4. Paris - Lyon is only 290 miles and the best trains cover that in 2 hours. Chicago to Cleveland is 350. I don't think Cleveland is a major destination for folks in Chicago. Better to go to Columbus and on to Pittsburgh, both of which are more economically more important.
4. Paris - Lyon is only 290 miles and the best trains cover that in 2 hours. Chicago to Cleveland is 350. I don't think Cleveland is a major destination for folks in Chicago. Better to go to Columbus and on to Pittsburgh, both of which are economically important and more likely to be destinations. We need to be planning based on 2020 and the future, not looking backwards 70+ years., nice as that might seem.
Four things that were learned from California high speed rail construction are that building into cities is expensive, tunneling is expensive, numerous highway overpasses are expensive, and will probably find that large curves are expensive, both to buy land, build and maintain the tracks with long distances of about 4 degrees super elevation. In 50 years if the train speed increases to 300 mph, these curves will restrict you to about 250 mph maximum speed. It would be best to avoid cities, tunneling, highways and build in straight lines with as few curves as possible.
New York to Chicago will be an important high speed line, with Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo the main cities. Albany is the crossroads to future lines to Montreal and Boston. Buffalo is the connection to Toronto. Cleveland is the crossroad to Columbus/Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Toledo is the connection to Detroit. All of these cities need to be interconnected.
Albany to Chicago is about 818 miles and at 220 mph would take around 4 hours.To keep construction costs down, there will need to be a slower speed blended service into the main cities mentioned and also into smaller cities. Express trains would only stop in main cities, while local trains would also handle smaller cities. It takes a lot of energy to get up to 220 mph, so it would be nice to recover some of the stopping energy by regeneration into ultracapacitors or flywheels or other storage devices.
As I recall, the last census had Texas with the most growth, so it looks like a high speed rail from Chicago to Dallas is also required. I know that in Austin they built a new school to handle future needs, only to find out that the next year it was overwhelmed and needed additional temporary classrooms.
Jim200In 50 years if the train speed increases to 300 mph, these curves will restrict you to about 250 mph maximum speed.
I thought there is a finite ceiling type speed limit on how fast steel wheel on steel rail can go. However, long since forgot what the issue was.
Jim200 New York to Chicago will be an important high speed line, with Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo the main cities. Albany is the crossroads to future lines to Montreal and Boston. Buffalo is the connection to Toronto. Cleveland is the crossroad to Columbus/Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Toledo is the connection to Detroit. All of these cities need to be interconnected.
If I were building a New York-Chicago HSR route, I know I'm biased but I'd go through Philly and Pittsburgh. Amtrak already owns tracks from New York to Harrisburg so that would be a good start and the route would include Philly and it would be a shorter trip for Washington DC and Baltimore to get to Philadelphia. I'd also want to go south from DC to Florida, passing through Atlanta if possible (longer in distance but larger population base).
What makes sense to me is that there are maybe three routes in the US today that would be economically feasible for true HSR. NYC-Philly-DC, LA-SF, and DFW-Hou. California was ruined, NY-DC suffers lack of focus, and Texas still has a chance. The rest of the country would be at best about higher speed trains.
My guess is there’ll be other “disruptive” ideas that will take over the country’s transportation imagination.
I think the Big Boy, the Japanese mag-lev, and colonizing the Moon are fun things to think about right now.
CMStPnP Jim200 In 50 years if the train speed increases to 300 mph, these curves will restrict you to about 250 mph maximum speed. I thought there is a finite ceiling type speed limit on how fast steel wheel on steel rail can go. However, long since forgot what the issue was.
Jim200 In 50 years if the train speed increases to 300 mph, these curves will restrict you to about 250 mph maximum speed.
When I was young there were studies that established the highest 'practical' achievable speed for steel-on-steel adhesion to be in the neighborhood of 310-315mph, based on the physics of the incident contact patch approaching the coefficient of sliding rather than static friction. I never saw the detailed physical analysis, so won't comment on whether it had aspects of non-flying-bumblebee style assumptions.
The French record train had special larger-diameter wheels fitted, and some careful attention to high-speed wheelslip. That said, the nominal reason I heard for the limit on achieved top speed was related to pantograph electrical pickup, not adhesion limit (or electrical transmission through the wheels, which becomes significant at that speed)
Maglev and TACV have been 'reasonable' technologies since the 1960s -- but the 'real' question is why any speed much in excess of 220mph is long-term sensible for a ground vehicle. I picked 225mph as a 'target speed' for high-speed passenger in the 1970s because it was *just* possible to keep passengers protected against high-speed trauma in a straight-line accident with about 33" of proportional deceleration. If the cars come out of line ... it's probably Eschede time. One assumption for both maglev and TACV was that the guideway would constrain accidents to largely longitudinal 'mode' -- this is something of a gamble.
Just as one comes to question study of treatment modalities for melanoma for which the "best" alternative has 52% survival in the study period, one might come to question the sense of jet-aircraft speeds immediately adjacent to the ground, in our so-often imperfect world. (This far more so in our current culture of Internet-style engineering and testing methodologies...)
Overmod Maglev and TACV have been 'reasonable' technologies since the 1960s -- but the 'real' question is why any speed much in excess of 220mph is long-term sensible for a ground vehicle. I picked 225mph as a 'target speed' for high-speed passenger in the 1970s because it was *just* possible to keep passengers protected against high-speed trauma in a straight-line accident with about 33" of proportional deceleration. If the cars come out of line ... it's probably Eschede time. One assumption for both maglev and TACV was that the guideway would constrain accidents to largely longitudinal 'mode' -- this is something of a gamble.
I would think that air drag is the limiting factor, though collisions are much more likely with surface transportation than with aircraft, especially with guideways. With respect to the California HSR, I would think electric airliners would be cheaper, available sooner and faster between endpoints than the Cal HSR system. The main advantage for HSR is travel to/from midpoints where there would be more frequent service than with airlines.
On a related note, the USAF did a lot of work on terrain following radar and other low-level flying from the 1950's to 1970's, only to drop that approach for stealth aircraft. The F117 was an aerodynamic nightmare, but could fly farther at normal crusing altitude than a sleeker plane flying on the deck. Musk's Hyperloop uses evacuated tubes to simulate high altitudes.
Passenger trains will be facing disruptive technologies in the next 50 years. Existing limited access highways with autonomous vehicles of various types may be the most formidable for distances of 250-300 miles. Electric/hybrid airtravel will compete at greater distances.
Higher speed trains for up to 200 miles in heavily populated areas are possible. But lack of grade separation is often a fatal flaw, and building such out is horrendously expensive. And the more so as speed increases.
A lot more light rail and subways, particularly if costs could be brought under control, would bring a huge benefit to cities. But even there autonomous buses on dedicated lanes will compete at a lower price.
There are two words that will define transportation in the future - More Expensive.
There is the current push to make more toll roads - the tolls being charged would make a Loan Shark blush. Autonomous vehicles will not be 'cheap' either to own or operate. The only thing that makes electric vehicles seem cheap in today's work is that the 'authorities' have yet to devise a tax plan on the electricity required to 'fuel' electric vehicles - once they do, any cost advantage of a electric vehicle over a fossil fueled one will diminish if not vanish
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Yes, taxing authorities are, so far, at a loss as to how to charge operators of vehicles powered by electricity for their use of streets and hughways. It may be such will be required to stop at state line weigh stations for odometer checks --and for intrastate travel, regular odometer checks. So far, users of all-electric vehicles ar pretty much given free rides.
Johnny
I have read that passenger cars and light truck put no wear and tear on our interstate highways. It is all from large and heavy trucks. Where are those great RRs when and where we need them? LOL
ROBIN LUETHE I have read that passenger cars and light truck put no wear and tear on our interstate highways. It is all from large and heavy trucks. Where are those great RRs when and where we need them? LOL
I think the trucking lobby must be very powerful, as weight and length limits on trucks have increased substantially over the past 60 years.
Trucking, for all its problems, creates tremendous values for us consumers, we just pay for it in road maintenance. Railroads seem utterly unable to compete.
Some of us imagine shorter fast freight trains carrying container boxes sharing the tracks with great passenger networks. I don't know if it is even theoretically possible.
ROBIN LUETHEI have read that passenger cars and light truck put no wear and tear on our interstate highways. It is all from large and heavy trucks. Where are those great RRs when and where we need them? LOL
Being out lobbied in Congress and the State Houses. Follow the money - between the trucking industry and the construction industry it is at least two to one on the 'campaign donation' pay to play game, and in dollar amounts more likely 10 to 20 to 1.
ROBIN LUETHE I have read that passenger cars and light truck put no wear and tear on our interstate highways. It is all from large and heavy trucks.
JPS1 - thanks for that longer reply. That all seems to make sense. And as I estimate even those heavy trucks are shipping us stuff we want, and at low prices.
Here in Washington State cars on the east side frequently use metal studs in the winter time and those studs to tear up the surface of the pavement.
I remember when studded snow tires were a new idea and seemed to be quite the rage for awhile. Nobody gave much thought to road damage or loose studs thrown from the tires at the time.
Most states have outlawed studded tires.
ROBIN LUETHE JPS1 - thanks for that longer reply. That all seems to make sense. And as I estimate even those heavy trucks are shipping us stuff we want, and at low prices.
If the government in its wisdom decided to increase the fuel and/or excise taxes on big trucks so that they paid their "fair share", the cost would be passed through to every person buying the goods being shipped on the trucks.
JPS1 ROBIN LUETHE JPS1 - thanks for that longer reply. That all seems to make sense. And as I estimate even those heavy trucks are shipping us stuff we want, and at low prices. If the government in its wisdom decided to increase the fuel and/or excise taxes on big trucks so that they paid their "fair share", the cost would be passed through to every person buying the goods being shipped on the trucks.
But maybe our roads would be better.
charlie hebdo JPS1 If the government in its wisdom decided to increase the fuel and/or excise taxes on big trucks so that they paid their "fair share", the cost would be passed through to every person buying the goods being shipped on the trucks. But maybe our roads would be better.
Agreed! The fuel tax, as well as excise taxes, which are used to build and maintain the nation's roadways, should be increased across the board.
Fuel taxes, which reflect the price of building and maintaining the federal and state highways, should be adjusted for inflation since they were last increased in the early 1990s. Doing so would eliminate the need to transfer monies from the general funds to the highway trust fund or similar state funds.
The cost of local streets and country roads should be embedded in the price of fuel as a tax at the pump. Increasing the fuel tax to fund local streets and county roads could be offset by a corresponding reduction in property, sales, etc. taxes used to pay for local streets and county roads.
If motorists saw the true cost of driving at the pump, or as nearly true as can be reflected in the pricing mechanism, they might make wiser choices about the types of vehicles they drive and make greater use of public transit.
What is the chance of a significant change in how this country pays for roadways? Slim and none. And Slim was just seen riding out of town.
JPS1What is the chance of a significant change in how this country pays for roadways? Slim and none. And Slim was just seen riding out of town.
With the rise of electric cars - I think you may see that change sooner rather than later.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.
zugmann JPS1 What is the chance of a significant change in how this country pays for roadways? Slim and none. And Slim was just seen riding out of town. With the rise of electric cars - I think you may see that change sooner rather than later.
JPS1 What is the chance of a significant change in how this country pays for roadways? Slim and none. And Slim was just seen riding out of town.
Or we will continue down the path of declining infrastructure. Improved infrastructure is the foundation of a strong, modern economy and nation.
This came to me from David Klepper:
I'm staying at the Yeshiva today, meaning I cannot post on the Kalmbach website.Not extremely urgent, but if you can, on the Passenger - High SpeedThread, please post the following answer to the discussion on theproblems the Metro North route poses to both current and future Amtrakoperations and to establishing HSR.1. In addition to the problems mentioned, note that track-centersare narrower than standard Woodlawn - New Haven, and the Acela tiltdevice is disabled New Rochelle (or perhaps Penn Station) - New Haven.However, I did once see 110mph on a Turbotrain speedometer betweenStamford and Rye!2. The attached re-doing of Shell was done some 40 years ago at therequest of Noah Caplin, who was a planner at MNCR at the time and agood friend. Graham Claytor had proposed flyovers west of NR Station,but that would demolish about 50 homes and result in some streetclosings. East of the station, MN has lots of land left over from thedays when NR was a terminal for many commuter trains, the initial eastterminal of the electrification, and even had steam servicingfacilities and a turntable. All Penn Sta. trains in each directionwould normally use only what is now the eastbound local platform.During the morning rush, the eastbound local track would see both PennStation westbound trains and locals from GCT. Track 5, the oldHarlem Shuttle track, would see both eastbound and westboiund PennStation trains, During the evening rush, all Penn Station trainswould normally use this track.3. Possibly the best way to implement HSR NY - Boston isalong/adjacent to the LIRR RoW to Greenpoint, tunnel to Bridgeport,then to Danbury and Williamantic
I don't know if it was the server that fixed things for me or Kalmbach, but at this moment I can sign in at the Yeshiva! Whoopee!
I need to post that HSR would go direct Bridgeport - Willimantic, not via Danbury, which is an unecessary detour.
daveklepperI need to post that HSR would go direct Bridgeport - Willimantic, not via Danbury, which is an unecessary detour.
Still has the same issue of the Big Left Turn on the Island that the proposal through Hartford does.
I'm still quixotically holding out for being able to see at least one sunrise from the Orient Point Bridge before I pass on.
"If motorists saw the true cost of driving at the pump, or as nearly true as can be reflected in the pricing mechanism, they might make wiser choices about the types of vehicles they drive and make greater use of public transit."
JPS1 forgets the rural areas in much of the country where "public transit" basically doesn't exist. They would face a major increase in their cost of living. Of course, there are always those such as an environmentalist friend of mind who said the solution was to have everyone live somewhere where they could all bicycle to work and, if the rural folks wouldn't move, the government would make them.
The US blew it more than 50 years ago when the government began allowing states to double the weight of the truck loads without any look at the long-term effects of the decisions. That combined with the costs of the creation of Medicare, creation of the welfare system, all volunteer miliatary, increase in fuels due to OPEC, SS problems, the Vietnam war & 2nd Iraq war & the Afganistan war, the costs associated with environment regulations, the increasing of non-Fed Taxes in general, not keeping up with Preventive Maintenance on what we have now, the costs of all governmental pentions, etc. has us where we are today in regard to underfunding of infrasture.
If motorists had to pay full costs.... Well rural areas would then be better served by public transit. During WWII, as a youngster at summer camp, I used the Suncook Valley Railroad's bus service that ran between Alton Bay and Concord. NH. (When at age 13 I learned about the Concord - Pittsfield mixed, my return trip from the biweekly Concord denist's office visit was my the train to Pittsfield and then the bus the rest of the way to summer camp.) I'm pretty certain that bus route doesn't exist today, but it could be restored. Ditto many of the Trailways and Greyhound routes that have been abandoned. The Swiss solved the problem of lightly-used rural transit routes with the Post-Bus, combining mail delivery and public transit in rural areas.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.