trains appears to be 55 mph (I don't see a Talgo train speed limit at the end of the video, which would be posted on a sign with a number prefixed by a T).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M26PUohPJQI&feature=player_detailpage
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DET63 said:
The Cascades corridor does not have high-speed trains, for at least two reasons:

  1. Curvature and rail crossings necessitate lower speeds.
  2. At least between Portland and Seattle, there is also a lot of freight traffic.

For these two reasons alone, trains are limited to speeds below 80 mph, in some cases much lower. A parallel high-speed railway line would have to be built to significantly improve speeds there.
Click to expand...
Curves most definitely have an impact on the speeds, but RR crossings have no impact on the speeds. Acela goes through crossings at speeds faster than 79 MPH. Yes, above a certain speed one needs Quad Gates or a center island to stop people from going around the gates, but in general crossings don't require that trains slow down for them.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top