High Speed Rail Costs

[Anonymous]

RE: HSR on freeway ROW's

You probably could place a HSR ROW between the lanes of a freeway, since the alignment of the usual freeway is condusive to high speed operations, at least in the Midwest and West. You would have to replace the middle support column of the typical overpass. Since there typically would only be room for one track, you either have to have directional running between terminals, or spend the money for more rail access ramps between freeway center and the area outside the freeway corridor.

But as has been noted, you do basically have a free ROW to work with, which could drastically cut down on the total cost of constructing HSR.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

oltmannd:

noone says that the route should have only two stops. A wise investor would build the route that accomodates as many cities as possible - with speed in mind.

Imho the best route would be:

NYC <-> Philly <-> Pittsburgh <-> Cleveland <-> Toledo <-> Fort Wayne <-> Chicago (optional) Milwaukee.

From Toledo also include "branch" to Detroit.

Overall about 700-750 miles of track and a few million people to serve.

NYC-Philly would be on new'n'improved NEC

Your NY to Chic would be >900 miles. PRR main was 904 and it skipped your Cleveland and Toledo stops. If you go NY to Chicago via Phila, Pitt, Cleveland and Toledo, you wind up at 940 or so. Shortest rail route NY to Chicago was 896 on the Erie. You would squeeze out some miles by trading grade for curve to keep the speed up, but you'd probably still wind up over 900 miles.

HSR with intermediate stops would be transforming technology. It would open up currently rural areas of the country to developement. This may have value beyond just moving existing passengers (or some future ones in the same lanes). But, it's a big question that's not been answered.

HSR without intermediate stops we already have and it's called an airplane.

If the HSR in question is over an open access system, then it would be up to the transporter to decide if intermediate stops are warrented or not. You could have some service providers who want the intermediate business, and others who's service is best facilitated by running straight through. I would think a freight based "mixed" service would want to run straight through, unless the intermediate stops don't interfere with the scheduled ETA.

You guys need to get out of the Amtrak frame of mind and start thinking comprehensively.

"Who's on first. What's on second. Idunnos on third......"

For an Amtrak proponent, that's a huge improvment in critical thought......

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

oltmannd:

noone says that the route should have only two stops. A wise investor would build the route that accomodates as many cities as possible - with speed in mind.

Imho the best route would be:

NYC <-> Philly <-> Pittsburgh <-> Cleveland <-> Toledo <-> Fort Wayne <-> Chicago (optional) Milwaukee.

From Toledo also include "branch" to Detroit.

Overall about 700-750 miles of track and a few million people to serve.

NYC-Philly would be on new'n'improved NEC

Your NY to Chic would be >900 miles. PRR main was 904 and it skipped your Cleveland and Toledo stops. If you go NY to Chicago via Phila, Pitt, Cleveland and Toledo, you wind up at 940 or so. Shortest rail route NY to Chicago was 896 on the Erie. You would squeeze out some miles by trading grade for curve to keep the speed up, but you'd probably still wind up over 900 miles.

HSR with intermediate stops would be transforming technology. It would open up currently rural areas of the country to developement. This may have value beyond just moving existing passengers (or some future ones in the same lanes). But, it's a big question that's not been answered.

HSR without intermediate stops we already have and it's called an airplane.

If the HSR in question is over an open access system, then it would be up to the transporter to decide if intermediate stops are warrented or not. You could have some service providers who want the intermediate business, and others who's service is best facilitated by running straight through. I would think a freight based "mixed" service would want to run straight through, unless the intermediate stops don't interfere with the scheduled ETA.

You guys need to get out of the Amtrak frame of mind and start thinking comprehensively.

"Who's on first. What's on second. Idunnos on third......"

[Anonymous]

Well - PRR ROW was built 100 or so years ago. TGV Sud-Est is about 20% shorter then traditional line. Sub 850 is possible

Highway route is below 800 miles.

Also - all HSR in europe has intermediate stops. Some have more, some have less. Its the same deal in Japan.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark

32 million per mile over 800 miles is $25.6 billion.....higher than $17.3 billion.... but still acceptable.... I am not interested in replacing jet aircraft, I'm interested in providing another means of travel comparable to jet aircraft, which in many places are already maxed out... Whether its 4 hours or 5 hours or 6 hours to Chicago from New York City, there will still be better service in places like Cleveland, which today only sees passengers trains at night and a 16-17 hour trip....

The HSR right of way is no larger than a two lane highway, 40 feet wide.....not a divided 4-6 lane highay and 150 plus feet wide. Frankly, there is enough right of way along the interstate highways already, or alongside current or former railroad right of way.... we could built the HSR lines in most places astride one side of an interstate highway, reaching stations by diverting off the interstates near the stations inside the major cities using whatever right of way....

Paris like London has plans to build a tunnel to create a HSR hub.... London is building theirs as we discuss this on this forum.... Eventually the rail lines will be linked in Europe.... and they haven't finished building theirs yet.....

Will we be better off building a HSR of the 21st century, or are we better off to continue to spend a billion or two a year maintaining our obsolete 19th century railroad.....that is the question? I am convinced that any HSR line at whatever speed will compete with the airliners in a New York City to Chicago and Miami run.... as long as it doesn't require an overnight trip.....as today.....

My company considers a flight a day....time wise.... Train travel should be the same, the technology is here to do so in America east of the Rockies.....

I live in the Dallas Fort Worth area. From DFW airport I can fly to Las Vegas in less than 3 hours, yet if I wanted to fly to Reno instead, the best time is 8 hours, as there is no non stop flight from DFW to Reno.....

Its not a race.... its getting there today.....before it turns dark.....

Some interstates may be good for HSR, but there are none in PA that would be acceptable. Vertical and horizontal curves would kill the speed.

I'd bet a 200 mph allignment accross PA would cost quite a bit more than $32M/mile.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

oltmannd:

noone says that the route should have only two stops. A wise investor would build the route that accomodates as many cities as possible - with speed in mind.

Imho the best route would be:

NYC <-> Philly <-> Pittsburgh <-> Cleveland <-> Toledo <-> Fort Wayne <-> Chicago (optional) Milwaukee.

From Toledo also include "branch" to Detroit.

Overall about 700-750 miles of track and a few million people to serve.

NYC-Philly would be on new'n'improved NEC

Your NY to Chic would be >900 miles. PRR main was 904 and it skipped your Cleveland and Toledo stops. If you go NY to Chicago via Phila, Pitt, Cleveland and Toledo, you wind up at 940 or so. Shortest rail route NY to Chicago was 896 on the Erie. You would squeeze out some miles by trading grade for curve to keep the speed up, but you'd probably still wind up over 900 miles.

HSR with intermediate stops would be transforming technology. It would open up currently rural areas of the country to developement. This may have value beyond just moving existing passengers (or some future ones in the same lanes). But, it's a big question that's not been answered.

HSR without intermediate stops we already have and it's called an airplane.

If the HSR in question is over an open access system, then it would be up to the transporter to decide if intermediate stops are warrented or not. You could have some service providers who want the intermediate business, and others who's service is best facilitated by running straight through. I would think a freight based "mixed" service would want to run straight through, unless the intermediate stops don't interfere with the scheduled ETA.

You guys need to get out of the Amtrak frame of mind and start thinking comprehensively.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

oltmannd:

noone says that the route should have only two stops. A wise investor would build the route that accomodates as many cities as possible - with speed in mind.

Imho the best route would be:

NYC <-> Philly <-> Pittsburgh <-> Cleveland <-> Toledo <-> Fort Wayne <-> Chicago (optional) Milwaukee.

From Toledo also include "branch" to Detroit.

Overall about 700-750 miles of track and a few million people to serve.

NYC-Philly would be on new'n'improved NEC

Your NY to Chic would be >900 miles. PRR main was 904 and it skipped your Cleveland and Toledo stops. If you go NY to Chicago via Phila, Pitt, Cleveland and Toledo, you wind up at 940 or so. Shortest rail route NY to Chicago was 896 on the Erie. You would squeeze out some miles by trading grade for curve to keep the speed up, but you'd probably still wind up over 900 miles.

HSR with intermediate stops would be transforming technology. It would open up currently rural areas of the country to developement. This may have value beyond just moving existing passengers (or some future ones in the same lanes). But, it's a big question that's not been answered.

HSR without intermediate stops we already have and it's called an airplane.

[Anonymous]

oltmannd:

noone says that the route should have only two stops. A wise investor would build the route that accomodates as many cities as possible - with speed in mind.

Imho the best route would be:

NYC <-> Philly <-> Pittsburgh <-> Cleveland <-> Toledo <-> Fort Wayne <-> Chicago (optional) Milwaukee.

From Toledo also include "branch" to Detroit.

Overall about 700-750 miles of track and a few million people to serve.

NYC-Philly would be on new'n'improved NEC

[Anonymous]

Permit me to ask if we build this HSR line CHI-NYC, what would be so bad about having an evening departure, with morning arrival, that had sleeping space? If the evening trip took 10 hours and was, in essance, a rolling hotel, couldn't we fill that train? We do it now with what we got.

But even without the overnighter, I think the CHI-NYC HSR idea is great. I guess it is time to move into 21st Century railroading.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

32 million per mile over 800 miles is $25.6 billion.....higher than $17.3 billion.... but still acceptable.... I am not interested in replacing jet aircraft, I'm interested in providing another means of travel comparable to jet aircraft, which in many places are already maxed out... Whether its 4 hours or 5 hours or 6 hours to Chicago from New York City, there will still be better service in places like Cleveland, which today only sees passengers trains at night and a 16-17 hour trip....

The HSR right of way is no larger than a two lane highway, 40 feet wide.....not a divided 4-6 lane highay and 150 plus feet wide. Frankly, there is enough right of way along the interstate highways already, or alongside current or former railroad right of way.... we could built the HSR lines in most places astride one side of an interstate highway, reaching stations by diverting off the interstates near the stations inside the major cities using whatever right of way....

Paris like London has plans to build a tunnel to create a HSR hub.... London is building theirs as we discuss this on this forum.... Eventually the rail lines will be linked in Europe.... and they haven't finished building theirs yet.....

Will we be better off building a HSR of the 21st century, or are we better off to continue to spend a billion or two a year maintaining our obsolete 19th century railroad.....that is the question? I am convinced that any HSR line at whatever speed will compete with the airliners in a New York City to Chicago and Miami run.... as long as it doesn't require an overnight trip.....as today.....

My company considers a flight a day....time wise.... Train travel should be the same, the technology is here to do so in America east of the Rockies.....

I live in the Dallas Fort Worth area. From DFW airport I can fly to Las Vegas in less than 3 hours, yet if I wanted to fly to Reno instead, the best time is 8 hours, as there is no non stop flight from DFW to Reno.....

Its not a race.... its getting there today.....before it turns dark.....

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Where are you getting these avg speeds from!!!

Paris to Lyon is 244 miles. TGV schedule is 2:15. Avg speed is 108 for a train with a top speed of 186 mph.

Acela, with a 135 mph top speed and lots and lots of tangent track, can just barely avg 100 mph between Wilmington and Baltimore.

MAYBE you could avg 120 mph with a 200 mph top speed. MAYBE you could find a route that's only 850 miles long. That yields a 7 hour trip.

Intrestingly - TGV to Lyon has 2 stops on that route. Non-stop train to Brussels from Paris manages 130 mph average - but it has to slow down on the switches at Lille. It would do 140+. Intrestingly most of time is used on getting out of Paris and into Brussels where those trains operate on the traditional lines.

Also - Japanese Shinkansen still hold the record of 165 mph average on the Hiroshima-Kokura racetrack. That is 120 miles in 44 minutes. That service is 186 mph. Extrapolating to 200 mph - that would ~175 mph average - and that is just 120 miles!

The projected Chi-Ny route would be built from 150+ mile segments. With 200mph trains you can expect 150+ mph averages there - depending how many stops you make.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/cursortrail.html

According to this distance chart (don't blame me - its the first one that Google spewed out) NY-Chi is 719 miles. Allow 15% overhead - its 826 miles.

http://www.hm-usa.com/distance/usa.html

according to this - shortest highway distance is 795 miles.

In the first case - 150 mph avg yelds 5:30 in the second it is 5:18

Now - the "airplane style" Chi-NY route - no stops, high speed all they way - at distance of 825 miles. We miss 40 miles in 30 minutes to get out of Chicago and into NY - and to get to 200 mph top speed - where the train travels.

That is: 3:55 hour trip at 200 mph and 30 minutes - that is 4:25 or avg of 186 mph. If you pushed the limit (extremely lightweight trains and high power) it would be probable to do sub 4 hour trip this way. It would require 230-240 mph max speed and 207 mph average.

Simply put - the sheer distance between those towns would suffice to make it the fastest railroad in the world.

BTW - the route would require 6-8 stops to fill the capacity. And maybe even a few smaller stations for "regional" trains.

I'm still skeptical. There are significant terrain issues between NY and Chicago.

And, after you spend $100B or so to do this, you have nothing better than flying - which we already have - without spending $100B. And, you're only serving 10% of the country's population (Metro NYC & Metro Chicago)

I'd rather spend the $100B and provide corridor services to the 70-80% of the population who live east of the Mississippi River. Way more "bang" for my tax dollar.

Remember, it cost $2B just to string catenary and install new signalling, (plus a little track work - its was generally 100 mph class 6 track before Acela) on existing railway between New Haven and Boston (about 150 miles). For HSR of the type you're talkiing about, you'd be after some siginificant cutting and filling over some tough terrain in order to keep horizontal and vertical curves to an acceptable level- at $90M/mile for the aquisition of land, engineering, grading and track structure plus $10M/mile or so for catengary and signalling, etc. you're creeping up on $100B in a hurry.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The FRA should require electronic disc brakes anyway for conventional freight cars, the technology already exists and is commercially available. So the evolution of freight onto HSR is not that far removed from commercial reality, if and when such a system is online.

Great! I say the FRA funds it out of the highway trust fund. How about PTC while they're at it? If the frt RRs have to pay, you're looking at some bankruptcies.

The railroads managed to adopt Westinghouse air brakes when pressured. They managed to adopt knuckle couplers when pressured. They managed to adjust to standard guage when pressured. I guess they can adopt the EDB without too much hassle. How do they pay for it? Out of their profits, if indeed MWH's latest column regarding rail ROI's vs McDonald's and the S & P's is not an example taken out of context.

MWH did not talk about ROI, he talked about stock value appreciation.

Railroads, as a whole, make tons of money in their "golden era" and were able to do large capital improvement projects. RRs, as a whole, right now, are still not revenue adequate. This means, they are slowly going out of business - yes - really! (ever wonder why RRs don't own many frt cars anymore?) Now, in 2004, they MAY have reached the revenue adequacy level - it's not known for sure yet. So, there may be some hope for the future.

However, there is not one nickel extra to be invested in large discretionary capital projects. And, what small amounts of discretionary capital they can support spending goes to support targeted growth (particularly in intermodal) and improving capacity bottlenecks.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Where are you getting these avg speeds from!!!

Paris to Lyon is 244 miles. TGV schedule is 2:15. Avg speed is 108 for a train with a top speed of 186 mph.

Acela, with a 135 mph top speed and lots and lots of tangent track, can just barely avg 100 mph between Wilmington and Baltimore.

MAYBE you could avg 120 mph with a 200 mph top speed. MAYBE you could find a route that's only 850 miles long. That yields a 7 hour trip.

Intrestingly - TGV to Lyon has 2 stops on that route. Non-stop train to Brussels from Paris manages 130 mph average - but it has to slow down on the switches at Lille. It would do 140+. Intrestingly most of time is used on getting out of Paris and into Brussels where those trains operate on the traditional lines.

Also - Japanese Shinkansen still hold the record of 165 mph average on the Hiroshima-Kokura racetrack. That is 120 miles in 44 minutes. That service is 186 mph. Extrapolating to 200 mph - that would ~175 mph average - and that is just 120 miles!

The projected Chi-Ny route would be built from 150+ mile segments. With 200mph trains you can expect 150+ mph averages there - depending how many stops you make.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/cursortrail.html

According to this distance chart (don't blame me - its the first one that Google spewed out) NY-Chi is 719 miles. Allow 15% overhead - its 826 miles.

http://www.hm-usa.com/distance/usa.html

according to this - shortest highway distance is 795 miles.

In the first case - 150 mph avg yelds 5:30 in the second it is 5:18

Now - the "airplane style" Chi-NY route - no stops, high speed all they way - at distance of 825 miles. We miss 40 miles in 30 minutes to get out of Chicago and into NY - and to get to 200 mph top speed - where the train travels.

That is: 3:55 hour trip at 200 mph and 30 minutes - that is 4:25 or avg of 186 mph. If you pushed the limit (extremely lightweight trains and high power) it would be probable to do sub 4 hour trip this way. It would require 230-240 mph max speed and 207 mph average.

Simply put - the sheer distance between those towns would suffice to make it the fastest railroad in the world.

BTW - the route would require 6-8 stops to fill the capacity. And maybe even a few smaller stations for "regional" trains.

I'm still skeptical. There are significant terrain issues between NY and Chicago.

And, after you spend $100B or so to do this, you have nothing better than flying - which we already have - without spending $100B. And, you're only serving 10% of the country's population (Metro NYC & Metro Chicago)

I'd rather spend the $100B and provide corridor services to the 70-80% of the population who live east of the Mississippi River. Way more "bang" for my tax dollar.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by tomtrain

Mitch,

This is where I've found your outlook and sensitivity to detail really interesting.

That it's necessary today to, in a sense, go into battle or at minimum have a face-off to travel somewhere.

That rail could provide transportation that's contrarian to what is accepted as transportation today, and would attract paying customers. It doesn't have to "join 'em".

Kind of idyllic considering the prevaling currents, but something possible. Very attractive.

Boarrddd!!!

Thanks for your comments.

Tomtrain...Thanks for your kind remarks.
It's not a question of idyllic, but a questio of quality of experience. I've had 5 hour train rides that seemed to go in a matter of 2, and I've had 2 hour flights that seemed to last a day. Sometimes hours and dollars saved are not the only measuring stick.

I'v mentioned this before as an example. I've shaved with a straight razor for 40 years now. It takes me 20 minutes longer than if I used one of those silly, vibrating Mach 3s and a can of cake decorating foam. But the results, and the way I feel after it are worth it. But I'm not alone. I belong to a group, on Yahoo, of folks that use straight razors. Last year there were only a few hundred members. Now we have over 1600. There are straight razor manufacturers that are improving their product and expanding their lines. For something that's considered by many as "old fashioned" or "quirky." But it goes to the quality of experience issue just like HSR vs. air travel. Shear "I can prove it's better by running the numbers" doesn't always cut it. I can show you hundreds of paintings done by artists with all the right credentials, all the right reviews, all the right galleries, and Norman Rockwell still out sells them, and he's dead. And Norman wasn't neccessarily loved by the experts. It's what's inside that counts.
And now off the soap box, and back to the easel.

Mitch

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
Where are you getting these avg speeds from!!!

Paris to Lyon is 244 miles. TGV schedule is 2:15. Avg speed is 108 for a train with a top speed of 186 mph.

Acela, with a 135 mph top speed and lots and lots of tangent track, can just barely avg 100 mph between Wilmington and Baltimore.

MAYBE you could avg 120 mph with a 200 mph top speed. MAYBE you could find a route that's only 850 miles long. That yields a 7 hour trip.

Intrestingly - TGV to Lyon has 2 stops on that route. Non-stop train to Brussels from Paris manages 130 mph average - but it has to slow down on the switches at Lille. It would do 140+. Intrestingly most of time is used on getting out of Paris and into Brussels where those trains operate on the traditional lines.

Also - Japanese Shinkansen still hold the record of 165 mph average on the Hiroshima-Kokura racetrack. That is 120 miles in 44 minutes. That service is 186 mph. Extrapolating to 200 mph - that would ~175 mph average - and that is just 120 miles!

The projected Chi-Ny route would be built from 150+ mile segments. With 200mph trains you can expect 150+ mph averages there - depending how many stops you make.

http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/cursortrail.html

According to this distance chart (don't blame me - its the first one that Google spewed out) NY-Chi is 719 miles. Allow 15% overhead - its 826 miles.

http://www.hm-usa.com/distance/usa.html

according to this - shortest highway distance is 795 miles.

In the first case - 150 mph avg yelds 5:30 in the second it is 5:18

Now - the "airplane style" Chi-NY route - no stops, high speed all they way - at distance of 825 miles. We miss 40 miles in 30 minutes to get out of Chicago and into NY - and to get to 200 mph top speed - where the train travels.

That is: 3:55 hour trip at 200 mph and 30 minutes - that is 4:25 or avg of 186 mph. If you pushed the limit (extremely lightweight trains and high power) it would be probable to do sub 4 hour trip this way. It would require 230-240 mph max speed and 207 mph average.

Simply put - the sheer distance between those towns would suffice to make it the fastest railroad in the world.

BTW - the route would require 6-8 stops to fill the capacity. And maybe even a few smaller stations for "regional" trains.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The FRA should require electronic disc brakes anyway for conventional freight cars, the technology already exists and is commercially available. So the evolution of freight onto HSR is not that far removed from commercial reality, if and when such a system is online.

Great! I say the FRA funds it out of the highway trust fund. How about PTC while they're at it? If the frt RRs have to pay, you're looking at some bankruptcies.

The railroads managed to adopt Westinghouse air brakes when pressured. They managed to adopt knuckle couplers when pressured. They managed to adjust to standard guage when pressured. I guess they can adopt the EDB without too much hassle. How do they pay for it? Out of their profits, if indeed MWH's latest column regarding rail ROI's vs McDonald's and the S & P's is not an example taken out of context.

[Anonymous]

Don,

Right now, where in the US or Canada can reliable 80-85mph average speed be delivered with convenience and comfort without massive, additional investment? Should those places be made the focal point to grow from?

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator

CHi to NYC is about 800 (give or take 25) miles. At 160 average it is 5 hours. At 170 average it is 4:40.

Through train from Chi to Nyc without stops could do 190+ average that is 4:10

Where are you getting these avg speeds from!!!

Paris to Lyon is 244 miles. TGV schedule is 2:15. Avg speed is 108 for a train with a top speed of 186 mph.

Acela, with a 135 mph top speed and lots and lots of tangent track, can just barely avg 100 mph between Wilmington and Baltimore.

MAYBE you could avg 120 mph with a 200 mph top speed. MAYBE you could find a route that's only 850 miles long. That yields a 7 hour trip.

I could build a lot of airports in NY and Chicago for what it would cost me to build a 850 mile, 200 mph RR between the two cities.

Now, if you want to talk about some 110 mph max, 80 mph avg, connect-the-dots service

like NY-Phila-State College, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, Chicago

or NY, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Chicago

or Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Chattanooga, Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis, Chicago

or Detroit, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Atlanta

or Boston, Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, St. Louis, KC

or Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond, NEC

with spurs to places like Charleston, Birmingham, Norfolk, Scranton/Binghamton, Montreal, Charlottesville, etc.

that leveraged existing rail routes as much as possible, you'd have my attention!

[wallyworld]

As much as I would squeeze every ounce of my hope against hope we will have an intermodal high speed rail network, we can anticipate the first link to completed when pigs fly.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The FRA should require electronic disc brakes anyway for conventional freight cars, the technology already exists and is commercially available. So the evolution of freight onto HSR is not that far removed from commercial reality, if and when such a system is online.

Great! I say the FRA funds it out of the highway trust fund. How about PTC while they're at it? If the frt RRs have to pay, you're looking at some bankruptcies.

[Anonymous]

CHi to NYC is about 800 (give or take 25) miles. At 160 average it is 5 hours. At 170 average it is 4:40.

Through train from Chi to Nyc without stops could do 190+ average that is 4:10

[Anonymous]

Mitch,

This is where I've found your outlook and sensitivity to detail really interesting.

That it's necessary today to, in a sense, go into battle or at minimum have a face-off to travel somewhere.

That rail could provide transportation that's contrarian to what is accepted as transportation today, and would attract paying customers. It doesn't have to "join 'em".

Kind of idyllic considering the prevaling currents, but something possible. Very attractive.

Boarrddd!!!

Thanks for your comments.

[Anonymous]

Why not Warp-1? How many business people really need to travel between NY and Chicago? As communications and technology advance, meetings could be held in virtual reality meeting rooms on the net. And how many people REALLY need to commute to work? Some companies have embraced telecommuting where employees actually come to work 1 or 2 days a week. IBM even implemented something called Hoteling for some departments. Instead of each employee having an office or cube, space is allocated and set up on an as-needed basis as employees are scheduled to be in the office. Another concept is decentralized regional work-centers, shared space used by employees of multiple companies located close to home. And what ever happened to flex-time? It started out well in the 70s during the oil embargo, now in many companies it means working all 10-11 hours.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by 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.

CHI-NYC door to door on HSR would be about 5 hours or so. Be that as it may do you mean to tell us that a 2 hour difference is a deal breaker when it comes to choice? The door to door scenerio via air is not a one-seat ride. It includes limo to the airport, standing in line for security, and limo to the other door. For me, and a lot of folks that's a lot of bother. They're using the Lake Shore as it stands now. Cut the time in half and add decent service we may have something. If it stops in South Bend I'll be a regular.

As for the end of airport security in the future, I'm afraid it's here to stay. There is no politician that will back it's diminishment or removal, and the need for it will probably always exsist. On top of that security has become an industry. Complete with trade shows and conventions. Some day we'll all be walking around with a necklace filled with ID.

Mitch

[daveklepper]

Should require? From tax money? Enough to get an Amtrak subsidy out of highway funds. A legitamate case can be made for that because of the elderly, handicapped who have been short-changed by the car culture. Want to modernize the private sector freight railroads with tax dollars also? When traffic congestion gets that bad, maybe. The place to start on a free enterprise basis might be intermodal. Give the truckers piggyback with high speed service?

[Anonymous]

The FRA should require electronic disc brakes anyway for conventional freight cars, the technology already exists and is commercially available. So the evolution of freight onto HSR is not that far removed from commercial reality, if and when such a system is online.

[martin.knoepfel]

high-speed-freight is not only a question of axle-loads.

freight-cars need more expensive passenger-coach-like brake-systems. the brakeshoe is not acceptable. the Germans tried to establish high-speed-freight-trains, but commercial succes was too small.

I wonder whether conventional railroads - with top-speeds of 125 mph or less - would not be a better solution for short corridors like the ones in Florida or for Chicago-Milwaukee. Electric-traction - for faster acceleration - may get faster schedules than high top-speeds.

[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.

[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...