Slow pace expected on CHI-StL HSR

[schlimm]

http://www.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/12/slow-pace-expected-on-chicago-st-louis-high-speed-rail-upgrade.html

[BaltACD]

The article just highlights the public's perception that the switch from today's operations to HSR should be nothing more than flipping a switch.

HSR (and I personally don't consider 110 MPH running as High Speed) involves much more than flipping a switch.  It requires a lot of hard work and hard money to accomplish that work. 

When dealing with existing rail routes, you are looking at a route that was laid out by surveyors on horseback that were applying the best construction and movement rules of the mid 19th Century.  The earth-movers of that time were the biggest and strongest Irishman or German and how well he could operate a pick and shovel and the speed and distance the mules and horses could transport the spoil.  The overriding line principal was to find the Water Level grade between the end points of the line you were designing, extra mileage and curvature were a secondary consideration to establishing and minimizing the ruling grade between the end points.  To attempt to build truly High Speed on such a line is a effort in futility.  To achieve true High Speed Rail, the line needs to be laid out using the abilities of 21st Century engineering capabilities, not cobbled over the remnants of 19th Century engineering capabilities

[schlimm]

The RoW on the old Alton route is actually pretty good, in terms of grades and straightness.  IMO, the problem is sharing it with a freight railroad whose needs are quite different and which would be reluctant to have any construction interfere with its operations.  Additionally, constructing anything runs into the myriad of problems with hundreds of government agencies that may have input/objections.  110 mph is not HSR, but it is a start.  In general, I don't think the people are unreasonable to be fed up with the dithering they see here when that is compared to the pace of construction, not only in China, but even in "Old World" Europe, as a disgraced former Sec. of Defense called the EU.

[Falcon48]

BaltACD

The article just highlights the public's perception that the switch from today's operations to HSR should be nothing more than flipping a switch.

HSR (and I personally don't consider 110 MPH running as High Speed) involves much more than flipping a switch.  It requires a lot of hard work and hard money to accomplish that work. 

When dealing with existing rail routes, you are looking at a route that was laid out by surveyors on horseback that were applying the best construction and movement rules of the mid 19th Century.  The earth-movers of that time were the biggest and strongest Irishman or German and how well he could operate a pick and shovel and the speed and distance the mules and horses could transport the spoil.  The overriding line principal was to find the Water Level grade between the end points of the line you were designing, extra mileage and curvature were a secondary consideration to establishing and minimizing the ruling grade between the end points.  To attempt to build truly High Speed on such a line is a effort in futility.  To achieve true High Speed Rail, the line needs to be laid out using the abilities of 21st Century engineering capabilities, not cobbled over the remnants of 19th Century engineering capabilities

 

The Chicago-St. Louis line is actually very straight, once you get outside the terminal areas at the end points.  The bigger issues in getting 110 mph on this route are most likely track (the track has to be able to not only handle the passenger service, but also conventional freight service while maintaining the geometry necessary for the passenger service) and signalization, particularly grade crossing warning systems. The grade crossing issue is a particularly serious one as there are numerous grade crossings on the route. At 110 mph, a grade crossing accident can be a serious hazard for the train.  There is really no good solution for these problems other than to build a passenger only line with no grade crossings, something that's not going to happen.

Another serious problem with high speed service on this route is that the route segments in the terminal areas at the end points are very slow and delay prone.  It doesn't do a whole lot of good to spend big bucks to have trains race through the farmland at 110 MPH if they have to crawl through miles of slow, stop and go terminal trackage and the beginning and end of their trips.  I haven't been following this project very closely, but I'm not aware that the promoters are doing much of anything to address this problem (probably because getting consistent 50-60 MPH service in the terminal areas doesn't have the glitz and glamour of racing through farmland at 110)

[Phoebe Vet]

We are too bogged down in paper shuffling to accomplish anything meaningful.

Our 10 mile extension of an existing and operating light rail line has spent 27 million dollars over the last several years and has yet to move the first shovel full of dirt.  But we've had lost of studies, federal and state reviews, plan changes after the reviews, re reviews, community hearings, government reviews of the items brought up at the hearings, changes followed by more reviews... then there are the engineering studies and environmental impact studies and reviews of those studies...

I don't know how anything ever gets done.