The recent conference on nationwide HSR has defined new names. Since we Americans call Acela "High Speed Rail" the new nationwide 220 MPH system is cleverly going to be called "Very High Speed Rail."
aegrotatio The recent conference on nationwide HSR has defined new names. Since we Americans call Acela "High Speed Rail" the new nationwide 220 MPH system is cleverly going to be called "Very High Speed Rail."
Did the "Wise Men and Women" who attended the conference on nationwide HSR offer a detailed plan on how they propose to pay for it? For a nation with federal and government debt totaling $13.8 trillion, which is projected to grow to $22.8 trillion in 2019, as well as an estimated $43 trillion of unfunded liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, Military Pensions, etc.), those advocating a passenger rail system that will require massive government (federal, state, and local) funding should offer a detailed plan on how they plan to pay for it.
Although having ultimate speed goals of 150 or 200 or 220 mph is fine, we need to be realists about wise use of financial resources. The true goal should be to reduce the travel time between major population centers. The highest speed is only one factor. Reduction in the number and extent of lower speed stretches of trackage and elimination of slow-downs and stops for other (freight) trains can provide huge gains in overall average speed. Without those (cheaper) improvements, VHSR only allows for marginal time improvements at a very high cost.
If service between CHI and MSP could operate at an average of only (!) 110 mph and thus make the 418 mile run in 3 hours 45 minutes, it could be quite competitive with air and road. Contrast that with the current 8 hours, 15 minutes.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Although having ultimate speed goals of 150 or 200 or 220 mph is fine, we need to be realists about wise use of financial resources. The true goal should be to reduce the travel time between major population centers. The highest speed is only one factor. Reduction in the number and extent of lower speed stretches of trackage and elimination of slow-downs and stops for other (freight) trains can provide huge gains in overall average speed. Without those (cheaper) improvements, VHSR only allows for marginal time improvements at a very high cost. If service between CHI and MSP could operate at an average of only (!) 110 mph and thus make the 418 mile run in 3 hours 45 minutes, it could be quite competitive with air and road. Contrast that with the current 8 hours, 15 minutes.
Californias HSR is proposing 2Hr 30 minute timings on non-stops between LA and SF. And that is downtown to downtown something impossible to do if flying today. Remember the coast line requires over thrice the proposed time between LA and SF. I doubt if the money was spent on the coast line it would be next to impossible to achieve 110 mph service and would not serve the numbers of people the proposed valley route will.
Al - in - Stockton
In order to maintain an Avg. speed of 110 MPH, speeds would have to exceed 110 mph to account for acceleration, deaccelaration and boarding times and therefore would require a ROW completely separate from freight tracks, not a mere upgrade of existing track. Now,I don't disagree with you. A few hundred million could really go a long way on the CHI-MSO corridor, but the end result will never be close to HSR. A true HSR in the heartlands would require tens of billions.
At the risk of drawing a bad analogy, Very High Speed Rail is starting to sound similar to the Supersonic Transport of the 1960's. It looked really good on paper but the expense of developing the concept and the lack of a real market for such service doomed it to economic failure.
CSSHEGEWISCHAt the risk of drawing a bad analogy, Very High Speed Rail is starting to sound similar to the Supersonic Transport of the 1960's. It looked really good on paper but the expense of developing the concept and the lack of a real market for such service doomed it to economic failure.
I suspect that is all too true. But a pretty high speed (sustained average speed for the route) of 100+ with convenient, frequent service on fairly short routes sounds feasible.
If you go to this link and then to the Amtrak critical study section, there is some interesting info/propaganda.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
oltmanndFor trips of 300 mile or less, door to door times driving are roughly the same as flying, so for rail service to be competitive, it has to roughly equal the door to door driving time.
Could be workable for even more than 300 miles. For example, Chicago to Minneapolis/St.Paul (~400 miles), is a flying time of about 90 minutes. Add to that getting to/from the airports to the downtowns (about 2 hours?) , allow the one hour for boarding, and you have ~4 1/2 hrs. A train that can sustain 100 mph average would take about 4 hours. If you drove it would take (according to Google) 6 hrs. 15 mins. for the 400 miles. If one drives a bit faster, maybe that could be done in under 6 hrs. Sound pretty competitive to me. In pre-Amtrak days, the three competing rail routes managed the trip in just under seven hours. A route between those two metro areas should probably include Madison as well as Milwaukee on the way to include maximum population.
Good points, all, but the conference specifically stated that the "Very High Speed Rail" is on dedicated rights-of-way.
It's a pie-in-the-sky concept which, if implemented, would be great, but the viability of a dedicated "very high-speed rail network" is definitely a fantasy in the USA. No freight on these lines. Think Japan's Shinkansen or any of the German/French/etc high-speed rail networks that are dedicated to high-speed passenger-only systems.
A boondoggle by any other name is still a boondoggle...
Chuck
aegrotatio Good points, all, but the conference specifically stated that the "Very High Speed Rail" is on dedicated rights-of-way. It's a pie-in-the-sky concept which, if implemented, would be great, but the viability of a dedicated "very high-speed rail network" is definitely a fantasy in the USA. No freight on these lines. Think Japan's Shinkansen or any of the German/French/etc high-speed rail networks that are dedicated to high-speed passenger-only systems.
yeah right----
The Shinkansen and all the French/German networks 'work' in their contexts. The expenditure there would be no where near what a trans continental VHSR 'dedicated' rail system would cost in our contexts. There had been at least 35 years of yip up here to do a Windsor--Quebec City VHSR system--even 'dedicated' yet. The Turboliner was supposedly meant to be used in that sense but--sheeesh, the number of times it went PTOOF was amazing!!
It's just another way for certain big boys to play with their toys
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
aegrotatioGood points, all, but the conference specifically stated that the "Very High Speed Rail" is on dedicated rights-of-way.It's a pie-in-the-sky concept which, if implemented, would be great, but the viability of a dedicated "very high-speed rail network" is definitely a fantasy in the USA. No freight on these lines. Think Japan's Shinkansen or any of the German/French/etc high-speed rail networks that are dedicated to high-speed passenger-only systems.
I have been unable to find a report from that conference, but I think it is an awfully big jump to assume they meant a coast-to-coast VHSR net. Maybe east coast, some midwest, some south, some Texas and west coast. If they did mean transcontinental and all over the place, then I agree, it is a nightmarish fantasy in cost.
Calling it "VHSR" at 220mph may be closer to the truth. We are not ready for HSR outside of the NEC. We are lucky to have SSR (slow speed rail) or NSR (no speed rail).
THis is just a realistic view of what has been lost since the 1960's when so many passenger speed miles have been torn up or downgraded to freight speeds. This is a rational decision, as unit coal trains drag on at 40mph.
Figure the cost of upgrading 40mph rail tp slaow passenger speed at $1Mil per mile. Figure new construction to get HSR will co$t more than that. VHSR will be even more expen$ive.
We may have the biggest country with the slowest trains.
schlimm oltmanndFor trips of 300 mile or less, door to door times driving are roughly the same as flying, so for rail service to be competitive, it has to roughly equal the door to door driving time. Could be workable for even more than 300 miles. For example, Chicago to Minneapolis/St.Paul (~400 miles), is a flying time of about 90 minutes. Add to that getting to/from the airports to the downtowns (about 2 hours?) , allow the one hour for boarding, and you have ~4 1/2 hrs. A train that can sustain 100 mph average would take about 4 hours. If you drove it would take (according to Google) 6 hrs. 15 mins. for the 400 miles. If one drives a bit faster, maybe that could be done in under 6 hrs. Sound pretty competitive to me. In pre-Amtrak days, the three competing rail routes managed the trip in just under seven hours. A route between those two metro areas should probably include Madison as well as Milwaukee on the way to include maximum population.
This may be a good option for downtown to downtown travel. However, if Chicago and Minneapolis are anything like Dallas and Houston, for example, most of the folks who are potential intercity travelers (bus, car, plane, or train) don't live downtown or near downtown. And most of them are not going downtown. Instead, they come from or are headed to one of the burbs. Accordingly, if they are to take a train, unless they live on the side of town where the rail line runs, and the line includes a suburban station, they would have to get downtown to the railroad station, which would take as much time as a hypothetical trip to the airport.
Sam1This may be a good option for downtown to downtown travel. However, if Chicago and Minneapolis are anything like Dallas and Houston, for example, most of the folks who are potential intercity travelers (bus, car, plane, or train) don't live downtown or near downtown. And most of them are not going downtown. Instead, they come from or are headed to one of the burbs. Accordingly, if they are to take a train, unless they live on the side of town where the rail line runs, and the line includes a suburban station, they would have to get downtown to the railroad station, which would take as much time as a hypothetical trip to the airport.
I think the trend in many parts of the country is toward developing suburban transit systems (MSP, Dallas, Portland, etc.). I notice Houston has many corporate sites in the central area (eg., Exxon). Chicago has always been blessed with excellent suburban heavy rail line (Metra), currently with 11 lines, in all directions, providing good service. As a consequence, although we have a lot of suburban sprawl for housing and offices, a lot of the corporations are in the Chicago Loop or nearby. There has also been a trend toward gentrification of many city neighborhoods. So the business traveler coming or going would find a train could be competitive for the appropriate distances.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.