Jump to content




Help Support AmtrakTrains.com by donating using the link above or becoming a Supporting Member.

Photo

High Speed Rail Proposed for United City-States of America


  • Please log in to reply
67 replies to this topic

#41 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 24 March 2017 - 08:25 AM

Just to give you a ballpark figure, with no checked bags and with TSA-Pre it takes me 3.5 to 4 hours curb to curb from Orlando to Newark. The gate to gate time is about 2:45 out of that.

Having a checked bag adds at least 45 mins but more like an hour to that.

Note that Orlando has notoriously long TSA lines, but with Pre it is much better than without, and the lines move relatively smoothly usually.

Edited by jis, 26 March 2017 - 04:55 PM.


#42 me_little_me

me_little_me

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,341 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 26 March 2017 - 02:37 PM


 

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

I agree that 100mph consistent travel (except for slowing down for stations) would be sufficient for most trips of this length. As to shorter trips, trains could compete with cars and air if they went to large city airports. Half of airline hub city traffic (if my memory is correct) consists of short connecting flights from nearby airports. Given that trains can do this albeit even at less than 100mph, not only would it be better than a car but by eliminating local flights, would reduce airport costs by eliminating "hop" flights.



#43 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,956 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 March 2017 - 06:53 AM

Amtrak does not have any segment that would be rightfully called HSR anywhere else in the world these days. A few small segments of the NEC spine come close. But that's about it. There is nothing in PHL - HAR, or the Michigan Line that would be called HSR by anyone except a few in the US, and there is little chance that using the current ROW they will ever become HSR by world standard.


One of the issues that caused the UK's HS1 line from London to the Channel Tunnel to be delivered so late is that it was effectively a greenfield line. Some shorts ections are in places that had railroads before but mostly it was new build. As the London area has a high amount of sprawl, it was virtually impossible to find an alignment that didn't interfere with something. Lots of homes had to be acquired and legal cases bogged the project down and in fact forced them to chanhge their plans and reroute in many cases.

If there will ever be a greenfields route to dupliacte something like the NEC, they had better start early by earmarking land and making sure nothing gets built on it that will be expensive to take down when the time comes.

#44 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 27 March 2017 - 09:27 AM

Or they have to tunnel under everything in deep tubes. Expensive.

 

When they added capacity to the Tokyo Central they constructed the tracks that are used by among other, the NeX Airport Express trains. It is all in tunnels in central Tokyo with no footprint on the surface.

 

On the NEC South, there are significant lengths where speeds can be increased a bit more. The problem is track center distance. To fix that some minimal amount of land will have to be acquired along the ROW at its edges. This is actually feasible between Jersey Ave. (County) and Trenton (Ham), and at several places in Delaware and Maryland. NEC North is an entirely different kettle of fish. The only vaguely feasible way may be the extremely expensive proposition of building out along the LIE and digging under the Long Island Sound to get to RI basically avoiding all of Connecticut, which of course is also politically fraught. I would not hold my breath on that one. The alternative is to try to build some bypassess that are straighter around the worst parts. that won;t be easy either. Ironically I-95 has a significantly straighter alignment than the railroad which was apparently built along whatever cow path was available, even back then.



#45 Casey Jones

Casey Jones

    Train Attendant

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 29 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 March 2017 - 09:51 AM


 

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

Absolutely, the 500 mile and under midtown to midtown market (large population centers) is the prime area for train transportation.



#46 ainamkartma

ainamkartma

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 27 March 2017 - 12:51 PM

 


 

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

Absolutely, the 500 mile and under midtown to midtown market (large population centers) is the prime area for train transportation.

 

 

Sure, but with perhaps a couple of caveats:

1) At the present "HSR" speeds in the US, like the Acela, and

2) Assuming there exist nonstop flights between the endpoints: if flying involves changing planes at an intermediate hub, the equation changes.

 

I made a little stupid model of when flying or the train is faster, as a function of distance.  I made the following assumptions:

1) There is an additional time overhead associated with flying over taking the train, which involves everything from getting to the possibly remote airport to security to required check in times to the time it takes the plane to get from the gate to cruising speed.  I "determined" this time by forcing the rail and air trip from NYP to WAS to take the same amount of total time, which has been demonstrated in the past to be roughly the case.  The result was 2.5 hours of extra overhead time associated with flying, which at least is more or less consistent with reality.

 

2) The cruise speed of a plane is 400 mph.  I just made this up.

 

3) The additional overhead associated with stopping at a hub enroute is two hours.  I just made this up as well, based loosely on the many hundreds of hours I have spent in DFW and other airports over the decades.

 

Under these assumptions, obviously taking the train will be quicker for short trips and flying will be quicker for long ones, with a "crossover distance" at which the times are equal, with the crossover distance varying with train speed and number of airplane stops.  We can make a little table of the results (I hope the formatting works!):

 

                                              Crossover distance (flying is quicker if the distance is longer than this)

Number of stops enroute by air                 0 (nonstop)                         1 (stop at hub)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Train average speed         77 mph           240 miles                             430 miles                     (77 mph is the average speed of an Acela between NYP and WAS)

                                          100                 333                                     600

                                           150                 600                                    1000                            

 

So, sure, 500 miles is about the right cut off with the caveats mentioned above.  If we could build true high speed rail in the US, though, or if we were connecting non-hub cities with few or no nonstop flight connections, a longer distance might be time-competitive with flying.  Memphis-San Antonio (625 miles by air, 727 by road), to pick a pair of random non-hub cities: 11 hours driving time, 8 hours flying (according to my assumptions above), but would only take six or so hours by 100 mph high speed rail.

 

So given higher speeds and non-hub cities, the threshold where air takes over might be significantly higher.

 

Ainamkartma



#47 CraigDK

CraigDK

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland & Delaware
  • Interests:Railroading, Engineering, Aviation, Philosophy, Theology

Posted 27 March 2017 - 03:59 PM

...

 

On the NEC South, there are significant lengths where speeds can be increased a bit more. The problem is track center distance.

 

...

 

I know track center distance has been mentioned as an issue in the past. What sort of spacing is being suggested at a minimum for track centers?



#48 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,178 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 27 March 2017 - 04:25 PM

Apparently, ideally they would want something like 15' or more (if you really want two trains traveling at 186mph to cross without causing significant aerodynamic problems, but are unlikely to get too far beyond 13.5' to 14' with a little bit of luck and added expense. Currently some are as low as 12'2" Fortunately for the areas where they want to go to 160mph, apparently they can get it up to above 12'6" and closer to 13' in many places. This business of what is safe at 12'6" and 13' has been a major part of the study involving those high speed runs.



#49 CraigDK

CraigDK

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 127 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Maryland & Delaware
  • Interests:Railroading, Engineering, Aviation, Philosophy, Theology

Posted 27 March 2017 - 06:10 PM

Apparently, ideally they would want something like 15' or more (if you really want two trains traveling at 186mph to cross without causing significant aerodynamic problems, but are unlikely to get too far beyond 13.5' to 14' with a little bit of luck and added expense. Currently some are as low as 12'2" Fortunately for the areas where they want to go to 160mph, apparently they can get it up to above 12'6" and closer to 13' in many places. This business of what is safe at 12'6" and 13' has been a major part of the study involving those high speed runs.

 

Well 15' does certainly present a challenge, I suppose it could be worse.... Beyond physically having the property, it would most likely require rebuilding or replacing a fair number of the bridges along that particular stretch of tracks. Thinking aloud; assuming 4 tracks, it would be 45' between the centers of the two outer tracks, add 15' on each side of that you are now at 75'. If you went to 16' centers (as a worse case) and 16' outside the outer centers, that would be 80'.

 

I won't hold my breath that they will every actually rebuild a stretch of the southern NEC for 186 mph, but I sure would enjoy seeing that...



#50 Casey Jones

Casey Jones

    Train Attendant

  • Banned
  • Pip
  • 29 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 March 2017 - 07:07 PM

 

Apparently, ideally they would want something like 15' or more (if you really want two trains traveling at 186mph to cross without causing significant aerodynamic problems, but are unlikely to get too far beyond 13.5' to 14' with a little bit of luck and added expense. Currently some are as low as 12'2" Fortunately for the areas where they want to go to 160mph, apparently they can get it up to above 12'6" and closer to 13' in many places. This business of what is safe at 12'6" and 13' has been a major part of the study involving those high speed runs.

 

Well 15' does certainly present a challenge, I suppose it could be worse.... Beyond physically having the property, it would most likely require rebuilding or replacing a fair number of the bridges along that particular stretch of tracks. Thinking aloud; assuming 4 tracks, it would be 45' between the centers of the two outer tracks, add 15' on each side of that you are now at 75'. If you went to 16' centers (as a worse case) and 16' outside the outer centers, that would be 80'.

 

I won't hold my breath that they will every actually rebuild a stretch of the southern NEC for 186 mph, but I sure would enjoy seeing that...

 

Enormous outlay of tax dollars for minimal results.



#51 cirdan

cirdan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,956 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 28 March 2017 - 03:29 AM

3) The additional overhead associated with stopping at a hub enroute is two hours.  I just made this up as well, based loosely on the many hundreds of hours I have spent in DFW and other airports over the decades.
 
Under these assumptions, obviously taking the train will be quicker for short trips and flying will be quicker for long ones, with a "crossover distance" at which the times are equal, with the crossover distance varying with train speed and number of airplane stops.  We can make a little table of the results (I hope the formatting works!):
 
                                              Crossover distance (flying is quicker if the distance is longer than this)
Number of stops enroute by air                 0 (nonstop)                         1 (stop at hub)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Train average speed         77 mph           240 miles                             430 miles                     (77 mph is the average speed of an Acela between NYP and WAS)
                                          100                 333                                     600
                                           150                 600                                    1000                            
 
So, sure, 500 miles is about the right cut off with the caveats mentioned above.  If we could build true high speed rail in the US, though, or if we were connecting non-hub cities with few or no nonstop flight connections, a longer distance might be time-competitive with flying.  Memphis-San Antonio (625 miles by air, 727 by road), to pick a pair of random non-hub cities: 11 hours driving time, 8 hours flying (according to my assumptions above), but would only take six or so hours by 100 mph high speed rail.
 
So given higher speeds and non-hub cities, the threshold where air takes over might be significantly higher.
 
Ainamkartma


Apparently experience from France shows that in situiations where train and plane are about equivalent in terms of door to door speeds, people still prefer the train, with more people using trains athan planes.

And even in cases where the train is actually slower than the plane, there is a tolerance band where the train still leads the market. It's only when flyng can save you three hours or more that the market share of trains falls off rapidly.

I think this is down to such factors as perceived comfort, more generous carry-on allowances, no harrasment by security etc.

Edited by cirdan, 28 March 2017 - 03:31 AM.


#52 ainamkartma

ainamkartma

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 10:13 AM

Apparently experience from France shows that in situiations where train and plane are about equivalent in terms of door to door speeds, people still prefer the train, with more people using trains athan planes.

And even in cases where the train is actually slower than the plane, there is a tolerance band where the train still leads the market. It's only when flyng can save you three hours or more that the market share of trains falls off rapidly.

I think this is down to such factors as perceived comfort, more generous carry-on allowances, no harrasment by security etc.

 

 

I agree with all this, but I would add that there is also some evidence supporting your position from the US: for NYP to WAS, where at least there is a common perception that flying and rail are time equivalent, rail beats air for mode share by about two to one.  But for NYP to Boston, where there is no such perception, air beats rail by about 1.5 to one.  (And for Boston-Washington, over your three hour difference cut off, the rail share is a tiny fraction of air, although I have no source to back this up.)

 

Source for the NYP to WAS and BOS assertions.

 

Ainamkartma



#53 Philly Amtrak Fan

Philly Amtrak Fan

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Philadelphia Area

Posted 28 March 2017 - 01:36 PM

 

Apparently experience from France shows that in situiations where train and plane are about equivalent in terms of door to door speeds, people still prefer the train, with more people using trains athan planes.

And even in cases where the train is actually slower than the plane, there is a tolerance band where the train still leads the market. It's only when flyng can save you three hours or more that the market share of trains falls off rapidly.

I think this is down to such factors as perceived comfort, more generous carry-on allowances, no harrasment by security etc.

 

 

I agree with all this, but I would add that there is also some evidence supporting your position from the US: for NYP to WAS, where at least there is a common perception that flying and rail are time equivalent, rail beats air for mode share by about two to one.  But for NYP to Boston, where there is no such perception, air beats rail by about 1.5 to one.  (And for Boston-Washington, over your three hour difference cut off, the rail share is a tiny fraction of air, although I have no source to back this up.)

 

Source for the NYP to WAS and BOS assertions.

 

Ainamkartma

 

 

On p. 38 of the report:

 

"Amtrak’s intercity trains carry 46,000 people on average each day in the NEC Region, making up 54 percent of all Amtrak intercity rail trips in the U.S. Amtrak estimates it captures 75 percent of air-rail travelers between New York and Washington and 54 percent of air-rail travelers between New York and Boston."

 

So for New York-Boston, rail beats air, not the other way around. No data for Washington-Boston.


Trains Traveled: Broadway Limited (CHI-Harrisburg, PA), Three Rivers (Harrisburg, PA-CHI, Altoona, PA-CHI, PHL-CHI), Capitol Limited (CHI-WAS), Lake Shore 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)!
 
https://www.facebook...roadwayLimited/


#54 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 28 March 2017 - 02:23 PM

At least on the basis of the mass turnover at NYP I am inclined to suspect that the share WAS-BOS isn't very large.  I actually remember a few years ago when Southwest pulled out of a few airports, Amtrak noted that they were making an unusual amount of headway in some odd-and-end markets (PHL-PVD and PHL-BOS come to mind from that).


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)

#55 ainamkartma

ainamkartma

    Lead Service Attendant

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts

Posted 28 March 2017 - 03:24 PM

 

 

Apparently experience from France shows that in situiations where train and plane are about equivalent in terms of door to door speeds, people still prefer the train, with more people using trains athan planes.

And even in cases where the train is actually slower than the plane, there is a tolerance band where the train still leads the market. It's only when flyng can save you three hours or more that the market share of trains falls off rapidly.

I think this is down to such factors as perceived comfort, more generous carry-on allowances, no harrasment by security etc.

 

 

I agree with all this, but I would add that there is also some evidence supporting your position from the US: for NYP to WAS, where at least there is a common perception that flying and rail are time equivalent, rail beats air for mode share by about two to one.  But for NYP to Boston, where there is no such perception, air beats rail by about 1.5 to one.  (And for Boston-Washington, over your three hour difference cut off, the rail share is a tiny fraction of air, although I have no source to back this up.)

 

Source for the NYP to WAS and BOS assertions.

 

Ainamkartma

 

 

On p. 38 of the report:

 

"Amtrak’s intercity trains carry 46,000 people on average each day in the NEC Region, making up 54 percent of all Amtrak intercity rail trips in the U.S. Amtrak estimates it captures 75 percent of air-rail travelers between New York and Washington and 54 percent of air-rail travelers between New York and Boston."

 

So for New York-Boston, rail beats air, not the other way around. No data for Washington-Boston.

 

 

See figure 14 on page 36 for the daily rail passengers NYC-BOS.

 

The air number in that chart corresponds to the BOS-LGA passengers _only_ from Table 17 on page 42.  So the 1.5 to one number that I stated above is  (the annual air passengers to JFK, EWR, and LGA from Table 17, summed up and divided by 365) divided by the daily Amtrak ridership extracted from Figure 14.

 

Sorry for not being more clear with the reference.

 

I'm not sure where Amtrak's 54% claim comes from; it is not consistent with any of the other data presented in the report.  That doesn't mean it is wrong, though; the report contains plenty of other internal inconsistencies.

 

Ainamkartma



#56 Anderson

Anderson

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,234 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia

Posted 29 March 2017 - 12:18 AM

Well, in the case of Washington, what airport(s) are being used?  DCA, obviously, but are IAD and BWI in the mix?  BWI is sticky since that "should" also sweep in Baltimore Penn (and BWI) stations in terms of city pair comparison, nevermind New Carrollton and Alexandria.  On the New York end, if you throw in EWR, JFK, and LGA, do you also sweep in New Rochelle, Newark Penn, Newark Liberty, and Metropark?  And on the Boston end, do you include only South Station or do you also kick in Back Bay and Route 128?


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)

#57 MARC Rider

MARC Rider

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 822 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 03 April 2017 - 11:39 AM

 

 

 

2) The cruise speed of a plane is 400 mph.  I just made this up.

 

 

 

 

According top the flight tracker I accessed during my last airplane trip, our 737 cruised at about 450 mph on the south/westbound leg and at about 550-600 mph on the north/eastbound leg. (This is ground speed, not airspeed.)  Takeoff and landings were somewhere between 150 and 200 mph.  After takeoff, it took a good 20-30 minutes to to reach cruising speed, and on landing we started slowing down a good 30-45 minutes before actual touchdown.



#58 VentureForth

VentureForth

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond Hill, GA

Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:06 AM

(77 mph is the average speed of an Acela between NYP and WAS)


I figured closer to 68 MPH. 457 miles in 6h45m...

Interestingly with the jetstream moving from West to East, yes, the groundspeeds can vary by a couple hundred mph depending on direction.

Edited by VentureForth, 06 April 2017 - 11:07 AM.

14,223 Amtrak Miles. Many more to go.
Completed Routes: Capitol Limited, Palmetto
Also Ridden: Carolinian, Crescent, Pacific Surfliner, Piedmont, Southwest Chief, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Texas Eagle


#59 brianpmcdonnell17

brianpmcdonnell17

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 691 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:11 AM

(77 mph is the average speed of an Acela between NYP and WAS)

I figured closer to 68 MPH. 457 miles in 6h45m...

Interestingly with the jetstream moving from West to East, yes, the groundspeeds can vary by a couple hundred mph depending on direction.

The 68 MPH number is WAS-BOS, 77 MPH is WAS-NYP. The northern NEC is curvier and therefore slower. The trains also sometimes stop in NYP for awhile, which further reduces the average speed.
Routes Travelled: CL WAS-CHI, Card. CHI-WAS, Caro. CLT-RGH, CS SJC-LAX, Cre. BAL-ATL, EB MSP-CHI, ES NYG/NYP-NFL, LSL BOS-ALB, ML ALB-NYP, NER FBG-RVR+WAS-BOS, PS LAX-ANA, Pen. NYP-PGH, Pie. RGH-DNC, SM ORL-NYP, SS FTL-WAS
New Routes: LSL NYP-CHI, CZ CHI-RIC, CS SJC-SEA, EB SEA-MSP

#60 VentureForth

VentureForth

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,477 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond Hill, GA

Posted 06 April 2017 - 11:18 AM

We must clear the skies!!

Attached Files


14,223 Amtrak Miles. Many more to go.
Completed Routes: Capitol Limited, Palmetto
Also Ridden: Carolinian, Crescent, Pacific Surfliner, Piedmont, Southwest Chief, Silver Meteor, Silver Star, Texas Eagle





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users