Jump to content




Photo

High Speed Rail Proposed for United City-States of America


  • Please log in to reply
61 replies to this topic

#21 MattW

MattW

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,660 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:East of Atlanta, GA

Posted 01 May 2016 - 07:02 PM

You have to buy it, then you have to upgrade it. So go ahead and double the figure for just buying it.


Forum's official broken record about expanded Georgia passenger service!

#22 me_little_me

me_little_me

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,183 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 01 May 2016 - 07:45 PM

 

$$$$$

Don't you mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

 

This country can afford the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But even if we had that much in budget surpluses over as many years as it takes to build, it would never happen IMHO. Look at all the fighting over FEC Brightline and CAL high speed line on issues that had nothing to do with the cost of building the lines.



#23 daybeers

daybeers

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 109 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:HFD & WAS
  • Interests:Trains, obviously, both real and model, Music, Singing, Computers, Stained Glass, Photography, Traveling, Running

Posted 01 May 2016 - 07:51 PM

$$$$$

Don't you mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?

This country can afford the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But even if we had that much in budget surpluses over as many years as it takes to build, it would never happen IMHO. Look at all the fighting over FEC Brightline and CAL high speed line on issues that had nothing to do with the cost of building the lines.

Not to mention Congress...


Amtrak travel so far:

Springfield Shuttle: HFD-WND, HFD-NHV

Lake Shore Limited: SPG-CHI, CHI-SPG Roomette

Northeast Regional round-trip lots of times: NHV-NYP, NHV-WIL, NHV-WAS, HFD-WAS (some in Business)

Acela: PHL-NHV, Business Class

Pennsylvanian: NYP-PGH, PGH-NYP, Business Class

Capitol Limited: WAS-CHI Bedroom

 

Foreign travel:

Eurostar: London-Paris

EuroNight: Paris-Milano Centrale, 6 person couchette (by far the worst train I have ever been on.)

Frecciarossa: Milano Centrale-Roma Termini

 


#24 railiner

railiner

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,824 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Queens, NY
  • Interests:All public transportation....land, sea, and air

Posted 01 May 2016 - 07:52 PM

The vast distances in that proposal are just a pipe dream....we already have high speed transportation in those markets much more suitable....you know....airliner's.... ;)


metroblue?

okay on the blue!

#25 Manny T

Manny T

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 300 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Chicago IL

Posted 01 May 2016 - 10:47 PM

That is a good point. The author doesn't provide any justification beyond the map itself to explain why high speed rail would be desirable on these long distance routes, as opposed to air travel. 



#26 trainviews

trainviews

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 240 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Copenhagen, Denmark
  • Interests:Transportation, trains and American politics - so I had to end up here...

Posted 02 May 2016 - 12:45 AM

The vast distances in that proposal are just a pipe dream....we already have high speed transportation in those markets much more suitable....you know....airliner's.... ;)

 

I tend to agree. 

 

True HSR is feasible and should be built in large parts of the US, but a national network that looks nice on a map is really not worth the money. Nor is transcontinental passengers of any significance here. No matter what you build - the vast majority of them will stay in the planes. 

 

Where the investment is worthwhile is in corridors, where time and comfort allows the train to be competitive with air. How fast that is differs from corridor to corridor. On the NEC the present speed is evidently fast enough to beat the airlines. Other corridors would have to faster, and that can only be done on largely new alignments.

 

And then some relations will never be feasible. Denver to the west coast would cost a very large number of billions and it is still too far to be able to get travel times competitive with air. The market that prefers to spend 10 hours+ in a train to a few hours flight will always be a niche market, and that does not warrant investments of that order. 

 

That said, the whole eastern US is thick with corridors where HSR would be very successful. As Philly writes the whole eastern seabord is an obvious place to start. Even if Northeast to Miami never gets fast enough to beat the air market, there are so many good middle markets that it would be very successful and probably generate a nice operating surplus. 

 

But for it to happen we need a fundamental shift in transportation policies in the US. This is not right around the corner, but both Californa HSR and Brightline might help change the game once they start operating. 



#27 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 03 May 2016 - 09:02 AM

I tend to think there's room for a decent network of HSR lines...but as noted, it's mostly east of the Mississippi.  I have real trouble stringing together a serious coast-to-coast link that would have a shot at working (basically there are two marginal routes for this: The old Desert Wind routing and the Sunset routing).  I think you can justify a pretty good network out to MSP/OMA/KCY/OKC/FTW/SAS, but once you get west of there you have about 500-1000 miles of relative nothingness in terms of population density and relative hell in terms of geography.  On the western side I could see a system based out of CA and going into AZ, NV, and possibly WA/OR (though there's a gap there, too).

 

If we made a national decision to go for an HSR network you'd get something out there for political reasons (I cannot see omitting that region entirely, if just because of the Senate) even if it ended up being more of a modestly beefed-up version of Amtrak (e.g. the bullet train goes as far as Omaha but there are 2-3x daily Zephyrs going through).

 

As to the NEC-Florida market, no, you might not beat the air market outright...but if you could get average speeds up to 100 MPH over the run and you're still willing to run some overnight trains, an 11:30-12:00 run from NYP-ORL means you can start looking at trains which depart up north at 1800-2200 and arrive in Central FL at 0600-1000 (or which run down the FEC and get to Miami between 0800-1200).  On the one hand the concept of the overnight market changes, but on the other hand I think there's a ready-made market (business travel aside) for being able to take the train down, get to Disney or Universal when the parks open on the first day of your vacation, and being able to stay until pretty much park close on the last day.  Moreover, especially on the Orlando/Tampa end of that operation, there are some impressive options in terms of equipment utilization if you could somehow shave the time down to about 11:00 (e.g. being able to turn your sets for an immediate return to New York in the daytime, followed by cycling to a later slot for the evening trip to allow for servicing).


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#28 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 03 May 2016 - 09:12 AM

Historically CHI - DEN has been a market that has been able to support relatively higher speed and dense rail traffic. Don;t know if that is repeatable any more, but I suspect it may be.



#29 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 03 May 2016 - 12:47 PM

Historically CHI - DEN has been a market that has been able to support relatively higher speed and dense rail traffic. Don;t know if that is repeatable any more, but I suspect it may be.

I tend to agree (heck, it generates something like 40k/yr with one train per day where you lose half of a day on the Chicago end and the train is subject to being sold out).  You've got enough intermediate pairs from Omaha/Lincoln eastwards.

 

The main problem is that Denver (and the Front Range along with it) are sort-of isolated (SLC is a long haul with nothing in the middle over any route that can be run reasonably fast, and it in turn is horridly isolated as well).  I think if you could pair a reasonably fast (e.g. average speed of at least 80 MPH/runtime of <12 hours) train from Chicago to Denver with decent regional networks on each end (and multiple frequencies, of course) I think you could get a robust system there.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#30 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,875 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2016 - 12:57 PM

 

To get 90mph average on the CHI - NYP route we will need to get something like 125mph max speed on significant part of the route. That is not going to happen easily.

 

Give me 70 mph then, still an improvement. And it's not just the speed, it's eliminating freight interference. I remember practically sitting on the CL just outside of WAS, assumedly because of CSX. We get a freight free line between HAR and DET or HAR and CHI and I wouldn't even care that much about the speed.

 

CP offered $28 billion to buy NS. How much do you think it will take to just buy HAR-CHI from NS? $10-$15B? Not that Congress will spend it but at least put some figures out there.

 

 

Does the line have to be taken over wholesale?

 

Wasn't that corridor 4-track back in the days of the PRR?

 

And now its 2-track, maybe 3-track in places like Horseshoe Curve.

 

So maybe somebody could talk to NS and say, can we give you $$$$$ for the ROW you're not using?

 

A modest Amtrak service could be run on a line that's single track with short sections of double track. This is what Brightline wants to do.

 

There might still be a couple of pinchpoints such as at junctions where freights could slow down Amtrak, but it would be a huge improvement over today.

 

And construction coulod be phased as funds permit, with Amtrak continuing to use NS tracks in the interim.



#31 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 03 May 2016 - 01:23 PM

Grade separating the passenger tracks from freight at the junctions should not be all that expensive as an additional cost to get more predictable passenger service, I should think.

 

Indian Railways is doing something like this while they ironically build a new freight network to move the freight trains off the passenger network. The logic for doing a new freight trackage bypassing urban centers is that they wish the passenger network to continue to run through downtowns.

 

There is a vague plan to create a third HSR network eventually on the so called "Golden Quadrilateral" routes which will bypass urban centers but provide connections into the classic networks at both ends of select large urban center allowing trains to switch to the classic network to serve city center stations wherever desired.

 

Of course there is a difference between opportunistically building bits and pieces of an unplanned system vs. building out a planned system in many small steps, like the US Interstate system was built.



#32 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 03 May 2016 - 02:49 PM

Alright, I have to wonder: Presuming a decision not to do "full" HSR or electrify (likely limiting operations to 125 MPH or thereabouts), what's the highest average speed one could hope for on a 110/125 MPH alignment?  I know FEC is shooting for about 80 MPH average, I'm just wondering if it is feasible to "nudge" an operation any faster without needing the whole kit and caboodle of HSR equipment, overhead wire, etc.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#33 CCC1007

CCC1007

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,451 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 May 2016 - 02:52 PM

That would depend on how many stations you stop at, how many less than clear indications you get, curvature of the route, and amount of double track is layers on the route.

#34 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 03 May 2016 - 03:22 PM

Alright, I have to wonder: Presuming a decision not to do "full" HSR or electrify (likely limiting operations to 125 MPH or thereabouts), what's the highest average speed one could hope for on a 110/125 MPH alignment?  I know FEC is shooting for about 80 MPH average, I'm just wondering if it is feasible to "nudge" an operation any faster without needing the whole kit and caboodle of HSR equipment, overhead wire, etc.

 

Are we considering freight interference into your question?


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 


#35 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 04 May 2016 - 01:08 AM

Ok, here are my presumptions:
(1) Freight interference is mostly avoided.  Either the tracks are owned/leased by the passenger operator, there's agreed-upon physical separation even if the tracks are nominally freight-owned (and the dispatching agreement is pretty bad for the freight operator to break), or there's temporal separation of some sort.  Note that these options aren't mutually-exclusive, but the bottom line is that freight actually is subordinate to passenger operations unless you have a truly extraordinary situation (and/or the passenger train is horridly out-of-slot).
(2) I'm presuming that the route is entirely double-tracked or is double-tracked anywhere the passenger operations would demand it.
(3) Stop-wise, I'm assuming roughly one stop every 50 miles (on average) with a possible second "suburban" stop on each side of a sufficiently major/sprawling city (e.g. Chicago, Washington, Orlando).  Basically take AAF's present system plan and plop the long-expected Cocoa stop onto it for an idea of what I'm thinking.
(4) I'm presuming that there are few-to-no cases where you have a "bad stretch" (e.g. operations under about 40 MPH) that isn't in the immediate vicinity of an all-trains-stop-here station (where they'd have to slow down a little ways out anyway).  Basically you deal with the super-slow stretches like, IIRC, Springfield IL by either "fixing" the issue (possibly elevating track, possibly other, still-expensive options) or building a bypass.


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#36 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 04 May 2016 - 07:22 AM

Amtrak now owns most of BOS-WAS (except New Haven to New Rochelle, owned by Metro-North), Harrisburg-NYP, and part of the Wolverine route (Michigan DOT owns Kalamazoo-Detroit), but the CHI-STL route is still listed as owned by Union Pacific. Is the UP line being upgraded to 110 mph or will it be a new line? 


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 


#37 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,875 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 04 May 2016 - 07:26 AM

Alright, I have to wonder: Presuming a decision not to do "full" HSR or electrify (likely limiting operations to 125 MPH or thereabouts), what's the highest average speed one could hope for on a 110/125 MPH alignment?  I know FEC is shooting for about 80 MPH average, I'm just wondering if it is feasible to "nudge" an operation any faster without needing the whole kit and caboodle of HSR equipment, overhead wire, etc.

 

As far as I am aware the best ever done with conventional trains on conventional non electrifed tracks over long distances was British Rail's HST service with 125mph commercial top speed and start to stop averages of around 100mph being operated where conditions were favorable.  I think the Didcot to Swindon was for many years and maybe still is the world's fastest start to stop scheduled diesel passenger train, basically because they go full speed basically as fast as they could accelerate there and there were no go-slow bits in the middle.   

 

Today with multiple units rather than locomotives, you could accelerate a bit faster on the same nominal power and maybe shave a few minutes extra.

 

 However, in the long run, electrification is just the more attractive proposition. This is why the East Coast was electrified in the late 1980s and the Great Western is being electrified now.



#38 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 19,175 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 04 May 2016 - 08:10 AM

Amtrak now owns most of BOS-WAS (except New Haven to New Rochelle, owned by Metro-North), Harrisburg-NYP, and part of the Wolverine route (Michigan DOT owns Kalamazoo-Detroit), but the CHI-STL route is still listed as owned by Union Pacific. Is the UP line being upgraded to 110 mph or will it be a new line? 

The UP line is being upgraded. AFAICT there is no plan nor money to acquire that track from UP.

 

OTOH Poughkeepsie to Hoffmans part of the Empire Corridor is leased from CSX by NYSDOT and is now maintained, operated and dispatched by Amtrak.

 

Deland to Poinciana around Orlando is now owned and operated by the Central Florida Rail Authority (Sun Rail) and used by Amtrak Silver Service. Similarly Mangonia to Miami Intermodal Center (at Miami Airport) is owned and operated by Tri Rail and used by Amtrak Silver Service.



#39 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,130 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 05 May 2016 - 04:38 PM

 

Alright, I have to wonder: Presuming a decision not to do "full" HSR or electrify (likely limiting operations to 125 MPH or thereabouts), what's the highest average speed one could hope for on a 110/125 MPH alignment?  I know FEC is shooting for about 80 MPH average, I'm just wondering if it is feasible to "nudge" an operation any faster without needing the whole kit and caboodle of HSR equipment, overhead wire, etc.

 

As far as I am aware the best ever done with conventional trains on conventional non electrifed tracks over long distances was British Rail's HST service with 125mph commercial top speed and start to stop averages of around 100mph being operated where conditions were favorable.  I think the Didcot to Swindon was for many years and maybe still is the world's fastest start to stop scheduled diesel passenger train, basically because they go full speed basically as fast as they could accelerate there and there were no go-slow bits in the middle.   

 

Today with multiple units rather than locomotives, you could accelerate a bit faster on the same nominal power and maybe shave a few minutes extra.

 

 However, in the long run, electrification is just the more attractive proposition. This is why the East Coast was electrified in the late 1980s and the Great Western is being electrified now.

 

I agree with the point about the attractiveness of the proposition (electrification vs diesel operation); I was really more looking at the question of what could be managed if for some reason you can't cover all of a service with electrification (e.g. the sprawling services south of Washington, DC) and don't want to lose half an hour somewhere with a "toaster pop".

 

I'm basically looking at, presuming you could meet the operational separation requirements (e.g. having a more-or-less full dedicated track with good passing sidings), what you could theoretically do with the Florida services without getting into a fight over overhead wires (or Chicago-Denver, or any of a number of other services).


Capitol Limited (7), CA Zephyr (4) Lake Shore Limited (1), Acela (2), NE Regional (2), Sliver Meteor (4)

Upcoming: Silver Meteor (1), Lake Shore Limited (1), SW Chief (2), MO River Runner (1), Texas Eagle (1)

Possibly Upcoming: Either Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (2) or Texas Eagle (1), Capitol Limited (1), Silver Meteor (1)

#40 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,454 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 21 March 2017 - 03:26 PM

If the US ever considered investing in "high speed rail" (outside the NEC), what would be the targets in terms of distance and/or speed (ignore specific geographic areas or population for now)?

 

Assume the average car through highway traffic averages 50 mph (counting for local traffic and stops).

 

If the trip is 50 miles, even if we can go 100 mph on the train, you would save 1/2 hour. I'd probably still rather drive so I can set my own schedule. For a 100 mile trip at a train speed of 100 mph then you would save a full hour and that might start to become attractive.

 

Now I don't fly but too far a trip most people would rather fly. Assume a 500 mile trip at 100 mph (5 hours). I'm guessing that flight would be about 2 hours in the air but add security considerations the overall trip could be 3 or maybe 4 hours (last time I flew was the mid 90's so I have no idea as to the actual times). I can see people willing to take the train for 500 miles if it is only 1-2 more hours (also such train could also stop at intermediate points so the 100-200 mile trip which we already know is reasonable). Beyond that (assuming 100 mph) you're looking at many more hours extra on the train and those who are afraid of flying (me) or enjoy the scenery are taking LD trains now and time isn't as important (although I think all of us would like a faster train). Even at 100 mph, I doubt for a 1000 mile trip these "high speed trains" will ever be competitive with air travel (although it would be much better than cars or buses). Now if we could go 200 mph then everything changes).

 

So I'm thinking at 100 mph maybe 100-500 mile trips would be the target audience. Feel free to discuss the numbers.


Trains Traveled:
 
Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA) 
Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI)
Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS)
Lake Short Limited (NYP-CHI)
Silver Meteor (PHL-ORL)
Southwest Chief (CHI-LAX)
California Zephyr (CHI-SLC, SLC-EMY)
City of New Orleans and/or Illini (CHI-Champaign, IL)

 

Bring back the Broadway Limited (or Three Rivers or any Chicago-Pittsburgh-Philly train)!
 
 





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users