Jump to content


High Speed Rail Proposed for United City-States of America

  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#41 jis



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 18,854 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, Yesterday, 04:55 PM.

#42 me_little_me



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,155 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Yesterday, 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



  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,838 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted Today, 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.

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users