High Speed Rail Costs

[Anonymous]

From this web site:

International engineering companies are expected to bid next week on the planned Beijing-Tianjin high-speed passenger railway project, a “well-placed source” told the China Daily newspaper. But the source gave no details about their names or how many would participate. The planned 85-mile rail link between the cities is estimated to cost about $1.73 billion and speed commuters between them in 30 minutes. The project is scheduled to start construction before June and begin operating in 2007.

---------------------
This dollar figure most likely does not include right of way costs being in China.... However, an 850 mile HSR line from New York City to Chicago would probably cost ten times the above figure, or $17.3 billion...... notice not the 100s of billions critics suggest...... Travel time would also be reflected by ten times too, or 300 minutes, which is 5 hours.....

Amtrak runs two trainsets on the Lake Shore Limited, and two trainsets on the Three Rivers..... If you include the Capitol Limited trainsets to DC, instead of having three trains daily in each direction, with HSR the same number of trainsets could easily do twelve trains daily..... literally one train every two hours.....

The question remains, why are we spending a billion a year to keep an obsolete and infrequent trains service? Just along this one corridor we could have a state of the art modern system with a lot of frequency for a continuation of 17 years of inadequate current nationwide Amtrak service.....

Its another 850 miles or so to Miami from DC..... The same applies here...... If we are going to spend federal funds, why not get the best?

[jsoderq]

It ain't gonna happen! First, the land is not available - it already belongs to someone. Second, the topography - I'm guessing the Chinese plan is a straight flat shot. Third, high speed NY/Chi already exists - it's called airplane.

[Anonymous]

One must view and comprehend with the future in mind.... As far as New York City goes, its airports and airslots are already full.....and as far as Chicago is concerned, the feds want to spend $8 billion to build another terminal and replot O'Hare's four runways..... Oh, I guess we could flatten Statten Island or the Bronx for another $10 billion + airport.....

Air congestion is a major concern in both Chicago and New York City..... The idea that the feds should only build more or expand existing airports is a myth in some of our largest major cities.....

And as for value for price, one new rebuilt freeway intersection in Dallas, nicknamed the Dallas high five, is costing the feds over a billion dollars..... yep, one intersection.....

There is plenty of right of way along any number of interstates or along railroad right of way between the two major metropolitan cities..... or we can easily build on new right of way..... such as under major power transmission lines....... similar to light rail in many cities......

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jsoderq

It ain't gonna happen! First, the land is not available - it already belongs to someone. Second, the topography - I'm guessing the Chinese plan is a straight flat shot. Third, high speed NY/Chi already exists - it's called airplane.

Commercial air slots at both New York and Chicago are full....The decreasing On Time performance of the Airlines are representative of the fact that the airline network is at or exceeding effective capacity. The airlines only means of increacing capacity are plane such as the AirBus 580 carrying 500 or more passengers....to date the airlines are reluctant to make that investment and additionally such planes would overwhelm existing airport infrastructures without substansial additional investment.

Most oif the Interstate system is approaching or beyond the time that it needs significant investment in repairing and maintaining the system. If the Interstates were refered to in the manner of railroads, one would be talking about how much 'defered maintenance' exists in the Interstate System.

High Speed Rail is a viable alternative to add additional route capacity on major Origin-Destination city pairs.....High Speed Rail is not for every intervening town or wayside city....just like air travel.

[spbed]

The difference between us & China is in China autos are scarce so the RR is the only way to go due to poor roads their are also no long distance buses. The same is true for say East Europe such as Russia which I experienced personally. That is why passenger RRs work much better theeir then here. [:D]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

From this web site:

International engineering companies are expected to bid next week on the planned Beijing-Tianjin high-speed passenger railway project, a “well-placed source” told the China Daily newspaper. But the source gave no details about their names or how many would participate. The planned 85-mile rail link between the cities is estimated to cost about $1.73 billion and speed commuters between them in 30 minutes. The project is scheduled to start construction before June and begin operating in 2007.

---------------------
This dollar figure most likely does not include right of way costs being in China.... However, an 850 mile HSR line from New York City to Chicago would probably cost ten times the above figure, or $17.3 billion...... notice not the 100s of millions critics suggest...... Travel time would also be reflected by ten times too, or 300 minutes, which is 5 hours.....

Amtrak runs two trainsets on the Lake Shore Limited, and two trainsets on the Three Rivers..... If you include the Capitol Limited trainsets to DC, instead of having three trains daily in each direction, with HSR the same number of trainsets could easily do twelve trains daily..... literally one train every two hours.....

The question remains, why are we spending a billion a year to keep an obsolete and infrequent trains service? Just along this one corridor we could have a state of the art modern system with a lot of frequency for a continuation of 17 years of inadequate current nationwide Amtrak service.....

Its another 850 miles or so to Miami from DC..... The same applies here...... If we are going to spend federal funds, why not get the best?

[siberianmo]

Everything costs and costs seemingly always rise. Our Congress should shoulder much of the blame for where this country ISN'T regarding a viable 21st Century Transportation Plan.

In case you haven't noticed - the pontificators spend a heck of a lot of time ensuring that "the other side of the aisle" gets blamed for virtually everything they (the opposite side of the aisle) cannot or will not move forward on. It's absolutely frustrating when given some serious thought.

I find it amazing that we have come so far in a relatively short period of time, to lead the world in this or that - but when it comes to moving our people from place to place in a fast, reliable, safe, and economic manner - it just doesn't happen.

When I was involved with passenger rail issues in my state (Missouri) and the talk was about the High Speed rail link being constructed between Chicago and St. Louis, many of us wondered how come Missouri wasn't a member of the group representing the midwest states. That's when the excuses came - and they came aplenty. Too many obstacles - too much money - too much this and too much that.

I've never heard of anyone or anthing being a success if the negative approach remains at center stage. Alas, Missouri does not and most probably will not have such a link between our two largest cities - St. Louis and Kansas City. "They" tell us about the numbers of rail crossings (2nd in the U.S., supposedly - behind Illinois who is moving on the system!) "They" tell us we don't have the numbers - yet year after year, Amtrak parades their statistics before us, all showing increased ridership - but of course, decreases in revenue because of increases in operating costs.

Now we are faced with no Amtrak - which may or may not be a bad idea. I say that only if whatever emerges as a result of this latest attempt to dismantle our only national passenger rail "system" (and I question the viability of it being a "system") can and will embrace the technologies of the 21st Century.

My contention is and has been that only when we win the Congress over, will this country see the types of modern passenger modern (rail or MAGLEV) operations seen in other places on this planet.

Yes, everything costs. I wonder what the costs will be by continuing down the road we are on?

[Anonymous]

Will the Chinese have a detailed environmental impact statement prepared? Will any private land be acquired? Are there any individual states to deal with? Will any interest group file a myriad of lawsuits to stop this project? Is there an expensive workforce there who wants good wages and benefits? This is why the cost is as low as it is. That is also a part of why much industry has left these shores. This is why if it gets built her it may not be in my lifetime (I'm 43).

[martin.knoepfel]

I have some doubts that N.Y. to CHI is a HSR-route. In Europe, the rule of thumb says HSR is competive as long as travel time does not exceed three hours.

Furthermore, it is not reasonable to exceed top-speeds of 200 mph. Energy costs are too high. I don't see any possibility to cut N.Y. to CHI to around three hours. (this is not a safety issue: trains can run safely at 300 mph.)

[FThunder11]

There could be another Acela Express from New York to Chicago, that would be cool even though it wont happen

[andrewjonathon]

A few thoughts -

If someone makes the initial investment in maglev technology are the operating costs over 200 mph still unreasonable? I am curious because China already has a maglev train operating between the financial district in Shanghai and the airport. I believe it reaches speeds of up to 260 mph.

I question if cheap labor will really reduce the costs of building a HSR line by much in China because they typically contract the construction of such a line out to a western firm with the skills and expertise. Therefore they still have to pay high salaries on many of the really skilled/technical positions.

I agree that Chicago/New York is probably not a true HSR candidate. Better to start with more reasonable city pairs like putting in true HSR between Boston and New York or LA/San Diego etc. It is the distance rather than the geography that I think is the problem. I ridden HSR in Spain between Madrid and Seville. When a mountain appears the train just goes straight through it as other rail lines in Europe do as well.

I think the real motivation for China to build a HSR line is to prove they are keeping up with other countries that are investing in HSR. Too bad we weren't one of them.

[Anonymous]

My thoughts on HSR:

1. No one had mentioned freight. I think freight should be the focus of HSR, with passenger service an added benefit. When you combine HSR with bi-modal technology, you're talking about a system that can beat truckers dock to dock times in mid to long distances, and thats where the big profit margins lie. Plus with freight you have a pay as you go way of funding, with a surtax per box like they do in the Alameda Corridor.

2. As jwieczorek alludes to, we still need some significant tort reform and more reasonable environmental laws before projects of such magnitude can be realized in this day and age.

3. As for maglev, can it handle tonnage? If so, it could hold some promise for the next generation rail systems. If not, it would be better to stick with the steel flanged wheel on steel rail. Again, you need to be able to move freight for such a project to pay it's worth, and you can move coal and grain over steel HSR systems as well as UPS, FedEx, and passengers, e.g. the most comprehensive market potential.

[gfjwilmde]

Before the rapid demise of passenger rail travel, after WW2, the New York Central had a well maintained mainline west of Albany, New York in which much of their 'fleet' of trains ran at approximently 100mph or more(some still with steam locomotives pulling them). The same can be said about the Milwaukee Road's Hiawatha service, which from what I've read in books and magazines, routinely hit 100mph before it was well out of Chicago's terminal limits or even suburbs, leaving towards it's namesake or the Twin Cities. Although the Pennsy's high speed runs were basically limited to the Northeast Corridor, where the catenary was(is), it and the New Haven Railroad provided a level of comfort and service not found in other forms of land or air transportation back then(or even now) along with speeds in excess of 100mph. Although I wasn't born back then, just by talking to senior railroaders, I get the sense of pride of what the passenger railroad business was about, when they talk about it. Asia and Europe are far outpacing us when it comes to their commitment to their transportation infastructure investments and much of that commitment is to their respective railroads. Soon, they will also have high speed freight rail traffic as well and where will our railroads be?? Still plodding along at maybe 70mph. I remember reading an article that showed evidence that it cost more money to build a mile of blacktop roadway than it costs to build that same mile of railway and use less real estate doing it. It also costs more money to build and maintain a runway than it costs to build and maintain a mile of track. Mind you, I'm suggesting that railroad maintenance is cheap. The ballast cost money to procure, ship to where it's needed, then have the personnel to dump it and shape it(tamp it). The same goes for equipment as well. Unlike freight equipment, passenger equipment must be maintained to a higher standard. If a freight locomotive dies and is not likely it can be repaired, most large freight railroads will just opt to buy new ones and in some cases give the dead ones back to the builders. We at Amtrak and some of the commuter railroads don't have that option. We MUST fix our equipment. Plus, if the equipment is wrecked, we're just out of luck. It's not like the equipment builder will want to build just a couple of cars or locomotives to replace the ones that are lost. It wouldn't be profitable to them. Freight railroads buy cars and engines by the tens or the hundreds, now that's profitable. If our country had the same kind of commitment to its nation's passenger rail network, like they have in Asia and Europe, then high speed rail travel may be possible in these United States.



GLENN
A R E A L AND T R U E R RAILROADER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Anonymous]

Three hours of flight time was the old standard, before 9-11. Now that flyers must arrive at airports two hours or more before the flight, a five hour train trip is just as effective. Get real!

Notice that the longest French HSR line has been extended southward to Marsailles, and northward into the Netherlands, plus using the Chunnel into the United Kingdom. From London there are two fast trains, if not trully TGV HSR, all the way to Scotland. The French are buiding links to the German and Italian HSR lines.

Three hours is definitely the old standard..... even in Europe. With HSR grades are not significant, sharp curves are..... therefore their solution to grades are tunnels and bridges...... In a New York City to Chicago line, the toughest grades would be in Pennsylvania, but these grades are not the Rockies or the Alps are they?

Yes, we should build between city pairs, in my opinion city pairs of 5 million of metropolitan populations would be a good place to start..... Philadelphia to Cleveland to Detroit to Chicago fills the bill. Dallas to Houston fills the bill. LA to Oakland fills the bill. Atlanta to Miami fills the bill. Chicago to Atlanta fills the bill.Then we can fill in the gaps at a later time with city pairs as low as 2.5 million in metropolitan populations, such as Atlanta to the Piedmont area of North Carolina ( Charlotte, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem ) and on to DC, Houston to New Orleans and on to Atlanta, Dallas to Kansas City to St. Louis and on to Chicago..... finishing a parallegram: New York City to Atlanta to Houston to Chicago to New York City. Other branches could be built, such as Chicago to Minneapolis, Chicago to Toronto, New York City to Toronto and Montreal, Cincinnati to Cleveland, etc.....

[Anonymous]

Looks like right now the best chance for HSR is LA - Bay Area.

[spbed]

You know in Florida the voters voted to repeal their decision to build a hi-speed train between Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/WPB & Orlando.[;)]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

From this web site:

International engineering companies are expected to bid next week on the planned Beijing-Tianjin high-speed passenger railway project, a “well-placed source” told the China Daily newspaper. But the source gave no details about their names or how many would participate. The planned 85-mile rail link between the cities is estimated to cost about $1.73 billion and speed commuters between them in 30 minutes. The project is scheduled to start construction before June and begin operating in 2007.

---------------------
This dollar figure most likely does not include right of way costs being in China.... However, an 850 mile HSR line from New York City to Chicago would probably cost ten times the above figure, or $17.3 billion...... notice not the 100s of billions critics suggest...... Travel time would also be reflected by ten times too, or 300 minutes, which is 5 hours.....

Amtrak runs two trainsets on the Lake Shore Limited, and two trainsets on the Three Rivers..... If you include the Capitol Limited trainsets to DC, instead of having three trains daily in each direction, with HSR the same number of trainsets could easily do twelve trains daily..... literally one train every two hours.....

The question remains, why are we spending a billion a year to keep an obsolete and infrequent trains service? Just along this one corridor we could have a state of the art modern system with a lot of frequency for a continuation of 17 years of inadequate current nationwide Amtrak service.....

Its another 850 miles or so to Miami from DC..... The same applies here...... If we are going to spend federal funds, why not get the best?

[Anonymous]

Frankly, I thought a HSR line between Tampa and Orlando is too short of a line, which would be better served with commuter or light rail instead at far less the costs.

Also the opponents were concerned about the total costs of the entire overextended network the state of Florida had dreamed, much like the concern in Texas over the extended Trans Texas Corridors.

In my opinion we would be better off starting HSR with a small network which if successful could be expanded at a later time. We are not going to build 40,000 miles of HSR like we have interstate highways in the next 10 years. However, we could build a starter network of 1,600 miles to Chicago and Miami from the NEC in the next 10 years. In other words take small steps..... I suggested above building HSR at first linking cities with a metropolitan areas of 5 million or so.....

In Florida they had drawn plans to build HSR to Pensacola and to Naples, cities in my opinion which are not large enough to be at the end of a line.... Miami is, Orlando is, Tampa is, possibly Jacksonville is, and Atlanta is.... Pensacola and Naples aren't....

In Texas, for example, there are those who wi***o build a triangle of HSR between Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio/Austin. Then there are those who think a Texas T would serve Texas as well with half the track, a line from Dallas to San Antonio with a branch around Temple going to Houston...... Temple has a misleading population number, less than 50,000, but Bell County in which Temple resides has a population of over 250,000.....

[BaltACD]

QUOTE: Originally posted by spbed

You know in Florida the voters voted to repeal their decision to build a hi-speed train between Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/WPB & Orlando.[;)]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

From this web site:

International engineering companies are expected to bid next week on the planned Beijing-Tianjin high-speed passenger railway project, a “well-placed source” told the China Daily newspaper. But the source gave no details about their names or how many would participate. The planned 85-mile rail link between the cities is estimated to cost about $1.73 billion and speed commuters between them in 30 minutes. The project is scheduled to start construction before June and begin operating in 2007.

---------------------
This dollar figure most likely does not include right of way costs being in China.... However, an 850 mile HSR line from New York City to Chicago would probably cost ten times the above figure, or $17.3 billion...... notice not the 100s of billions critics suggest...... Travel time would also be reflected by ten times too, or 300 minutes, which is 5 hours.....

Amtrak runs two trainsets on the Lake Shore Limited, and two trainsets on the Three Rivers..... If you include the Capitol Limited trainsets to DC, instead of having three trains daily in each direction, with HSR the same number of trainsets could easily do twelve trains daily..... literally one train every two hours.....

The question remains, why are we spending a billion a year to keep an obsolete and infrequent trains service? Just along this one corridor we could have a state of the art modern system with a lot of frequency for a continuation of 17 years of inadequate current nationwide Amtrak service.....

Its another 850 miles or so to Miami from DC..... The same applies here...... If we are going to spend federal funds, why not get the best?

The voters of Florida are against four letter words.

PLAN is a four letter word that has no meaning in Florida.

[martin.knoepfel]

The French HSR run over grades of 3,5 %, but the SNCF has only passenger, mail (plus maintenance) trains on its HSR-lines.

Freight on HSR-lines IMHO is possible, but only high-value-low-weight goods. Otherwise, it would be way to expensive to maintain the tracks.

Don't forget the tilt-trains. Wouldn't a diesel tilt-train be a better solution for N.Y.-Albany if you compare it with the Turbotrain? A talgo would be a great idea, but platforms in Penn Station preclude it.

[Anonymous]

martin - in the US the cost of HSR was estamined 30 million@mile. Add extra 2 million for catenary. Building diesel isn't sensible approach then.

Also - if you don't go over 15-17 ton axleload you can run 20000 ton trains at 200 mph.... if you have the power. But - what for?

futuremodal: maglev is a pipe-dream. With mag-lev you would need to aquire ROW into the cities to succesfuly achieve what HSR could. TGVs spend about half of their time off LGV (high speed lines).

As for HSR freight - it has some sense into it - with high-value goods in bi/intermodal approach.

[RudyRockvilleMD]

Door-to-door New York - Chicago by air is approximately 6 hours, and this includes 1 1/2 hours for security and check-in. Door-to-door New York - Chicago by high-speed-rail would be approximately 8 hours. Thus any trip by high-speed-rail longer than 3 1/2 hours (approximately 500 miles, would not be competitive with flying time-wise. Another point, bad times don't last forever, eventually the need for security inspections will go away.

For Don Clark's information the Paris-Marseille TGV line uses a separate station in Paris (Gare d Lyon) than either the Eurostar trains for London and the Thalys for Brussels and the Netherlands (gare d Nord). Since you have to change stations these are not through routes.

[daveklepper]

No Amtrak is a very bad idea and I think those of you who think it is a step to something better should truly be ashamed of yourselves! Why. Because it is going to hurt people, good people for whom long distance trains are essential. It is just like people saying well we will abandon the streetcars and then things will be so bad we will have to build a subway system . Sure! Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Birmingham, Indianapolis, etcx. are still waiting. And when a subway system was built, as in DC, it cost many billions, far more than upgrading their streetcar system to rapid transit incrementally would have cost. And in other places, like St, Louse, Neew Orleans, Denver, Salt Lake City, they decided that subways were far to expensive and now they are busy putting back what was ripped out, a fraction of the cost of subway systems, but still billions.

Sure Amtrak needs reform,. The reform it needs is spelled MONEY.

Then, after fixing the NEC infrastructure that is still ancient under the applied bandaids. incremental improvement can be made to existing lines with very limited new line construction to bypass really toughs spots, to bring passenger railroading into the 21st Century.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

No Amtrak is a very bad idea and I think those of you who think it is a step to something better should truly be ashamed of yourselves! Why. Because it is going to hurt people, good people for whom long distance trains are essential. It is just like people saying well we will abandon the streetcars and then things will be so bad we will have to build a subway system . Sure! Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Birmingham, Indianapolis, etcx. are still waiting. And when a subway system was built, as in DC, it cost many billions, far more than upgrading their streetcar system to rapid transit incrementally would have cost. And in other places, like St, Louse, Neew Orleans, Denver, Salt Lake City, they decided that subways were far to expensive and now they are busy putting back what was ripped out, a fraction of the cost of subway systems, but still billions.

Sure Amtrak needs reform,. The reform it needs is spelled MONEY.

Then, after fixing the NEC infrastructure that is still ancient under the applied bandaids. incremental improvement can be made to existing lines with very limited new line construction to bypass really toughs spots, to bring passenger railroading into the 21st Century.

Deserved or undeserved, Amtrak has such an image problem with some in gov't (and some in the public) that it may take reform to be able to loosen the gov't purse strings.

My fear is that some "reformers" are wolves in sheep's clothing. But, I think passenger rail has enough broad support that a reformed Amtrak might be able to do more than we have now.

[daveklepper]

#1616;#1616;A sensible approach would be to provide Amtrak with two billion dollars a year of dedicated funding from highway trust funds and get first the system and the rolling stock in good repair and then use funds for incremental improvements, including a very limited number of new lines around congestion and slow operations. States would have the option of adding for local requirements. Gradually the system could be brought up to reasonable 20th Century standards. And pride would return to the Amtrak railroaders, who deserve this chance in my opinion.

[Anonymous]

I live in Fl. and this sstate taakes four years to make a highway interchange. They want high speed from Miami,Orlando,Tampa. Then the politiciaans said vote again look what it would cost! If the dummies in this state would run a double track rail service like at Disney world, and put it between the clogged highways lanes, they would not have to buy,or condemn, more land, and they could run a bunch of trains all day long and a bunch more at night. Yes it would cost, but look at the mess in the Tampa area with new highways falling down before they are used! No we do not need 200 MPH trains, we need, 80 to 90 MPH in good repair. OH WELL maybe I am trying to use common sense-----this state does not have much of it!!!Rusty Bernt

[Chernobyl]

The ~650 mile california high speed rail network that is in the early stages now, was projected to cost about 25 billion, and that was back in 2000-2001, so I don't think 850 miles for 17 billion is as accurate as you'd like to think.

High speed freight will almost certainly never happen, as it comes down to axle loading. European and Japanese bullet trains have a far lighter axle load than a US freight does. faster trains damage the track quicker. The 300 mph record-setting run the SCNF did a few years ago really messed up a straight section of track, and it was just 2 power units, 2 intermediate cars, and a telemetry car. If you want more train capacity, and fewer fraight delays, the only real solution is more track miles (double/triple track) and more efficient yard operations.

The high speed rail in florida is still moving foreward, but they are less sure of themselves now I think since the voters repealed the ammendment based on Jeb's campaign of misinformation and a poorly worded repeal text. Running rail down the highway centerline will work to a point, but it becomes an issue of curvature and intervening structures (overpasses and interchanges). LIght rail would be better suited to this. but I agree that High speed rail is viable in this country. at 200mph you could cross coast-coastin about a day.

The problem with amtrak is out west they have no ability to maintain their schedule due to freight congestion - and the only real answer to that is a dedicated passenger right-of-way double track.

Unfortunately the voters see anything dealing with rails as "subsidies" whereas airports get "grants" and airlines get "bankruptcy protection". If the airlines in this country could get together like Luftansa (sp?) that would be something. They run medium/short distance routes as flights, but they are on trains! therefore airports make better use of runways, and the airlines do better with the larger more efficient planes.

Chernobyl

[Anonymous]

Chernobyl: 320 mph record run didn't mess up anything. It was performed on a freshly built LGV - obviously, noone will risk damaging several billion of euros that didn't even started to get depreciated...

You might refer to the 1950 something record - also by french - 200 mph with some change. That did mess up the track pretty badly...

[Anonymous]

Chernobyl,

Regarding axle loadings, remember that the railroad could do what the truckers already know - spread the load weight over more axles (go with tri-axle bogies or even an extra "centered" bogie) to reduce per axle weight for the same relative car gross. The current 286k on two twin axle bogies gives a max axle weight of 71,500 lbs per axle. Using two tri-axle bogies on a 315k (to allow for higher tare due to more axles) gives a max axle weight of 52,500 lbs per axle. It all depends on how low one would have to go determine the proper max axle loadings for a 200 mph ride.

[oltmannd]

How about something like this for high speed rail?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=93123

(The kid in the blue sweater is me!)

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Chernobyl,

Regarding axle loadings, remember that the railroad could do what the truckers already know - spread the load weight over more axles (go with tri-axle bogies or even an extra "centered" bogie) to reduce per axle weight for the same relative car gross. The current 286k on two twin axle bogies gives a max axle weight of 71,500 lbs per axle. Using two tri-axle bogies on a 315k (to allow for higher tare due to more axles) gives a max axle weight of 52,500 lbs per axle. It all depends on how low one would have to go determine the proper max axle loadings for a 200 mph ride.

Well - the rule is simple - the less your train weighs - the better. TGVs are 17 tonnes per axle (about 37800 lb).

Also - 200mph operation would need full aerodynamic shrouding of the train.

oltmannd: been there, done that, got the t-shirt ;) TEL proved not to work before - and nothing changed about it as of yet.

Jet-train locomotive was 4000 hp at rail at ~90 tons. TGV power car is 6000 hp (probably 7k+ short term) at 68 tonnes...

[Anonymous]

I just toured the FRA website specific to HSR, and their R & D efforts are focussed entirely on passenger HSR, not a peep about incorporating freight HSR. The problem of course is that for passenger HSR they're looking at corridors of 100 to 500 miles (to compete with airlines and autos/buses), whereas a freight based HSR would be focussed on corridors over 500 miles (to compete with the dock to dock time of truckers). It just goes to show that the federal agencies (FRA, STB, et al) responsible for overseeing railroad technology in the U.S. are more than a few decades behind the comtemporary reality curve. No wonder Amtrak still operates using 1930's logistics.

I'll reiterate; if you want a futuristic project to be financially justified, you gotta let freight pay the overhead.