Victrola1I have no first hand experience with European rail. I vaguely recall reading Spain's rail system was not all that long ago regarded as antiquated when compared with much of Western Europe. Perhaps this was a reason for choosing Spain as an example for America.Outside of the glamor routes, what slower speed services feed into Spain's high speed system? Was Spain's conventional passenger system improved in concert with high speed? How important is a larger network of conventional passenger service making connections to high speed?
I have no first hand experience with European rail. I vaguely recall reading Spain's rail system was not all that long ago regarded as antiquated when compared with much of Western Europe. Perhaps this was a reason for choosing Spain as an example for America.
Outside of the glamor routes, what slower speed services feed into Spain's high speed system? Was Spain's conventional passenger system improved in concert with high speed? How important is a larger network of conventional passenger service making connections to high speed?
The Spanish are progressing with great speed towards a system linking all significant cities with HSR. In the interim they have used trainsets capable of changing wheel gauge on the move so that conventional network trains of certain types could also use the HSR routes. The change in Spain's passenger network from 20 years ago to today is dramatic. Spain's HSR network is built to standard gauge (1435mm) while the conventional network is 1668mm (about 5' 6").
oltmanndThe DC to Atlanta route would look something like: 1. Upgrade existing DC to Richmond. - already being discussed 2. Restore Richmond to Raleigh line (ex SAL?) - engr work underway 3. Continue improvements on NCRR - actively underway 4. Combo of exisitng route with major curve straightening and some new ROW from Charlotte to Atlanta. Only preliminary studies have been done. This part of the route will not come cheap. Maybe you do it last. Atlanta to DC would really be outside of the airline market for 110mph max/70 mph avg service. One factor that might tip the balance a bit is that the airport is on the south side of town and the majority of the people live on the north side of town, about an hour away from the airport. The might give many train riders a two hour "head start". NC has about 8M people, the majority living along the arc Raleigh-Cary-Durham-Greensboro-High Point-Charlotte. Georgia has 8M people, the majority in metro Atlanta. SC has fewer people, but a pretty fair number living along the line Charlotte-Spartanburg-Greenville-Clemson(Anderson). So, there are lots and lots of <500 mile city pairs along the route. If you consider that Cary, Charlotte and Atlanta have been leading growth spots in the nation over the past couple decades, the route becomes even more attractive.
The DC to Atlanta route would look something like:
1. Upgrade existing DC to Richmond. - already being discussed
2. Restore Richmond to Raleigh line (ex SAL?) - engr work underway
3. Continue improvements on NCRR - actively underway
4. Combo of exisitng route with major curve straightening and some new ROW from Charlotte to Atlanta. Only preliminary studies have been done. This part of the route will not come cheap. Maybe you do it last.
Atlanta to DC would really be outside of the airline market for 110mph max/70 mph avg service. One factor that might tip the balance a bit is that the airport is on the south side of town and the majority of the people live on the north side of town, about an hour away from the airport. The might give many train riders a two hour "head start".
NC has about 8M people, the majority living along the arc Raleigh-Cary-Durham-Greensboro-High Point-Charlotte. Georgia has 8M people, the majority in metro Atlanta. SC has fewer people, but a pretty fair number living along the line Charlotte-Spartanburg-Greenville-Clemson(Anderson). So, there are lots and lots of <500 mile city pairs along the route. If you consider that Cary, Charlotte and Atlanta have been leading growth spots in the nation over the past couple decades, the route becomes even more attractive.
Better to build a new line starting as close to DC as possible, go to a suburban station at Richmond, bypassing the core. Next station located somewhere in the triangle of Raleigh, Chapel Hill, and Durham. A station near but not in Charlotte, then Spartanburg, and a Station on the Atlanta Beltway. You would have a station somewhere near Fort Belvoir in the DC area and another near Doraville Georgia, these would be your initial end points, then as time and money allows you would build into the cores of Atlanta and Washington. Except for the end points none of the stations would be directly in the cities so as not to sacrifice too much speed.
As an example of what can be achieved, on the French LGV Est, a regular service TGV from a standing start at Gare Lorraine (first station WB actually located on the LGV) to a stop at Gare Champagne-Ardennes (near Reims), achieved a start to stop time of 36 minutes 10 seconds for the 167.5 kilometers (104 miles) for an average speed of 278 kph ( 172.7 mph). Within that distance there is one single curve speed restriction of 300 kph (186 mph) otherwise it is 320 kph (199 mph). Actual scheduled time is 38 minutes for the train. BTW except for Paris and Strassbourg, all of the stations are in airport like locations with shuttle services into the cities. Some trains are diverted off the LGV to service stations in nearby cities, this wouldn't be desireable in the US due to incompatability of HSR with heavy freight trains.
Railway Man But more interesting -- check out the 5 city pairs that are potentially within or already within the mileage threshold for a high-speed train (no, not the inter-island pairs in Hawaii, you comedians). RWM
But more interesting -- check out the 5 city pairs that are potentially within or already within the mileage threshold for a high-speed train (no, not the inter-island pairs in Hawaii, you comedians).
RWM
The figures are really revealing 11.9 million (NY - Fl) 3.8 Million (NY/Wash - Atl) pass in 2004. That really indicates the need for MSR (110 MPH max) on thoses routes. If that could give 90MPH avg then people could count on Wash - ORL of about 10 hrs and WASH( CLT - 5-1/2 hrs )(ATL - 7 -1/2 by Raleigh 8 - 1/2 hrs). Could be a real boost for AUTO TRAIN.
Sworloc
That's why it's easier to count seats offered rather than passengers flown, because seats don't connect, and just because there's a passenger connecting doesn't necessarily mean that it is representative of actual demand for that route -- plenty of times I fly the two long legs on a triangle instead of a short single leg in order to get a better fare or stay with my preferred airlines. On the other hand, the number of seats offered fluctuates daily, and some airlines are flying bigger planes than they would prefer on a route to achieve other economies, and the number of seats offered may be unrealistically optimistic or pessimistic, so it's not entirely representative of demand either.
One thing I noticed is the list RWM used only contains local traffic. Connecting passengers were not counted. I recall during my days in the airlines, that it was mixed bag as far as connections go. Some flights would have few, if any, connectors, and others would be 90% connectors. That would really skew the rankings if they included ALL passengers. I say this because you might see some city-pairs move up the list.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
One problem with me on this Forum is that I see or make a post, and then I think about it while driving home or someplace else, and then think of something else I meant to say . . .
Chicago needs to be involved as at least one end of one of the routes, for 2 more compelling reasons than the geographical scattering (diversity) across the country that I mentioned above:
1. Political - Obama & Rahm Emanuel, Ray LaHood, etc. For these reasons, HSR just can't go to other places in the country without going here as well;
2. Relieving airport congestion, such as at O'Hare - which is the main part of the economic and transportation justification for HSR - O'Hare being the "poster child" for same. RWM's list above* is ranked by traffic volumes, and he then suggests picking out those close enough in distance for HSR to be competitive with air travel times. While the traffic volume criteria might seem to get us to replacing the most number of aircraft landing & departure slots - which is the capacity constraint metric at most air terminals - not all of the cities in those city-pairs are equal. For example, New York has 3 or 4 main air terminals - Kennedy, Newark, LaGuargia, and Teterboro - while Chicago has only 2 - O'Hare and Midway. Replacing a flight at O'Hare has far more value than replacing a flight at one of the NYC terminals (where Amtrak is also already a functioning alternative), because there just isn't any other way to create more of those landing slots at O'Hare in the near term.
If one justification for implementing HSR is to free up airport capacity for the airline's "core competence" = longer-distance flights, then HSR ought to claim credit for that. In O'Hare's case, having HSR as an alternative would defer or avoid having to build more runways for $X billion, which would take 10 to 20 years anyway. Viewed in this light, the HSR cost is not so much.
I'd love the symbolism of seeing Detroit being the other end - trains replace cars - but Detroit is dying, and in this context is too close to Chicago for HSR to replace much air traffic between these two. I suspect that either St. Louis or the Twin Cities would be better choices - to St. Louis would be just about an "all-Illinois" route (politics again), whereas the Twin Cities would pick up support from 3 states, and used to have some pretty high speeds anyway. Your choice.
- Paul North.
(* - I think I viewed RWM's post above in mid-edit late yesterday afternoon, when both lists were present; I wish he'd kept the earlier version as well because that had some interesting info. But more instructive was how the results varied due to the subtle change in the search terms - that would be a good example to show people and to refer to.)
RWM's list is interesting, and almost funny - it started to all look like "New York -- Anyotherburg".
Without checking or research, here's my version of the list of the 5 city-pairs that meet RWM's criteria - I take it as being around 500 miles max. between them:
OK, the 1st 2 are already Amtrak's Acela preserve. The other 3 seem do-able from a geographic perspective - although I have to wonder if that many Angelinos really want to go to Oakland ? Or would they settle for San Francisco instead ?
I also read tree68's post above about 22 - Atlanta-Washington, which might displace one of the above if somebody gets a scale out and measures the distance closely. He's right about picking up all of those intermediate cities. But I shuddered at thinking about the trans-North Carolina route and how convoluted it is now, and the difficulties in getting most of it up to its current 79 MPH speed limit. To get much higher than that will necessitate a whole new alignment, and even a new "location" - skipping some or all of those cities - would be no picnic. It's a good thing North Carolina has been so pro-active in passenger rail projects for the last 10 or 15 years, and has started a lot of improvements already, and now Virginia seems to be getting religion in this regard. Now, notice how the 3 pairs outside the NorthEast Corridor reflect what I had posted before about "demonstrations" in Texas and California. Nevertheless, there undoubtedly will be political considerations at work here - so North Carolina and Virginia would be an opportunity for the SouthEast U.S. to benefit, they being the lands of some "fairy godmother" U.S. Senators who are real good in bringing home military appropriations. That, plus NC's previous pro-passenger work, would be the only thing that keeps those states and this route in the running, in my opinion, if anyone takes a hard look at the costs and difficulty of this route as compared to the others above.
Interesting list.
One city pair that intrigues me (not because I travel there, but because it looks like it has possibilities) is Washington-Atlanta (and by extension, Boston-Atlanta).
Maps-On-Us lists the driving distance between DC and Atlanta at 632 miles - perhaps a tad over the HSR threshold. More interesting, though, is that the cities the driving directions take you through or near: Richmond, Raleigh, Greensboro/Winston-Salem, and Charlotte. Adding a dip south coming out of Charlotte takes you to Columbia, SC and Augusta, GA. Sounds like a winner to me.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
wjstixBy World standards, the US doesn't have any true high-speed trains. Our fastest trains are about half the speed of the French TGVs. I would imagine to be viable the line would have to go from Mpls/St.Paul to Chicago. If it did that, it would be like every light rail line that's been built - ridership will be much higher than predicted. I read somewhere that the most commuter flights between any two metro areas in the US are the flights between MSP and Chicago's two airports...just as in the thirties, there were more passenger trains between Mpls/St.Paul and Chicago than between any other two metro areas.
By World standards, the US doesn't have any true high-speed trains. Our fastest trains are about half the speed of the French TGVs.
I would imagine to be viable the line would have to go from Mpls/St.Paul to Chicago. If it did that, it would be like every light rail line that's been built - ridership will be much higher than predicted.
I read somewhere that the most commuter flights between any two metro areas in the US are the flights between MSP and Chicago's two airports...just as in the thirties, there were more passenger trains between Mpls/St.Paul and Chicago than between any other two metro areas.
I wonder if MSP-ORD + MSP-MDW is even in the top 10 between any two metro areas in the U.S., either in terms of number of passengers or number of flights. Airliners.net would be the place to look (makes this forum look tame and quiet); a 10-second search there showed that San Francisco Bay Area to Los Angeles in 2006 had more than 20,000 airline seats per day offered.
Similarly, could Chicago-Minneapolis/St. Paul even be in the same league as New York City-Newark? New York City-Philadelphia? At any time in history? Only perhaps if we're using some criteria such as "named trains". But not in # of seats per day or schedules per day.
... edit ...
Another 10 seconds in Google using different search terms, and I came up with the top 25 in the U.S. from 2004:
Note that MSP-ORD/MDW is not in the top 25.
oltmanndRailway ManThe bigger problem is that the U.S. has organized its economy, cities, businesses, and culture upon the expectation of eternally cheap oil and no unacceptable environmental effects of autos and airplanes. Much of that investment is not easily adapted to a world of expensive oil and environmental impact reduction. There's no easy out, only a choice between a very bad solution (do nothing and watch the economy collapse permanently) and a very expensive solution (do something and put up with a lot of pain for the next 20 years). The best sign of this is this notion that hybrid cars are "the answer", with little thought given to the notion that a society that arranged itself around roads and cars may have to change. Railway ManOn a fully allocated cost basis, if cars and planes had to start paying their currently externalized costs, high-speed rail will start looking very good in the 100-500 mile market, and the investment will seem very small. I tend to agree, but having a good set of facts and the will to do it are two very different animals. Railway ManWe're not a top-down nation where we march in tune to the direction of our leaders, we're a bottom-up nation who ignores our leaders just to keep in practice, with little homogeneity.....I think right now there's enough consensus that we want high-speed rail to start investing in it. It won't be done well, it won't be done efficiently, and 50 years from now there will be still be a sizable percentage of Americans who think it was a stupid thing to do, just like in 1825 you could find a sizable percentage of Americans who thought that declaring independence from Britain was a stupid thing to do. That's the American way -- bumble forward! Bumbling forward may not be all bad. Sometimes bumbling forward means you aviod doing incredibly stupid things quickly and efficiently. If we can take this $8B and leverage it pretty hard to get some things done (even a few "wrong" things) reasonably well it should be easier to do more things, better, later on. Right now, HSR, of any flavor, is so far off most people's radar screen, it's hard to have any kind of national discussion. There's a bit of "show me" in each of us.... As flawed as Acela is, and as inefficient as Amtrak is, the NEC still manages to do useful things. If the $8B manages to get some part of Chicago-St.L, Chicago-Detroit, Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati, and DC-Charlotte done, I'd be a good start. We can bumble forward from there....
Railway ManThe bigger problem is that the U.S. has organized its economy, cities, businesses, and culture upon the expectation of eternally cheap oil and no unacceptable environmental effects of autos and airplanes. Much of that investment is not easily adapted to a world of expensive oil and environmental impact reduction. There's no easy out, only a choice between a very bad solution (do nothing and watch the economy collapse permanently) and a very expensive solution (do something and put up with a lot of pain for the next 20 years).
The best sign of this is this notion that hybrid cars are "the answer", with little thought given to the notion that a society that arranged itself around roads and cars may have to change.
Railway ManOn a fully allocated cost basis, if cars and planes had to start paying their currently externalized costs, high-speed rail will start looking very good in the 100-500 mile market, and the investment will seem very small.
I tend to agree, but having a good set of facts and the will to do it are two very different animals.
Railway ManWe're not a top-down nation where we march in tune to the direction of our leaders, we're a bottom-up nation who ignores our leaders just to keep in practice, with little homogeneity.....I think right now there's enough consensus that we want high-speed rail to start investing in it. It won't be done well, it won't be done efficiently, and 50 years from now there will be still be a sizable percentage of Americans who think it was a stupid thing to do, just like in 1825 you could find a sizable percentage of Americans who thought that declaring independence from Britain was a stupid thing to do. That's the American way -- bumble forward!
Bumbling forward may not be all bad. Sometimes bumbling forward means you aviod doing incredibly stupid things quickly and efficiently.
If we can take this $8B and leverage it pretty hard to get some things done (even a few "wrong" things) reasonably well it should be easier to do more things, better, later on. Right now, HSR, of any flavor, is so far off most people's radar screen, it's hard to have any kind of national discussion. There's a bit of "show me" in each of us....
As flawed as Acela is, and as inefficient as Amtrak is, the NEC still manages to do useful things. If the $8B manages to get some part of Chicago-St.L, Chicago-Detroit, Cleveland-Columbus-Cincinnati, and DC-Charlotte done, I'd be a good start.
We can bumble forward from there....
Not your first rodeo, is this! We share opinions and optimism. As a nation we have made up a lot of stuff on the fly -- WWII comes to mind -- and while it was by no means perfect, it got the job done. The enemy of progress is perfection.
I think HSR is actually on the radar for enough people to give it a threshold. $8B in the stimulus bill, after all! That kind of thing doesn't happen without a sufficient consensus in agreement.
Paul_D_North_Jr Good discussion, anyway.
Good discussion, anyway.
Agree. This has been a good thread as it's morphed...
zardoz Some of us Wisconsin residents have been wondering why our illustrious governor (Doyle) had to spend tax dollars to go for a train ride in another country. Wouldn't a trip to the northeast corridor have been perhaps as informative, perhaps even more relative. I somehow do not envision Wisconsin getting or even needing something as fancy as what Spain has. Certainly a train like the Acela would be more than adequate for the transportation needs around here.
Some of us Wisconsin residents have been wondering why our illustrious governor (Doyle) had to spend tax dollars to go for a train ride in another country. Wouldn't a trip to the northeast corridor have been perhaps as informative, perhaps even more relative. I somehow do not envision Wisconsin getting or even needing something as fancy as what Spain has. Certainly a train like the Acela would be more than adequate for the transportation needs around here.
I agree with Don that using the $8 billion to get a couple of essentially demonstration projects completely up and running would be a good way to show what it could be, and to use as a springboard for others to follow. Probably 1 in the Midwest - Chicago to Milwaukee ? and/ or Minneapolis / St. Paul - and 1 in California or Texas would be best. I also agree with the merits of the "bumbling forward" approach - it allows for mid-course corrections and improvements in the state of the art.
Here's the thing with John and Jane Q. Public: How many of them have experienced HSR 1st hand ? While a fair number of people have gone on international travel, what percentage have used the HSR in the other countries ? And of course, those who haven't gone overseas don't have the benefit of that experience. To some extent, we're "preaching to the choir" here. Those of us who have used HSR someplace have generally had a good experience, can see the merits, and are now the disciples. As with most marketing challenges, the trick will be to get a good number of the rest of the population to sample it - in favorable circumstances - so that they can see for themselves if they like it, and how good it can be, and become believers themselves. After that, the thing will sell itself (hopefully). It's a lot easier for people to say - with the usual sense of entitlement of course - "Why don't we here in Anywhere have a HSR system like they already do out there in LA-LA Land ?". Referring instead to the rail system in a Lower Slobbovia on another continent just doesn't resonate the same with the poltiicians here, who have had nothing to do at all with it (except for maybe the Wisconsin governor) - but what I really mean is appropriating the funding for it.
Don - Thanks for your response. A couple of clarifications:
- Ties: I knew about the change-out, and was looking for it, but this wasn't it. Probably less than 1/2 of 1 % - only 2 or 3 at a spot, and those were scattered by 1,000 ft. or so - very random. Not an "out-of-face" kind of operation at all. Other tracks looked pretty much new - year or two old at most - so maybe that is what was just done there.
- (kind of) Didn't see any signs in the catenary. Missed the curve at Frankford - was too busy looking at the interlocking stuff, I suppose - but have heard of it. Did notice the curve at Torredale, so I may have to recalibrate my eyeballs and seat-of-pants for those higher speeds. I really wasn't seeing a lot of superelevation in the curves, so i wasn't "reading" them as being limiting. I'm sure there're not "freebies" to improve, but I wonder if opening up the track centers would allow more SE and hence higher speeds - maybe in conjunction with easing of the curves ? Will have to look at it again next time I'm down that way.
- Yep, the Ought track looked schematically separate the whole way, but physically pretty close, and a little bit of a "slalom course" around some bridges and other obstacles if I remember right. I'd feel better if it were upgraded quite a bit and moved 10 to 20 feet further away from the NEC.
I really appreciate your sharing your insights - that's exactly why I made the post, to inject some actual real-world observations in this context and thoughts as they might bear on this challenge, and to see how valid they are and what the comments on same would be. Thanks for helping me with that.
Paul_D_North_JrIt appeared that some of the concrete ties were being replaced on a spot-basis here and there - mainly on the No. 3 (? - inner southbound) track, with a handful of the new ones and the remains of the old ones out on the NW side of the R-O-W.
There is a big tie change-out program going on on the NEC. Originals were defective. Wonder if this was part of it?
Paul_D_North_Jr Basic alignment once across (east of) the Schuylkill River bridge looked good for high speeds - a lot of tangent, a few shallow curves, no major grades - until Trenton. The interlockings noted above are the major obstacles.
Basic alignment once across (east of) the Schuylkill River bridge looked good for high speeds - a lot of tangent, a few shallow curves, no major grades - until Trenton. The interlockings noted above are the major obstacles.
There may be more than you noticed from your SEPTA train. Big time, bad curve at Frankfort Jct, 90 or 95 mph curve at Torresdale (where RR goes under I-95, and several other sub 125 mph curves between there and Trenton. The curve speed signs are hanging in the catenary. It's not quite the "racetrack" between Phila and Trenton, that it is between Trenton and New Brunswick or between Newark DE and Bayview.
Paul_D_North_Jrmost notably, a CSX southwest-bound freight at SHORE tower.
From Shore to the Schuylkill River bridge, the "ought" track (east side of NEC) is totally separted from the NEC. It was part of Conrail's Harrisburg Line and was (and is) controlled and dispatched by Conrail.
I spent most of Sunday afternoon riding a couple of SEPTA's lines (getting my wife & daughter to the Philadelphia Flower Show & back, & while they were there). Specifically, Silverliner IV's from Radnor (on the ex-PRR Main Line Phila. - Harrisburg) to Phila./ Market East, and then more of interest here - from Phila. to Trenton & back on the NEC.
Some preliminary observations:
1. Basic infrastructure - 4 main tracks between the interlockings - was all welded rail on concrete ties with clean ballast, and looked good. Rode pretty smooth in the commuter cars, even up to 75 - 80 MPH - passed everything on parallel I-95 then, too. It appeared that some of the concrete ties were being replaced on a spot-basis here and there - mainly on the No. 3 (? - inner southbound) track, with a handful of the new ones and the remains of the old ones out on the NW side of the R-O-W.
2. About half the interlockings were concrete-tie turnouts, which rode "OK". Notable exceptions to the smooth ride were all timber-tie turnouts - most of which were comparatively short fixed-frog types (not the smoother swing-nose types).
3. to what blue streak 1 said above about needing flyovers - just to smooth out the ride, let alone to preclude the traffic interference.
4. Basic alignment once across (east of) the Schuylkill River bridge looked good for high speeds - a lot of tangent, a few shallow curves, no major grades - until Trenton. The interlockings noted above are the major obstacles.
5. Track centers are really tight. If they're 13'-6" that's a lot. Out at Radnor I saw markings at a bridge that indicated 12'-2" +/-, and the NEC didn't look much more than that. if you can follow this word-picture: The outer ballast shoulder of the inner tracks covers the inner ends of the ties of the outer tracks, right up to their inner rail.
I doubt we'll ever get to 25 ft. centers here, but if it were up to me I'd think real hard about relocating the northwesterly outer track - mainly for SEPTA commuter trains - to the outside of the existing catenary poles (see also next comment), and of course installing a new catenary wire for it. That would enable spreading out the remaining 3 tracks to around 17 ft. centers. Oh yeah - figure on rebuilding just all of the below grade bridges to accomodate that. Those all seemed to be through plate girders, which don't extend more than a foot or so above the ballast anymore. But that would have to be done if the track centers are changed. Probably about time, anyway.
6. The outer running track - the industrial service track beyond the 4 main tracks - on the northwesterly side was almost all gone. On the southeasterly side, I'd estimate about half was still left - some of which still had catenary over it. Of that, I'd say only half showed signs of any recent use - most notably, a CSX southwest-bound freight at SHORE tower. Even there, generally appeared to be enough vacant land or abandoned or struggling factories that acquisition/ relocation to improve the freight tracks and keep them further away from the NEC appeared to be feasible.
7. A lot of Amtrak traffic - at least 2 Acelas, and about a half-dozen NorthEast Regionals met or passed us on the trip. Regional power was mostly AEM-7s, but one was by one of the Bomabardier high-power electrics - HHP-something, I think. I was able to walk along side of it as it left Trenton - acceleration not quite as fast as the commuter cars, but he had to be doing at least 40 MPH by the time the rear end passed me.
8. I was able to watch the engineer (motorman) through the window in the front "parlor" door. Now that I know a little more about signaling, it was real interesting to watch how the position light cab signals - and I saw at least 1 set of color position lights - changed to reflect the differing situations ahead.
9. Looks like a lot of rail lubricators have been installed recently - mostly solar-powered. There's a black apron-type material on the ties for about 50 or 100 feet at each of them - presumably to catch the excess grease ?
10. On the fringes, a lot of detail work needs to be done. SEPTA had the normal inbound track closed somewhere around Rosemont for a tree contractor to cut and chip vegetation on the southerly side of the R-O-W with a couple of hi-rail trucks. The stake truck had full load of logs by 11:00 AM.
Beyond that, I could a couple $ million or so along the NEC fixing the drainage in a few spots, removing big debris, re-installing fencing, repairing, adding to, or installing retaining walls to better support the slopes, ballast shoulders, etc. Beyond that, $10 to $20 million of the "stimulus" money in the region could be put to good use just to do the same along the commuter lines within the Phila. City limits (not including the outer suburban portions in that scope), esp. in the 30th St. Station - Suburban Station areas and approaches, say from Overbrook in and past ZOO tower, etc.
Probably an equal figure could also be spent in the same areas picking up trash, litter, & debris, which would also include the railroad's junk - a few strings of very old removed welded rail were observed in the ballast should and laying against the catenary poles, plus old signal boxes and the like, etc.
al-in-chgo IIRC Amtrak's Acela traces its lineage back to a Swedish tilt train first prototyped in the Eighties. The TGV is of French design, engineering and construction, or at least I've never heard anything to the contrary. - a.s.
IIRC Amtrak's Acela traces its lineage back to a Swedish tilt train first prototyped in the Eighties.
The TGV is of French design, engineering and construction, or at least I've never heard anything to the contrary. - a.s.
The Acela is French, designed in France. It may have been assembled in N America, but its origins are French. One of the guys I went to college with was on the Amtrak Acela team. They alternated meetings between Paris and Washington.
Dave H. Painted side goes up. My website : wnbranch.com
Murphy Siding Railway Man The bad news is that this means as a nation we're only occasionally able to do group-effort things. RWM A daunting thought, if you consider the last time we all seemed to get onboard with a group effort thing was December *8th, 1941. How fast do we really need *high speed trains* to run anyway? I'm underwhelmed by the knowledge the average Joe-on-the-street has about the realities of passenger trains. A discussion on a forum hosted by our local (useless) newspaper, is chock full of opinions by local *experts*. Most are under the impression, that $8 billion in funding will be enough to put high speed rail about anywhere the masses want to travel. There is even a fair amount of *experts* who believe there is a high speed line in the offering from Omaha, Nebraska, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, by way of Sioux Falls, South Dakota. When I tried to explain to a co-worker, that passenger trains in any form in our part of the world were probably a pipe dream, on account of someone else is currently using those tracks for freight trains, he dismissed my pessimism as me simply not understanding the big picture. He said it was fairly simple. The government just takes the tracks through eminent domain, gives them to Amtrak, and starts up high speed, low cost passenger service tommorrow. He said I *overthink* things too much. I think he *underthinks* more than he realizes.
Railway Man The bad news is that this means as a nation we're only occasionally able to do group-effort things. RWM
The bad news is that this means as a nation we're only occasionally able to do group-effort things.
How fast do we really need *high speed trains* to run anyway?
I'm underwhelmed by the knowledge the average Joe-on-the-street has about the realities of passenger trains. A discussion on a forum hosted by our local (useless) newspaper, is chock full of opinions by local *experts*. Most are under the impression, that $8 billion in funding will be enough to put high speed rail about anywhere the masses want to travel. There is even a fair amount of *experts* who believe there is a high speed line in the offering from Omaha, Nebraska, to Minneapolis, Minnesota, by way of Sioux Falls, South Dakota.
When I tried to explain to a co-worker, that passenger trains in any form in our part of the world were probably a pipe dream, on account of someone else is currently using those tracks for freight trains, he dismissed my pessimism as me simply not understanding the big picture. He said it was fairly simple. The government just takes the tracks through eminent domain, gives them to Amtrak, and starts up high speed, low cost passenger service tommorrow. He said I *overthink* things too much. I think he *underthinks* more than he realizes.
Murph-Try hitting them with the $25 million per mile for the not very fast option. If they have problems will all the zeros, you can point out that $8 billion only gets 320 miles of railroad. (The California round numbers are $40 billion for their proposed 800 mile 200MPH system and I have at least a buck that says their plan alone is $8 billion short of what will be the final number.)
Jay
"We have met the enemy and he is us." Pogo Possum "We have met the anemone... and he is Russ." Bucky Katt "Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future." Niels Bohr, Nobel laureate in physics
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
As you probably realize, I share your views on the points you have made above. My Walt Kelly/Pogo quote is not for the purpose of showing my life long following of comic strips.
As much as I think it might be a better approach if all of our transportation infrastructure was designed and built at the national level, it isn't going to happen. The best I would ever hope for is that the options would be evaluated with with no more of a mandate than to say go pick and choose what you want. Something like the way the federal government got the Interstate Highway System built. Even that is a lot. As a group, we are not very good at paying attention to in depth evaluation of societal options. On the other hand, we seem to be very good at responding to "You're wrong" as long as it is presently loudly and with great emotion.
So it goes.
dehusmanOne of the nightly news programs had the usual, "the US lags far behind Europe in rail trainsportation." stories. They showed a clip of the TGV as an example of the high speed rail and then cut to the report standing on a platform in the NEC with an Acela train at the station on the track next to him. He then proceeded to report that the US doesn't have any track or equipment like the TGV. Hello, the Acela is a copy of the TGV (altered to fit US laws).
One of the nightly news programs had the usual, "the US lags far behind Europe in rail trainsportation." stories. They showed a clip of the TGV as an example of the high speed rail and then cut to the report standing on a platform in the NEC with an Acela train at the station on the track next to him. He then proceeded to report that the US doesn't have any track or equipment like the TGV.
Hello, the Acela is a copy of the TGV (altered to fit US laws).
Having ridden them both quite a bit, in my opinion the Acela is a copy of the TGV like a Ford Pinto is a copy of Dusenberg. One of them is a passenger rail system that is fast, comfortable, quiet, and smooth. The other is in America.
jeatonI agree that a whole bunch of work and many $ billions would be necessary to get the NEC up to all 150MPH or the 120 MPH average. My question is will the added speed attract enough people out of cars and planes to make the expenditure worthwhile?
I agree that a whole bunch of work and many $ billions would be necessary to get the NEC up to all 150MPH or the 120 MPH average. My question is will the added speed attract enough people out of cars and planes to make the expenditure worthwhile?
On a fully allocated cost basis, if cars and planes had to start paying their currently externalized costs, high-speed rail will start looking very good in the 100-500 mile market, and the investment will seem very small.
The bigger problem is that the U.S. has organized its economy, cities, businesses, and culture upon the expectation of eternally cheap oil and no unacceptable environmental effects of autos and airplanes. Much of that investment is not easily adapted to a world of expensive oil and environmental impact reduction. There's no easy out, only a choice between a very bad solution (do nothing and watch the economy collapse permanently) and a very expensive solution (do something and put up with a lot of pain for the next 20 years).
I have also fulminated about our lack of a national transportation policy, but I'm coming to the realization that the creation of such a policy is not compatible with our form of government. We're not a top-down nation where we march in tune to the direction of our leaders, we're a bottom-up nation who ignores our leaders just to keep in practice, with little homogeneity. A transportation policy touches on everything, and would incite just about everyone in the U.S. to be against it for one reason or another, and since there' very little agreement on what kind of nation we want to be, an effort to develop transportation policy would be a waste of time. The good news is that the diversity and no enforced way of doing things in the U.S. makes it possible for individuals to do almost anything they want -- invent things, create things, change their lives, move around, change their careers, say things, think things. The bad news is that this means as a nation we're only occasionally able to do group-effort things. I think right now there's enough consensus that we want high-speed rail to start investing in it. It won't be done well, it won't be done efficiently, and 50 years from now there will be still be a sizable percentage of Americans who think it was a stupid thing to do, just like in 1825 you could find a sizable percentage of Americans who thought that declaring independence from Britain was a stupid thing to do. That's the American way -- bumble forward!
blue streak 1 JAY:----- To add to RWM's post: Just to get the NEC to an all150 MPH top speed (120 average) would take many upgrades. Until you are east of New Haven there are no Automobile grade crossings but the are many RR grade crossings. ( much more expensive to mitigate). Also the need to separate the different speed trains to prevent conflicting slowdowns RR flyovers would be needed at: Washington Union station (2 or 3),Bowie, Edgewood, Aberdeen, Perryville, Newark DE, Wilmington, DE, (3), north Claymount, Arsenal, North PHL ( multiple) Frankford Jct (multiple), Holmesburg Jct, Cornwells, Trenton (Septa), Mommouth Jct, Millstone, Edison Yd, Linden, Aldene, Newark Penn St ( multiple ), New Rochelle, (very complicated), maybe Stamford and South Norwalk, North Bridgeport (if abandoned NH line retored), New Haven, Old saybrook, Providence (?), Boston SW, RI, Holden, Mansfield, Canton Jct, Readville. That's a lot of money! This does not take in account the remaining auromobile grade crossings left. Be sure that this list is not all inclusive.
JAY:-----
To add to RWM's post: Just to get the NEC to an all150 MPH top speed (120 average) would take many upgrades. Until you are east of New Haven there are no Automobile grade crossings but the are many RR grade crossings. ( much more expensive to mitigate). Also the need to separate the different speed trains to prevent conflicting slowdowns
RR flyovers would be needed at: Washington Union station (2 or 3),Bowie, Edgewood, Aberdeen, Perryville, Newark DE, Wilmington, DE, (3), north Claymount, Arsenal, North PHL ( multiple) Frankford Jct (multiple), Holmesburg Jct, Cornwells, Trenton (Septa), Mommouth Jct, Millstone, Edison Yd, Linden, Aldene, Newark Penn St ( multiple ), New Rochelle, (very complicated), maybe Stamford and South Norwalk, North Bridgeport (if abandoned NH line retored), New Haven, Old saybrook, Providence (?), Boston SW, RI, Holden, Mansfield, Canton Jct, Readville. That's a lot of money! This does not take in account the remaining auromobile grade crossings left. Be sure that this list is not all inclusive.
Personaly, I could go for the 70 MPH system, but then I have an income stream even when I am sleeping or spending time on this forum.
The California proposal is using a number equal to about $50 million a mile, but given how those things tend to work out, $60 million is probably not out of range. I have been trying to get a figure on the mileage for the routes now being floated for high speed and can now only guess that it is somewhere around 10,000 miles. That is a price tag of $600 billion which means to me that the whole thing is doomed (domed?) That is, unless we make some drastic cuts in other things, or something.
The main problem I see with the issue is that there is very little of what I would call a strategic plan for passenger transportation. We have the general notion that we want to develop something that will shift people out of cars and planes, and we bounce around numbers that suggest big economic and social benefits for the country. However, I don't think we have crunched the numbers in a way that gives us a reasonably good over all cost/benefit evaluation. The question in my mind is what is the best bang for the buck. Do we go with Option 1, 4 or a mix of all the above? Since it is reasonable to expect that the lion's share of the government funding will have to from the federal trough, it seems that such a plan should be tasked to the U.S. DOT. Of course, that will require a big change in the way that place functions, but if we want something more than dreams,sound bites and flash, perhaps that is where the change should start.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.