Replying to Texas HSR back from the dead?

Ya'll have to remember Texas politics. If this thing gets ANY traction, Herb Kelleher's old business, Southwest Airlines, will do everything they can, with their impressive political clout, to squelch this project.

It's not just Southwest that would fight it.

There are legions of companies that make their money from maintaining and expanding our highways, tollways, and related infrastructure that would eagerly join Southwest.

To be perfectly frank I don't think this project is going anywhere unless and until they have buy-in from the agencies and groups who have a vested interest in the status quo.

Interesting discussion. I have advocated using the BRI routing for years as it is the shortest and most available. On the Dallas end the BRI used the MKT(now UP) to get into Dallas and went through Waxahachie and Lancaster. Those would be your suburban stops south of Dallas. Instead of continuing north after stopping at Union Station you would want to go west to Fort Worth with a stop for DFW airport. North Dallas is well served by DART which you can transfer to at Union Station. I know you can also utilize TRE to FW, but I am thinking Texas Triangle service here.

On the Houston end, Tomball(the Tomball station still exists) would now be the best surburban stop north of downtown. To maintain or exceed the four hour timing from the past you would have to initiate some grade crossing eliminations at both ends, particularly Houston as the city has grown immensely since 1965. Distance is around 249 miles which if you could raise the track standards to around 90-110mph you could get the times down to at least 3.5hrs.

The tiny Houston station has a second track that could be used until a suitable station is constructed. The main post office, which replaced the beautiful old SP station, is now being abandoned so a new station could be built using part of that building.

One advantage to using the BRI tracks into Houston would be the train is pointed in the right direction to continue on to San Antonio, hence the Texas Triangle again.

One interesting thought, if you add up the total Texas Triangle, Dallas to San Antonio - 314 miles, SAS to Houston - 210 miles, and Houston to Dallas - 249 miles, it exceeds the 750 mile threshold for state support............so Amtrak could start up the service without any support from Texas. To institute twice daily service over the entire route, utilizing the existing Eagles and Sunsets as one train, you would only need four sets of equipment plus spares. Haha. Anyway, I hope something comes of all this, but I am not holding my breath as this has been popping up again and again for the last 20 years.

Yes, a suburban stop on each end would be a very good idea. Still, when talking overall times, it is normal to talk in terms of mid-city to mid-city times. Even a far side stop could be a good idea. This is what is done in many other systems. The Taiwan system, being in a sense similar as it is a straight end point to end point system. The north end has a suburban stop near the edge of the main blob of Taipei. Between it and downtown Taipei the line follows the existing railroad and has a maximum speed of 50 mph (if I remember correctly). Likewise, the south end currently ends at what will become the Kaohsiung north side suburban station. The difference from what happens quite frequently in railroad service in the US is that the speeds on these last few miles in Taiwan is in the 40 to 50 mph range, not the common 15 to 25 mph for the last few miles into a major US city.

A more detailed post to this effect got eaten up by my browser (Bad browser! Bad! No cookie for you!), but in general I'd think that it might be desirable to have two "endpoint" stations and then to, depending on the location of those, either extend the lines into the city at conventional speeds (if the stations are suburban) or to put in a suburban stop or two (if the stations are closer to the city center). Broadly speaking, I'm thinking in the vein of BOS, BBY, and RTE (or NYP and NWK).

Of course, this would obviously apply more to conventional service than to a bullet train, but even there it might well make sense in terms of both spreading out parking demand and attracting more traffic. It's not going to help ridership if people have to fight their way into downtown from some of the more distant suburbs (note that I'm aiming this at the sheer size of some of the metro areas in Texas), and likewise you'd probably gain ridership if folks on the "far side" of town didn't have to cross the metro area.

Note that such stops wouldn't necessarily have to be hit by every train...if you had half-hourly service, you could simply have hourly service at the suburban stops. I would also point out that if you set up the line to run to downtown, it would probably be feasible to work with the operator to plan some expansions to the commuter rail/light rail system, opening up a lot of transfer possibilities.

it is not possible to develop a time by maximum speed divided by distance.

There will always be slower segments at the ends, time to accelerate and brake, the practicalities that the usual is to base schedules on no more than 90% of train performance and maximum speeds, otherwise you would have absolutely zero reliability. The original 4 hour schedule on the old BRI route was based on a 90 mph speed limit and maintained after teh speed was reduced to 79 mph by being allowed to fudge the speed limits. 245 miles by 79 mph would barely be over 3 hours and the schedule was never less than 4. To get a reliable 3 hours with 125 mph would mean that some of the slow areas near the ends would have to be improved as well. It could probablyh be set up at 3 hours with a 110 mph speed limit and quite a bit of work on the lower speed areas at the ends, but the reliability would be less.

A direct link between Dallas and Houston at just 110 mph like the Wolverine would be killer in that market. The run would be about 2.5 hours and would instantly be faster than the schlep through DAL/DFW and IAH.

I suspect that you're assuming 110 MPH almost all the way. I honestly think you'd need 125 MPH top speeds to achieve what you're talking about, since somewhere along the line you'd either have a non-top speed curve or two or a bridge requiring at least a partial slowdown (even the NEC has these). I'd also be inclined to, with a non-bullet train option, suggest adding a few stops for at least one or two locations for a few slightly slower trains (I'm thinking in the vein of the Acela here), either "suburban" stops on the way into/out of Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston...or extending the run to the existing Amtrak stations if different termini were planned. Fortunately, there's nothing between the metro areas really requiring a stop unless Corsicana or Huntsville is dying for a stop for one or two daily trains to "stop in and say hi" (like the Acela with Metropark, for example).

With the bullet train option, I'd still be inclined towards suggesting one or two stops in the "suburban supplementary stop" vein and/or extensions as close to the existing train stations as possible (i.e. if a DFW terminus were selected, trying to get the train extended a bit closer to downtown; the same would apply if Bush International were picked in Houston).

A direct link between Dallas and Houston at just 110 mph like the Wolverine would be killer in that market. The run would be about 2.5 hours and would instantly be faster than the schlep through DAL/DFW and IAH.

George,
Good points on alignment selection. That actually makes a lot of sense...it's certainly going to ease the costs if they have a "ready made" alignment to run most of the route on (pending any need to straighten the route to cut a few curves or to ease some corners).

One of the big things here is that, from what I can tell, they're not pursuing any government funding (in fact, they're actively avoiding it)...which removes one avenue for government obstruction (funding strings and/or funding bottlenecks). Considering that it is an HSR line, I'm also hopeful that (should Obama be re-elected) any attempts by the Texas government to get in the way would be met by some arm-twisting or jurisdictional interference from the Feds. Considering how much Obama has been behind HSR, I could see it something in this vein...and somehow, I doubt that SWA has too much pull with the FRA.

There's one other hiccup: If Central Japan puts $10 billion into this operation, then I suspect they're going to be willing to (by way of Texas Central if need be) put up plenty of money for the resulting lobbying fight. As near as I can tell, Central Japan has somewhere around $1 billion per year in profits to "play" with right now. They should be able to afford the legal teams to fight any roadblocks.

Also, it has struck me that Central Japan is moving now because of the strength of the Yen...if they take out their investment loans in Japan but spend the money in the US, then (one suspects) that in the long run that would make it easier to pay off if the Yen weakens substantially. Basically, I'm getting the distinct feeling that Japan Central wants to diversify out of Japan while the currency situation is as favorable as it is.

First, Dallas to Houston should be the world's cheapest to build high speed railroad based on terrain and population density of the area between terminals. That is of course assuming that they do the straightest possible Dallas Houston, which would unfortunately not go through College Station. It would follow the old BRI direct route between Corsicana and Houston and the ex SP route between Corsicana and Dallas. This would be about 245 miles. The BRI line is now a BNSF secondary main. Pre BN + ATSF it was the BN route to Houston, but ATSF had a parallel line, so could be that the HSR people could buy it outright.

To go through College Station would make the distance about 265 mile and raise the cost drastically. The additional cost and distance might overwhelm the increased ridership, and would certainly add a lot to the complexities of getting the system going.

Ya'll have to remember Texas politics. If this thing gets ANY traction, Herb Kelleher's old business, Southwest Airlines, will do everything they can, with their impressive political clout, to squelch this project.

Just wish that SWA would (OK, "fantasy" but there's enuff of that on here to go around) get BEHIND a project like this, and use as a feeder to the airports they serve in Texas. Think of the cost savings, and PR they could get, and knowing SWA, they'd do it (both operations and PR) right.