High Speed Service.

[Anonymous]

The way to have high speed rail service is easy.
1. Have trains running at 150 mph on existing tracks we have the technology (British intercity Train)
2. Get rid of grade crossings and small town stops, such as why do long distance trains out of cities suc as Chicago need to stop at a station 20 miles outside of Chicago?
3. Combine trains and routes Have Miami bound trains divide in like South Carolina and have half the train go to miami and the other half to new orleans.

If this was done and the average speed on all trains was 150 mph you could go to in about

Miami- new york in 7 hours
Chicago-new york 6 hours
Chicago-Los angeles in 14 hours

[DSchmitt]

1. upgrade existing tracks, signals, etc so that trains can run that fast: $$$$$$$$
2a. eliminate grade crossings: $$$$$$$$
2b. eliminate stops: can be done, but what are the alternatives will be provided for service to them $$$$$$$

What about freight trains? How do you get them out of the way? Freight pays for the infrastructure. Passengers trains are an expence. They don't recover their costs. $$$$$$$

Who will pay the costs? Is the benefit worth the costs?

[TH&B]

1) Where in England do they go 150mph on existing right of ways ??? And if they in fact do it must have started very recently and not be on very many routes. I know that Intercity 225 trains realy did not travel 225km/h for many years because it is not that easy to do. And if it took so many years to develope then it would also take years in the US. England built their railways alignments to very high satandards right from start ((exept with tight clearances)) compared to the US and still 150mph is pushing the limit especialy if you want to average 150. Even Germany and France mostly build new alignments for such speeds.

2) Grade crossing costs of course are relative to the costs of other options and political winds, long and short term considerations. A very good idea on busy crossings even if it is expensive, I think it would reduce delays and accidents and be well worth the value of our taxes and investments.

3) Good idea.

But I think 90mph is fast enough realy.

[Anonymous]

It would be great if we had train service doing this, but it would take years to do and billions of dollars. It's taken the past 5 years for North Carolina to upgrade track conditions and grade crossings only from Charlotte to Raleigh to where trains will only be able to operate at maximum speeds of 110 mph. It would take even longer and more money to do it through the entire state and for rail service that could reach speeds of 150 mph. Don't think you could ever average 150 though; Acela speeds top at 150 and you of course have station stops and the acceleration and braking times between the stations also.

I would like to see Bombardier's JetTrain technology put into place if the railroads ever did come to do this operational level, rather than electrifying hundreds upon hundreds of miles of track.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CHPENNSYLVANIA

The way to have high speed rail service is easy.
1. Have trains running at 150 mph on existing tracks we have the technology (British intercity Train)
2. Get rid of grade crossings and small town stops, such as why do long distance trains out of cities suc as Chicago need to stop at a station 20 miles outside of Chicago?
3. Combine trains and routes Have Miami bound trains divide in like South Carolina and have half the train go to miami and the other half to new orleans.

If this was done and the average speed on all trains was 150 mph you could go to in about

Miami- new york in 7 hours
Chicago-new york 6 hours
Chicago-Los angeles in 14 hours

why in the world would you want to do that?!?!?!!?!?!
wouldnt you rather just take a slower ride at only 60 or 70 miles per hour??
and what about keeping things and people off the tracks????

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: trainman2244 Posted: Today, 15:56:30
QUOTE: Originally posted by CHPENNSYLVANIA

The way to have high speed rail service is easy.
1. Have trains running at 150 mph on existing tracks we have the technology (British intercity Train)
2. Get rid of grade crossings and small town stops, such as why do long distance trains out of cities suc as Chicago need to stop at a station 20 miles outside of Chicago?
3. Combine trains and routes Have Miami bound trains divide in like South Carolina and have half the train go to miami and the other half to new orleans.

If this was done and the average speed on all trains was 150 mph you could go to in about

Miami- new york in 7 hours
Chicago-new york 6 hours
Chicago-Los angeles in 14 hours


why in the world would you want to do that?!?!?!!?!?!
wouldnt you rather just take a slower ride at only 60 or 70 miles per hour??
and what about keeping things and people off the tracks????

If the railroads are ever going to compete with the airlines and interstates, they're going to have go faster than that. I think train speeds would be good at 110 mph and averaging around 85 so that you're at least going faster than you would be on the interstate (legally anyway.) Longer trips might have to see speeds up to 150, but it will be some time before we see that outside of the NEC.

[mudchicken]

I sure don't see any big straight open cuts between Chicago and LA...There's this thing out here called the Rocky Mountains.......

Chicago to LA = 2030 miles +/- ...at 14 hours you would be averaging 145mph even if you got a running start out in Indiana somewhere and hith the brakes out in the ocean and never stopped anywhere in-between...... nope, not today trainhopper...

[DSchmitt]

No train can beat the speed of a plane over a distance of any appreciable length.

On shorter runs they or at least potentially are competitive.

For instance the NE corridor, LA-San Diego, San Francisco-Sacramento, Sacramento-Reno as long as the stations are close enough to the starting points and destinations. However for most of these routes the public still find the automobile on the Highway provides better service. This may change someday.

However even with better rail service most people will probably not be in a position where it is useful to them, especially people traveling for non-commute reasons whether that be business or recreation.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

The way to high speed passenger rail service ain't easy!!!

1. Have trains running at 150 mph.Is that average speed or top speed? If 150 mph is the average speed then the top speed would have to be around 180 mph. I have ridden the Eurostar between London and Paris, and I have observed the top speed was around 185 mph. And by the way the Eurostar only gets up to high speeds in France and Belgium; the top speed in England is still only 100mph.

2. Eliminate grade crossings and [frequent] stops. Both are necessary, but who will pay for closing the grade crossings, and constructing alternate routes around the closed crossing? FYI the Acela Express runs through territory that still has grade crossings, Mystic, CT. However, its speed there is low.

3. Miami - New York in 7 hours? Try 9 hours
Chicago - New York in 6 Hours? What abut the Allegheny Mountains
in between?
Chicago -LA in 14 hours? What about the Rockies in the way? How
competitive timewise would that be with flying? A plane could easily make
a round trip between those two cities in that time.

In short, high speed passenger rail is NOT competitive timewise with flying
on a portal -to-portal basis if the train travel time is much more than 3 hours
so those trips are not realistic.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: RudyRockvilleMD Posted: Today, 21:38:23
And by the way the Eurostar only gets up to high speeds in France and Belgium; the top speed in England is still only 100mph.

Didn't they up the speed of the Eurostar in Britain a few months ago? Or is that what they raised it to?

[Hugh Jampton]

Section 1 of the Channel Tunnel Rial Link Opened last September, so Eurostar runs at high speed (186mph) from just outside London. It's cut 20 minutes of the journey time to Paris.

Rail is can be competitive over short distances because of 3 main reasons.
1> Airports are out of town & the journey time to the airport can be as much as an hour, while train stations are located in the city centre.
2> Check in for a plane can be as much as 2 hours & then there's all that security. At worst some trains you have to check in 30 minutes prior to departure & security is minimal
3> When you get where you're going you have to hang around for an indeterminate amount of time waiting for your baggage and when you get it you're still an hour away from the city centre.

A friend and I are having a race to Brussels in 2 weeks,, (London King Cross to Brussels Midi) he's flying & I'm going by train. It'll be close, but I reckon I might just win.

[Anonymous]

High speed rail won't be competive with the airlines when distances surpass 400-500 miles. They simply lose too much time. I believe that individual high speed rail corridors connecting major cities will be what we see first. Outside of the NEC, I can see routes like:

• Washington, D.C. - Charlotte via Richmond and Raleigh
• Dallas - Houston
• Chicago Hub and Spoke to Indianapolis, Milwaukee, Des Moines, St. Louis, etc.
• Tampa - Orlando and Miami
• Cleveland - Cincinatti via Columbus
• California lines
• Seattle - Portland
• Few more that I can't think of at this time...

These are all within a few hundred miles of each other and large cities that could support the demand for high speed rail service.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Section 1 of the Channel Tunnel Rial Link Opened last September, so Eurostar runs at high speed (186mph) from just outside London. It's cut 20 minutes of the journey time to Paris.

Thought I'd heard that and wasn't making it up off the top of my head. Thanks.

[Overmod]

A potentially important point: Sheer speed isn't that useful for long trips above a certain duration. This was one of the things recognized in the California Zephyr timings... when the passengers are in bed, as they will certainly be at some point, you do NOT want to be whizzing them uncomfortably along. You also don't gain any advantage from high speed if pax arrive at inconvenient times, or in a frazzled condition.

One point about the proposed '14-hour' service is that it gives effective one-day business service between the two cities, if the scheduling is conducted as it was in the days of the Century and Broadway (leave in the afternoon to arrive early enough to allow civilized awakening and dressing the next morning). It's harder to go west-to-east because of the two-hour time loss, but still...

However, as pointed out, I don't think you could achieve this kind of timing with practical adaptation of existing ROWs, and certainly if sharing trackage with any conventional form of ordinary freight. Which indicates that TWO-day service is the common-sense fallback, and this yields much more sensible (though still high-maximum-speed) overall timings.

The point is that you'll get far more customers with friendly and sensible timings and schedule, as opposed to mere high speed, in just about any long-distance run. (You're also likelier to prevail based on amenities or experience than you are on 'time competitiveness' -- 14 hours in a coach train, no matter how good the diner, is an eternity compared to 6 max by air all the way from coast to coast...)

[RudyRockvilleMD]

This is for Hugh Jampton.
I would bet you would win the race from London to Brussels by Eurostar especially if its speed in England has increased.