Edit post

Edit your reply below.

Post Body
Enter your post below.
[quote]QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod [quote]QUOTE: In the Acela thread I advocated true high speed in excess of 200+ [/quote] Do you have any earthly idea of what is involved,and what it costs, to build and maintain trackwork for "200+" mph speeds -- whether or not running FRA-compliant trains on it -- as opposed to 120mph or even 150mph standards? mudchicken will have some words with you, I think... [/quote] MC doesn't happen to be around, so I will. The problem with high speed, in a most global sense, is that track construction and maintenance costs go up disproportionally (virtually exponentially) for speeds above about 110 mph. With maintenance this is a BIG, BIG issue, and not just to retain ride quality, although that's a big part of it. In layman's terms, think about how much better the track has to be for just a safe ride at 50 mph vs. 25 mph. The train can tolerate lots of differences in gauge, alignment and cross level at the lower speed. Now, double the speed again to 100 mph. Again, the track has to get a lot better--more than doubly better because the forces are going up geometrically, not linearly. Avoiding the math, above about 110, the amount of work to keep it that way starts to skyrocket--you need very frequent alignment and surfacing, cross level becomes a serious issue, and cant deficiency (the amount of bank in the curve) also becomes a major issue. It's no secret that the Shinkansen system puts thousands of track workers on the line every night. The old CB&Q racetrack segments used track crews devoted to just shimming the rails. In simple terms, the reason the NEC deteriorates so fast is the amount of slamming on it that the frequent high speed trains do. Now compare this to the LAX-SAN coast line segments that handle a modest number of effectively 90 mph consists, but require disproportionally less maintenance to keep the ride quality high. Same with the old ATSF racetrack. Further, simple physics dictates that 150-200 mph services must be endpoint-oriented--you just can't accelerate and decelerate fast enough to get the intermediate stops, which in most markets constitute rail's greatest market potential (less competition, among other things). As an example, this exact issue constituted one of the fallacies of the ill-fated TX high speed rail initiative. In addition to producing a system that by nature competed 100% head to head with Southwest Airlines and nothing else, and assumed ALL airline passengers between the endpoints--INCLUDING THROUGH PASSENGERS WHO WERE ALREADY ON THE PLANE COMING FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE!!--were going to get off the plane and jump on the train, it also bypassed all of the intermediate markets with marginal or no air service, where 90-100 mph speeds compete overwhelmingly favorably against the car (which is where most of the corridor travel in the US is, anyway, even in the NEC--don't believe me, just go out and take a look at I95). The same is true for the (thankfully) dead LA-San Diego bullet train proposal (nimbys notwithstanding). The net result is that you dump billions into plant and equipment to save 10-15 minutes on a 200-250 mile run over 90-110 mph track speeds, and at the expense of the intermediate markets where rail has a genuine lock over air and a fighting chance against the car. This is exactly what Amtrak has done for the past 34 years. (Just ask California how "enthusiastic" and "helpful" Amtrak was in the development of their successful, but slower, incrementally-developed regional operations). This is why many technical types, particularly in the hinterlands where they don't look with blinders on, see Acela and other similar high cost/low return projects (remember the Boston Metroliners?? nobody else does, either, because nobody rode them) as massive boondoggles. 200mph is just more cash down the toilet. Probably the most succinct admission of the true cost of high speed came from, of all people, an Amtrak spokesman who admitted to the press a couple of weeks ago that the Metroliners go just as fast as the Acela, but cost a lot less to operate. Now, that said, IF the US had arbitrarily adopted a national policy consistent with Europe's (whose systems were funded primarily by US taxpayer dollars, by the way) and was willing to pay the political and fiscal price for HSR infrastructure and equipment (most European countries are far more socailistic in transportation policy than the US) AND had kept the price of gas artifically inflated several times over our current price to guarantee market penetration, AND had even more heavily subsidized the airlines, AND had nationalized the railroads and treated them as public utilities to achieve social goals rather than as profit centers, THEN AND ONLY THEN could we rationally have developed these exotic technologies. We made exactly these kinds of political decisions regarding highways and airline policy, by the way. It's ironic to note that the original HSR equipment was all based on existing US technology from the 1930's. Want to compete against Southwest Airlines? Start another airline. They don't pay for the air they use, they don't float the note for the airports they fly into, or pay the salaries of the controllers who tell them where to go. Want to build a successful rail passenger system? Absent a quantum leap in national policy, set your sights on market share you can obtain and maintain at a reasonable cost. Blowing by all your markets where there is no competition but the car doesn't get you there, even though it may look sexy at 150-200 mph.
Tags (Optional)
Tags are keywords that get attached to your post. They are used to categorize your submission and make it easier to search for. To add tags to your post type a tag into the box below and click the "Add Tag" button.
Add Tag