Jump to content




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

Photo

A comparison of high speed rail on different countries


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 GBNorman

GBNorman

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:BNSF Chicago Sub MP 18.74
  • Interests:Retired CPA; employed within railroad industry 1970-81

Posted 22 August 2018 - 02:45 AM

From Salzburg Hbf---

Austria does not have HSR (300kmh), but apparently they plan such "one of these days". Their premium Railjet (on which I just missed to go to Innsbruck - more interest talking to hotel's Gen Mgr - superb - and patting dogs, so DARN; have to wait an hour for the next) moves at 250km where it can over their incrementally improved ROW.

But, from what the paying passenger sees, the incremental improvements can be. To avoid arduous traffic and change of direction moves approaching Vienna (think accessing Chicago any route except BNSF) they dug a 6km "cut and cover" tunnel. Now, as reported in TRAINS, they are boring a 25km tunnel to replace the Semmering Pass on the Graz - Vienna route.

While I claim not to know of the politicking involved, they know how to build over here.

Finally, while riding Graz to Vienna, I met a "thirtysomething" Polish girl who is with FedEx and of course speaks English. Mentioning to her how all we do Stateside is politik on rails, I also told her about the Hudson River tunnels. I said to her they are 100 years old and handling three times the traffic they were built for. If one of 'em springs a leak, travel between Boston and Wash as well as hundred of thousand commuters from the West will be disrupted. If both of 'em spring leaks?? "Uh my dear, let's not go there".
  • daybeers likes this

#22 cpotisch

cpotisch

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY
  • Interests:Planes, Trains, Cooking, Politics

Posted 22 August 2018 - 03:00 AM

From Salzburg Hbf---

Austria does not have HSR (300kmh), but apparently they plan such "one of these days". Their premium Railjet (on which I just missed to go to Innsbruck - more interest talking to hotel's Gen Mgr - superb - and patting dogs, so DARN; have to wait an hour for the next) moves at 250km where it can over their incrementally improved ROW.

It looks like Railjet actually goes a maximum of 230 kmh, however that still counts as high speed rail. It's just not nearly as fast as some of the other European high speed trains.


Edited by cpotisch, 22 August 2018 - 03:00 AM.

Routes Traveled: Silver Meteor, Silver Star, CrescentLake Shore LimitedCalifornia Zephyr, Sunset Limited, Texas EagleEthan Allen Express, Empire Service, Maple Leaf, AdirondackAcela Express, Northeast RegionalKeystone Service, Downeaster w/ Great Dome
 
Wish List: Auto Train, Cardinal, CONO, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, Crescent (overnight), Adirondack w/ Great Dome


#23 slasher-fun

slasher-fun

    Train Attendant

  • Training
  • Pip
  • 19 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2018 - 08:36 AM

Exactly, Railjet trainsets can reach a maximum speed of 230 kph, which is also the maximum speed of ICE trains in Austria, although some line sections in Austria are build for speeds up to 250 kph.



#24 VentureForth

VentureForth

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond Hill, GA

Posted 23 August 2018 - 12:12 PM

Waitaminnit... Acela goes 150 MPH which is 240 kph, but people say it's not "real" HSR. ;)

Edited by VentureForth, 23 August 2018 - 12:12 PM.

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


#25 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,033 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 23 August 2018 - 12:19 PM

Waitaminnit... Acela goes 150 MPH which is 240 kph, but people say it's not "real" HSR. ;)

 

My generic family sedan can reach 120MPH under ideal conditions, but I'd have to be incredibly ignorant or deceitful to call it a "real" sports car.  In my experience the Acela averages around 65MPH from origin to terminus, which places it firmly in the conventional rail speed segment for the year 2018.


Edited by Devil's Advocate, 23 August 2018 - 12:37 PM.

  • cpotisch likes this

.


#26 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 23 August 2018 - 12:28 PM

Here is a pointer to a reasonable blurb on how HSR is defined by UIC and Incorporated in a EU directive, for what it is worth:

 

https://en.wikipedia...ail#Definitions

 

Now whether any of that would be acceptable to our fine tastes in the US is anyone's guess :P


  • Pere Flyer likes this

#27 bretton88

bretton88

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Posted 24 August 2018 - 10:13 AM

Here is a pointer to a reasonable blurb on how HSR is defined by UIC and Incorporated in a EU directive, for what it is worth:
 
https://en.wikipedia...ail#Definitions
 
Now whether any of that would be acceptable to our fine tastes in the US is anyone's guess :P

Under those definitions, even the regionals are HSR (category 3). Acela is borderline category 2/3. So I guess we aren't wrong in saying the NEC is HSR. It's just not a fancy HSR.
  • jis likes this

If I won the lottery, I'd probably build a passenger from nowhere to nowhere.


#28 cpotisch

cpotisch

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY
  • Interests:Planes, Trains, Cooking, Politics

Posted 24 August 2018 - 12:09 PM

Here is a pointer to a reasonable blurb on how HSR is defined by UIC and Incorporated in a EU directive, for what it is worth:

 

https://en.wikipedia...ail#Definitions

 

Now whether any of that would be acceptable to our fine tastes in the US is anyone's guess :P

So it's either a minimum of 124 mph or 155 mph, depending on who you ask. Unfortunately that means that with the former, Acela and even the NER would be considering high-speed. Under the latter, there are no high speed rail lines in all of North America. So that's a pretty big discrepancy.


Routes Traveled: Silver Meteor, Silver Star, CrescentLake Shore LimitedCalifornia Zephyr, Sunset Limited, Texas EagleEthan Allen Express, Empire Service, Maple Leaf, AdirondackAcela Express, Northeast RegionalKeystone Service, Downeaster w/ Great Dome
 
Wish List: Auto Train, Cardinal, CONO, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, Crescent (overnight), Adirondack w/ Great Dome


#29 bretton88

bretton88

    Conductor

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 884 posts

Posted 24 August 2018 - 02:02 PM

Here is a pointer to a reasonable blurb on how HSR is defined by UIC and Incorporated in a EU directive, for what it is worth:
 
https://en.wikipedia...ail#Definitions
 
Now whether any of that would be acceptable to our fine tastes in the US is anyone's guess :P

So it's either a minimum of 124 mph or 155 mph, depending on who you ask. Unfortunately that means that with the former, Acela and even the NER would be considering high-speed. Under the latter, there are no high speed rail lines in all of North America. So that's a pretty big discrepancy.
I would argue the NEC falls under the "existing tracks" category. Especially since most of the upgrades have been for high speed purposes. So in which case Acela qualifies under all definitions. It's interesting that the regionals and Acela qualify under the UIC definition. I guess the NEC isn't so shabby after all ;)

If I won the lottery, I'd probably build a passenger from nowhere to nowhere.


#30 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,033 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 24 August 2018 - 02:24 PM

For me high speed rail isn't about the country so much as the era. I think you could make an excellent case for Metroliners being high speed rail at the time of their design and introduction back in the 1960's. Here in 2018 Acela's 65MPH average speed flunks any meaningful definition of high speed rail. The fact that it can get up to 150MPH for a tiny little PR-sized section of the total route is not statistically relevant to me. Acela's heavy reliance on arbitrarily faster speed limits and higher priority dispatching combined with Acela's inability to substantially exceed the top design speed of conventional NER trains is the final nail in the coffin for me.
  • Ziv, daybeers, Pere Flyer and 1 other like this

.


#31 Ziv

Ziv

    OBS Chief

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 475 posts

Posted 26 August 2018 - 06:36 AM

Given the NEC route and the curves it has, it just seems like there is no way the US will ever have "true HSR" on the NEC. I have no idea what impact a 50% reduction in the cost of tunneling would have on the prospects for the NEC to dig under some of the worst curves. Is it possible that the Boring Company could eventually drive industry improvements in the cost of tunneling and thereby allow some of the slower sections of the NEC to be dug down, straightened and sped up? It just seems like it would take too much tunneling to be feasible, but it is possible that 2 or 3 relatively short tunnels could piece together 3 or 4 medium length straightaways into 1 relatively long straight away. Maybe.

Without tunneling, I just don't see the NEC getting much faster. And tunneling is too expensive at this point to be considered in any but the most drastic situations.

 

 

For me high speed rail isn't about the country so much as the era. I think you could make an excellent case for Metroliners being high speed rail at the time of their design and introduction back in the 1960's. Here in 2018 Acela's 65MPH average speed flunks any meaningful definition of high speed rail. The fact that it can get up to 150MPH for a tiny little PR-sized section of the total route is not statistically relevant to me. Acela's heavy reliance on arbitrarily faster speed limits and higher priority dispatching combined with Acela's inability to substantially exceed the top design speed of conventional NER trains is the final nail in the coffin for me.


Edited by Ziv, 26 August 2018 - 06:37 AM.


#32 VentureForth

VentureForth

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,774 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Richmond Hill, GA

Posted 26 August 2018 - 09:06 PM

For me high speed rail isn't about the country so much as the era. I think you could make an excellent case for Metroliners being high speed rail at the time of their design and introduction back in the 1960's. Here in 2018 Acela's 65MPH average speed flunks any meaningful definition of high speed rail. The fact that it can get up to 150MPH for a tiny little PR-sized section of the total route is not statistically relevant to me. Acela's heavy reliance on arbitrarily faster speed limits and higher priority dispatching combined with Acela's inability to substantially exceed the top design speed of conventional NER trains is the final nail in the coffin for me.


Yeah, I do share your point of view. It is sad how little time is gained on Acela vs NER. 115mph ain't fantastic, but it sure beats driving. Nothing to sneeze at.

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


#33 cpotisch

cpotisch

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,642 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brooklyn, NY
  • Interests:Planes, Trains, Cooking, Politics

Posted 27 August 2018 - 11:16 AM

 

Given the NEC route and the curves it has, it just seems like there is no way the US will ever have "true HSR" on the NEC. I have no idea what impact a 50% reduction in the cost of tunneling would have on the prospects for the NEC to dig under some of the worst curves. Is it possible that the Boring Company could eventually drive industry improvements in the cost of tunneling and thereby allow some of the slower sections of the NEC to be dug down, straightened and sped up? It just seems like it would take too much tunneling to be feasible, but it is possible that 2 or 3 relatively short tunnels could piece together 3 or 4 medium length straightaways into 1 relatively long straight away. Maybe.

Without tunneling, I just don't see the NEC getting much faster. And tunneling is too expensive at this point to be considered in any but the most drastic situations.

 

 

For me high speed rail isn't about the country so much as the era. I think you could make an excellent case for Metroliners being high speed rail at the time of their design and introduction back in the 1960's. Here in 2018 Acela's 65MPH average speed flunks any meaningful definition of high speed rail. The fact that it can get up to 150MPH for a tiny little PR-sized section of the total route is not statistically relevant to me. Acela's heavy reliance on arbitrarily faster speed limits and higher priority dispatching combined with Acela's inability to substantially exceed the top design speed of conventional NER trains is the final nail in the coffin for me.

 

I don't quite understand why they would have to tunnel to increase speeds? If they fitted constant-tension catenary south of NY and increased the gap between sets of curved track (when they were designing it, they didn't take into account the tilting train sets around curves), they could likely increase speeds significantly. Neither of those would require digging tunnels or anything like that.


Routes Traveled: Silver Meteor, Silver Star, CrescentLake Shore LimitedCalifornia Zephyr, Sunset Limited, Texas EagleEthan Allen Express, Empire Service, Maple Leaf, AdirondackAcela Express, Northeast RegionalKeystone Service, Downeaster w/ Great Dome
 
Wish List: Auto Train, Cardinal, CONO, Empire Builder, Southwest Chief, Crescent (overnight), Adirondack w/ Great Dome


#34 Devil's Advocate

Devil's Advocate

    Engineer

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 10,033 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 27 August 2018 - 11:34 AM

 

 

For me high speed rail isn't about the country so much as the era. I think you could make an excellent case for Metroliners being high speed rail at the time of their design and introduction back in the 1960's. Here in 2018 Acela's 65MPH average speed flunks any meaningful definition of high speed rail. The fact that it can get up to 150MPH for a tiny little PR-sized section of the total route is not statistically relevant to me. Acela's heavy reliance on arbitrarily faster speed limits and higher priority dispatching combined with Acela's inability to substantially exceed the top design speed of conventional NER trains is the final nail in the coffin for me.

Given the NEC route and the curves it has, it just seems like there is no way the US will ever have "true HSR" on the NEC. I have no idea what impact a 50% reduction in the cost of tunneling would have on the prospects for the NEC to dig under some of the worst curves. Is it possible that the Boring Company could eventually drive industry improvements in the cost of tunneling and thereby allow some of the slower sections of the NEC to be dug down, straightened and sped up? It just seems like it would take too much tunneling to be feasible, but it is possible that 2 or 3 relatively short tunnels could piece together 3 or 4 medium length straightaways into 1 relatively long straight away. Maybe. Without tunneling, I just don't see the NEC getting much faster. And tunneling is too expensive at this point to be considered in any but the most drastic situations.

 

I don't quite understand why they would have to tunnel to increase speeds? If they fitted constant-tension catenary south of NY and increased the gap between sets of curved track (when they were designing it, they didn't take into account the tilting train sets around curves), they could likely increase speeds significantly. Neither of those would require digging tunnels or anything like that.

 


What you're describing wouldn't do much if anything to increase maximum speeds, but it could do a lot to help increase average speeds, and for regular commuters it would probably be a lot more meaningful.


Edited by Devil's Advocate, 27 August 2018 - 12:22 PM.

  • daybeers and cpotisch like this

.


#35 jis

jis

    Engineer

  • Gathering Team Member
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,718 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Space Coast, Florida, Area code 3-2-1
  • Interests:Trains, Planes and Travel

Posted 27 August 2018 - 01:06 PM

If you carefully read the Tier I EIS for the NEC you will see that what cpotisch describes is exactly the focus of one of the levels of enhancement proposed. It still involves tunneling between New Brunswick and Rahway, since there is no way to find the real estate on the surface for any cheaper than digging tunnels to wither increase the track center distances or straighten the curves around Metuchec and Metropark. Those curves separate two significant lengths of track where 125+ speeds are possible and removing the 90mph speed limits through that area will reduce running times significantly..

 

In general, it is quite difficult to find the real estate to increase track center distances in NJ until you get past Princeton Jct, and even that is becoming difficult with the suburban sprawl along the ROW. The second issue is that finding space for increasing track center will also involve basically tearing down most of the electrification gantries and building new ones with wider space underneath them, which essentially amounts to re-eletrifying the entire route, which itself is probably a billion dollar project.

 

Anyway, these issue have been considered in some detail even in the Tier I EIS, and I am sure will be dealt with in detail when Tier II EIS' are developed.


  • daybeers and cpotisch like this




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users