Every blog or discussion forum I visit discussing Amtrak inevitably shifts at some point to comparisons of air travel versus rail travel, travel time, train speeds, economic benefit and effciency, public interest, taxpayers burden. On another thread titled Why Cant Big Class I's Railroads.... this question is currently being discussed.
I started this thread to share my own commentary which has been influenced by how I would like to travel on different modes (air, rail, car, etc.)
When flying it would be nice to travel at the presumed 600 mph, but I rarely do, and although 475 is actually a good average, my actual travel time must include all that is involved point-to- point and then it includes many hours of suface travel time and waiting.
When traveling by car, it is amazing how much distance you can cover in a reasonable amount of time in some regions (contingent on traffic and locale) because there have been times when I have started a journey at 3:00 am after waking at 2:50 am and hit the road 10 minutes later. With no traffic present I have, on more than one occasion, driven at a speed of 105-112 mph only slowing down if I see another vehicle or some other object of concern. I'll also say that I know I've broken a whole lot of laws doing this and also will say that it is stupid and reckless, but, I've done this, when and where possible. A 750 mile trip from just south of the Black Hills into Nebraska and southeast to Kansas was accomplished in 10 hours.
How fast do I really want to tavel by car? - about 80 legally would satisfy me.
How fast would I like to travel in the air, honestly? - 2000 miles per hour or faster, and I know this isn't possible, but 3 hours in the air to travel 1200 miles isn't fast enough-I want it to be a half hour or less. But no one wants sonic booms and everything is scheduled and air-trafficked at a speed which falls within a range that doesn't really vary (about 450 mph on average).
On a train: How fast would I like to go-110 mph would be fast enough for me. At this speed you cover most intercity distances pretty damn fast. You would easily outpace a car (unless it was being driven by a nutcase going 105-112 mph), and we're talking travel city-to-city-to-city, not point-to-point (across country.) Do I think we need high speed rail (like Japan or France)?-I don't. I know many do, but hedging the future of passenger rail on this is almost like science fiction because it may be technolgically feasible but is it really practical? Would a bullet train that could run 200 mph be able to compete with airlines?-I don't think it could, in any compelling way. As others have said airlines and trains occupy different niches.
The cost factor, the safety factor and the practicality I think relegate this debate to an endless discourse with no national decision being made. However, the technology for 110 mph speeds is readily available, for the most part affordable, and could probably be incorporated within existing rail infrastructure, or come close to it. High Speed Rail is a different and separate system.
There is a small epithet that history has offered to Mussolini that goes" he made the trains run on time." This saying is an obvious indication that at one time the trains didn't run on time in Italy. So it only a takes a will and enforcement of rules and rights to make this happen-I wish that were so in this country, a place where the public interest has been relegated to a distant fourth place when it comes to Amtrak service, by powers beyond Amtrak's control. 110 mph, with trains keeping a schedule is for me the goal to strive for. I hope our nation moves in that direction, because this isn't asking the for the moon (oh, yeah, w've been there, several times).
The speed the customer cares about is the door to door time. The max speed is only really useful if you're going for the thrill factor.
For example: I recently made a 750 mile trip by train in one direction and air on the return. For the train trip, my door to door time was 17 hours. Flying back, it was 7 hours. Driving the same trip is 13 hours. Flying was only about twice as fast as ground transportation, door to door, even though the top speed was more than 5X faster.
There are many trip time factors. Some are:
-station spacing/access/location
-curve speeds
-track speed/geometry
-train accelration/deceleration rates
-station boarding/wait times/train freq.
Which of these gives you the most bang for the buck depends a lot on the route and service.
For relatively straight, high density routes along exisiting ROW, 110 mph service is probably a good goal. Elsewhere - which includes a lot of Amtrak routes, 110 just won't get you much.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I'm beginning to wonder how much "progress" we can stand. Were the Budd-equipped, GG-1 hauled NYC - DC trains of the Fifties eally that much slower than the Acela? Seems that the Metroliner came in on time only if it skipped a few stops, and in the long run (no pun intended) it didn't sustain those two-and-a-half hour scheduled times without blasting its points, etc.
You could make the argument that people were less mobile in the 1950s. On the other hand, most Acela "Express" runs come in at around 2 hrs., 45-50 mins. I don't have the stats at hand, but I would guess it was much cheaper on the pocketbook using fifties money to travel Penn Station - Union Station D.C. in coach than on any Acela Express and possibly most Regionals. And it took what, maybe 30-35 minutes longer, if that, to do the job reliably.
As for commuting, in towns of any size with traction, I've a hunch getting around town or to and from work was generallly faster in about 1910 than today, if for no other reasons there were hardly any cars clogging the streets.
Some of this will cure itself. Because of environmental, safety and insurance reasons, the POV is going to get much more expensive to own. I don't look for a huge rush of people back to the NEC, but I don't see how they couldn't get some, if only be default from the Interstates and the airports (the airplanes themselves aren't all that bad, IMHO, it's the driving, parking and security make us crazy more than even now-standard airliner delays of 20+ minutes.
It certainly does seem to me that since the Interstates and toll roads were brand-new, it set a standard that was hard to maintain; it takes longer and longer to move the distance; more and more congestion, delays and poor road, and not much improved technology from car and the plane (jets are faster on NEC flights than turbo-props, but the time savings is not very significant). Our legislatures seem more interested in pork-barrel projects than on comprehensive long-term planning to relieve congestion in the NEC. OTOH Amtrak is so strapped for even halfway-decent equipment that I don't think it could accommodate much more traffic defecting from auto and air.
I didn't start out to play Cassandra but all the impetus toward transportation policy seems bent on doing nothing of much consequence, except for those pork-barrel projects of dubious merit. - a. s.
The Congressionals were 3:35. The Metroliners were all sub-3hr except when they were running with a gen car + 2 Amfleet. The Metrolilner time keeping was generally pretty good. I believe that all the Regional trains are all sub 3:35 these days.
One other factor is that there is much more traffic on the NEC now than then, particularly from Trenton north and Philly south.
In 1974, a one way ticket from Phila to NYP was $4.75 - a buck more for the Metroliner. Ticket prices have risen much faster than inflation as the value of the service has improved. It's so much nicer now than in 1974!
oltmannd wrote: The Congressionals were 3:35. The Metroliners were all sub-3hr except when they were running with a gen car + 2 Amfleet. The Metrolilner time keeping was generally pretty good. I believe that all the Regional trains are all sub 3:35 these days.One other factor is that there is much more traffic on the NEC now than then, particularly from Trenton north and Philly south.In 1974, a one way ticket from Phila to NYP was $4.75 - a buck more for the Metroliner. Ticket prices have risen much faster than inflation as the value of the service has improved. It's so much nicer now than in 1974!
Wdlgln005 wrote:Part of the equation must be in periods of bad & poor weather. Flight times can easily double due to ground delays. A bad wreck clogs the Interstate. The cops must have been asleep if you can do 100 that time of night. The smoky's here would be keen to pull you over, son, stay at our nice county jail (get mixed up with some illegal aliens). On the radio, they announced that There is supposed to be a trooper stationed within 10 miles of each other along I-40 for the enire distance from California to Carolina. About 400 miles in TN. No word on who pays for all the troopers.
I think all this has to be factored in -- delays, weather, security, the "real life" concerns. IMHO if Amtrak could field passenger trains that would be from downtown Chicago to downtown Detroit, RELIABLY, in four to four-and-a-half hours, they would do good business.
Now, is it possible to do this without electrification? The evidence from VIA's corridor suggests that the answer is yes.
In terms of fast-enough, it depends on the route and trip length. Amtrak's NY-Philly is probably the one segment on their entire route that contributes meaningfully to congestion relief, and NY-Philly, Chicago-Milwaukee, and LA-San Diego are all success stories that are not only well under the "under 400 miles is a corridor" factoid but are well too short for meaningful air travel unless it is a connecting flight.
Frequency is a big part of the equation that I haven't seen mentioned yet. If you are trying to get Milwaukee-Minneapolis and there is only the Empire Builder, and the times don't meet your requirements, then where are you? Frequency can make up for speed because you spend less time waiting for the next train.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Cricketer wrote:Fast enough is three hours journey time. All things being equal if the train journey is under three hours then the preferred mode will be train, if over then flying is preferred. So choose your corridor length and work out what speed is needed.
That sounds like a pretty reasonable rule of thumb. It would vary some by location. For example, it's probably closer to 4 hours in Atlanta since door to door time from home airport terminal is about an hour for most residents of the metro area.
In practice, most corridors are a series of overlapping OD pairs and modelling the overall demand is dependent on trip times between all the OD pairs in the route. Varying the speed will effect the cost and the demand. Most studies I've seen try to find that sweet spot of incremental cost for speed vs. incremental ridership demand. The speed cost is often driven by the current route geometry - i.e. how much, if any, new alignment/ROW is needed. Then they look at the economics of the "sweet spot" to determine if it's a reasonable investment.....
HI AGAIN PRAIRIE TYPE,
WE ALL WOULD LOVE TO SEE THE SPEED OF THE US TRAINS THAT EUROPE,JAPAN AND OTHER COUNRIES ARE DOING.EVEN THOUGH THE TECHNOLOGY IS THERE,STILL THE RR'S DONT WANT TO INVEST.DO YOU REMEMBER WHEN AMTRAK BROUGHT THE CONCPT TRAIN THAT TILTINGB A LITTLE WHEN IT WAS RUNNING FOR A MONTH ON THE ST LOUIS-KANSAS CITYMULE.MORNIING FROM ST.LOUIS AND LATE AFTERNOON FROM K.C. I RODE THAT BOTH WAYS AND THOUGHT AMTRAK AD THE ANSWER THEN ,BUT NOTHING MATERILIZE OUT OF IT.
OKAY NOW MARK CORZINE,HAS ASKED ME TO PUT ON ALL THE BLOGS TTO REMIND ANYONE WHO WILL BE IN THE KANSAS CITY,MO ON DECEMBER 8TH TO ATTEND NORTHERN FLYER OPEN PUBLIC MEETING AT 1030 AM. THERE WILL BE ANOTHER MEETING AT 9.00 AM FOR THE STATE REPS,SENATORS,TRANSIT PERSONS,BUT NO QUESTIONS WILL BE TAKEN,HOWEVER ANYONE CAN SIT IN ON THE PRESENTATION.,
Train service works best when there is a market that is looking for something cheaper, as fast if not faster than one's car, and conveniently puts the passenger in a position to easily (and cheaply) get to their destination.
New York City is an excellent example of such a system. My father, a commuter on the New Haven Railroad in 1968 (when service was very much a disaster) took the train from New Haven to New York. The reason he did so was because the railroad was a better alternative cost wise and time wise than driving. I rode the train several times from NH to NYC and observed with fascination how cars on the Connecticut Turnpike (now I-95) would often outrace the train. The speed limit on the Turnpike was 60 mph. The commuter trains on the NHRR might have gotten up to 50 on a good day, but the ride was like "a destroyer on a high sea.", according to my father. Still, the cost of a monthly ticket was much less than driving a car into the city- and this is 1968, where fuel prices were around 35 cents a gallon.
Cars were OK if you could get around your destination easily, but even professional truck drivers wince if they have to go into downtown Manhattan during the day. You could park a car in Manhattan at the time for around $300 a month at 1968 dollars. It was cheaper and easier to get off the train in Penn Station, hop a subway, and walk a block to Washington Square, where my father worked.
There are cities where the combination of mass transit, train service, and convenience would work for commuters. The speed of the train would be a huge factor, but it's not neccessary to travel at Warp 1. As long as the train and public transit can get you from your doorstep to your workplace, preferably starting off later in the morning, you will have a winning combination. An example is Atlanta, believe it or not. When I go into Hotlanta for a museum or a show, I drive my truck from Columbus to the southernmost MARTA station by the airport. If my destination is on the MARTA main line(s), boom, I am in town faster than if I drove- particularly if I need to be there during the weekdays. Or, I can get closer to an off MARTA destination by taking the bus. It's a lot better than putting up with Hotlanta I-85, 285, 75, and 20 traffic.
The train would allow me to depart later from Columbus if it was faster than the 70 miles per hour speed limit on I-185. (That speed limit is more a suggestion than the rule.) 110 miles an hour from the Columbus station (still standing) to the MARTA station- around 98 miles- would save me a lot of time- 30 minutes- and hopefully, cost less than what I pay in terms of fuel, insurance, and maintenance. Commuters to the airport pay a local bus company around $50.
If you could come up with a way to keep the fare low, the speed reasonably high, and the terminal adequately supported by mass transit (that was clean, and relatively crime free) you would make a lot of people consider the train as compared to car.
The speed is an important consideration when competing modes of transit are obviously slower and more costly.
I recently saw the you-tube of the French hyper-speed TGV. I don't think I ever want to go 350 mph on the ground. A crash in that case, and there are many elements that could cause this, would be catastrophic; I think identical to an airline crash.
If over that distance it would shave an hour or two I don't think that savings is of any consequence. If it were to save 8-9 hours of travel time, well maybe, and I still worry about the safety quotient (an animal on the track that even if small would have an impact equivalent of hundreds of pounds, a track problem, etc.)
Around 120 maximum is fast enough for me.
The 350+ mph TGV was a test train. Not a revenue passenger train. Frankly, it shows a high degree of wisdom, establishing the upper threshold of the railroad infrastructure plus rolling stock technology (which has not been established as yet, frankly, if the test train ran safely at that speed).
How would small, or even large, animals have any effect on the train at speed? Force equals mass times acceleration; therefore, the faster the train moves, the greater the force on the animal that's unfortunate enough to be on the track at the wrong time, and since the animal's body is not accelerated, there is no resistant force that would transmit energy back into the train or track to damage either in any way (same principle applies on the road—heavy trucks do a number on deer and other animals while at speed on the highway). Impact of the train on the animal is increased, not of the animal on the train. Even a thousand-pound bear would have zero effect on the train, other than to create a bigger trackside mess. Never mind the mass component of the train itself, which is the largest of all land vehicles. You can't compare the effect with animal-versus-automobile.
120 mph is an old threshold passed decades ago (arguably, this was achieved during the steam era); Amtrak has operated at 5 mph faster than that on the Northeast Corridor for decades. 150 mph is pretty much the safe maximum for traditional railroad corridors. Dedicated high-speed corridors have a very low likelihood of animal trespass, and frankly, the only danger is to the animals if they happen to end up there.
JT22CW wrote: The 350+ mph TGV was a test train. Not a revenue passenger train. Frankly, it shows a high degree of wisdom, establishing the upper threshold of the railroad infrastructure plus rolling stock technology (which has not been established as yet, frankly, if the test train ran safely at that speed).How would small, or even large, animals have any effect on the train at speed? Force equals mass times acceleration; therefore, the faster the train moves, the greater the force on the animal that's unfortunate enough to be on the track at the wrong time, and since the animal's body is not accelerated, there is no resistant force that would transmit energy back into the train or track to damage either in any way (same principle applies on the road—heavy trucks do a number on deer and other animals while at speed on the highway). Impact of the train on the animal is increased, not of the animal on the train. Even a thousand-pound bear would have zero effect on the train, other than to create a bigger trackside mess. Never mind the mass component of the train itself, which is the largest of all land vehicles. You can't compare the effect with animal-versus-automobile.120 mph is an old threshold passed decades ago (arguably, this was achieved during the steam era); Amtrak has operated at 5 mph faster than that on the Northeast Corridor for decades. 150 mph is pretty much the safe maximum for traditional railroad corridors. Dedicated high-speed corridors have a very low likelihood of animal trespass, and frankly, the only danger is to the animals if they happen to end up there.
It's the kinetic thing.
A small small grain of sand in space could actually break the shuttle's windshield, and actually did crack one once. Stand on a beach on a windy day and that same small grain of sand can sting like hell. At what speed/velocity does an object, any object have an effect out of proportion to it's size or mass? I'm no physicist, and cannot quote math calculations, but I have certainly been impressed by the effect of animal impacts on airplanes, and Fabio when that goose from Canada flew into his face on the roller coaster ride.
If a train ever left the track at very high speed it would be ugly.
I do appreciate and agree with the points in your first paragraph, but personally I wouldn't or I guess can't imagine much benefit derived from running over 180 mph. Its cost and energy consumption would probably make it the darling of criticism and endless debate.
Punctual schedules and a modest increase in current track speed are what I want to argue for in today's political and economic climate. It might also promote a modest level of expansion which would be a good thing and a step in a direction that many want to see.
CG9602 wrote:It should also be noted that the maximum speed is *not* the same as the average speed. For the NEC, despite all of its higher speed, the average speed is 78 mph. If you want to explore how the public might respond to higher speed, get the average speeds of the train network up to make them competitive with driving. It will do no good to have a train capable of 150 mph if that same route's average speed is considerably less (78 mph). I would also like the train network to address the intermediate point to intermediate destination market, and not just the suburbs-to-city center market. If you look at the numbers, of where people embark and disembark across the National Network, over 95 percent of the passenger traffic is between intermediate points, either on one route or between connecting routes.
As a matter of fact, even our Acela is a borderline case. Except for a few miles, it doesn't run at 150 mph, and some people in Europe define a high-speed train as one that can cruise long periods of time at that figure, or more.
Which begs the question: We know the Acela is capable of 150 mph, but has anyone tried (indeed, has it ever been possible) to test the train to see if it is capable of sustained cruising for several hundred miles at the current 150 mph limit? I don't think there's enough non-urban electrified line to try it; I would think it close to impossible to get thru New York/Hell's Gate enroute from D.C. to New Haven and Boston without some serious slowdowns. Maybe at 3:00 a.m.? Is there even enuf capacity what with all the freight that runs at night??
Another long stretch under catenary would be NEC Penn Station thru North Philadelphia and on to Harrisburg if possible, but with significant slowdowns in Philly.
OTOH, has something enough like the Acela been tested in Europe with sustained flat-out running? - a.s.
CG9602 wrote:It should also be noted that the maximum speed is not the same as the average speed. For the NEC, despite all of its higher speed, the average speed is 78 mph. If you want to explore how the public might respond to higher speed, get the average speeds of the train network up to make them competitive with driving. It will do no good to have a train capable of 150 mph if that same route's average speed is considerably less (78 mph)
Now one thing that may be regarded as a problem is that the overall average speed for Acela Express from Boston to Washington is 72 mph (per current timetable) while it was initially advertised to be as high as 78 mph; now this was indeed a problem that the tilt suspension was supposed to mitigate, and even contribute towards improving Boston-New York trip times. Metro-North's New Haven Line, however, still has a slow average speed, and it would cost quite a bundle to upgrade that railroad to Amtrak-level signaling plus track conditions (not to mention Metro-North requires Amtrak to operate the Acela Express on their railroad with active-tilt switched off), so that road will leave the Acela Express stuck at an approximate average speed of 55 mph between New York and New Haven for quite a long time.
I would also like the train network to address the intermediate point to intermediate destination market, and not just the suburbs-to-city center market. If you look at the numbers, of where people embark and disembark across the National Network, over 95 percent of the passenger traffic is between intermediate points, either on one route or between connecting routes.
JT22CW wrote: CG9602 wrote:It should also be noted that the maximum speed is not the same as the average speed. For the NEC, despite all of its higher speed, the average speed is 78 mph. If you want to explore how the public might respond to higher speed, get the average speeds of the train network up to make them competitive with driving. It will do no good to have a train capable of 150 mph if that same route's average speed is considerably less (78 mph)To clarify, the current average speed of the Acela Express between New York and Washington is 81 mph; on the "super-express", which skips all stops save Philly, the average speed is 87 mph. And that's without any 150-mph running on the former PRR; the fastest the train currently goes, albeit briefly, is 135 mph, so we are left wondering what long stretches of 150-mph running would improve that journey to. The Regionals operate at the 78-mph average speed. (I'm aware of anecdotes claiming a 90-mph average speed for some of the super-express Metroliner MUs when they first came out, too.) Incidentally, this is not only time-competitive with driving (by far), but also with the air shuttles, which have taken quite a pounding from the AE of late.Now one thing that may be regarded as a problem is that the overall average speed for Acela Express from Boston to Washington is 72 mph (per current timetable) while it was initially advertised to be as high as 78 mph; now this was indeed a problem that the tilt suspension was supposed to mitigate, and even contribute towards improving Boston-New York trip times. Metro-North's New Haven Line, however, still has a slow average speed, and it would cost quite a bundle to upgrade that railroad to Amtrak-level signaling plus track conditions (not to mention Metro-North requires Amtrak to operate the Acela Express on their railroad with active-tilt switched off), so that road will leave the Acela Express stuck at an approximate average speed of 55 mph between New York and New Haven for quite a long time.I would also like the train network to address the intermediate point to intermediate destination market, and not just the suburbs-to-city center market. If you look at the numbers, of where people embark and disembark across the National Network, over 95 percent of the passenger traffic is between intermediate points, either on one route or between connecting routes.You mean as it did in the past? The expresses would be the foundation to build such a network on. Back during the so-called "heyday" of passenger rail, trains like the Broadway Limited had a mere six intermediate stops, for example.
Prairietype wrote:I do appreciate and agree with the points in your first paragraph, but personally I wouldn't or I guess can't imagine much benefit derived from running over 180 mph. Its cost and energy consumption would probably make it the darling of criticism and endless debate.Punctual schedules and a modest increase in current track speed are what I want to argue for in today's political and economic climate. It might also promote a modest level of expansion which would be a good thing and a step in a direction that many want to see.
oltmannd wrote: The speed the customer cares about is the door to door time. The max speed is only really useful if you're going for the thrill factor.For example: I recently made a 750 mile trip by train in one direction and air on the return. For the train trip, my door to door time was 17 hours. Flying back, it was 7 hours. Driving the same trip is 13 hours. Flying was only about twice as fast as ground transportation, door to door, even though the top speed was more than 5X faster.There are many trip time factors. Some are:-station spacing/access/location-curve speeds-track speed/geometry-train accelration/deceleration rates-station boarding/wait times/train freq.Which of these gives you the most bang for the buck depends a lot on the route and service. For relatively straight, high density routes along exisiting ROW, 110 mph service is probably a good goal. Elsewhere - which includes a lot of Amtrak routes, 110 just won't get you much.
JT22CW wrote:To clarify, the current average speed of the Acela Express between New York and Washington is 81 mph; on the "super-express", which skips all stops save Philly, the average speed is 87 mph.
To clarify, the current average speed of the Acela Express between New York and Washington is 81 mph; on the "super-express", which skips all stops save Philly, the average speed is 87 mph.
That is still a far cry from the 162mph average speed of the Nozomi super-express from Tokyo to Osaka. If they upgrade the NEC to Shinkansen spec, then you'd see door-to-door travel times that rival (and often beat) air travel and leave car in the dust. Once that happens, we might see a huge shift in national opinion on high speed rail in dedicated high population corridors (east coast, west coast, Mississppi River & Texas, waterlevel route)
The last time I rode all the way to Boston (not Acela) I saw on my GPS 113 MPH between New Carrollton and BWI and 124 somewhere either before or after Philadelphia (not sure which). But from New York to Providence there are mostly a lot of curves and quite a few rather old and rickety bridges where the train slows to about 20 MPH. So, I agree that it will be difficult to improve the trip time through Connecticut.
Another irritant was that the car rental agencies near South Station in Boston were all closed by the time the train arrived (not late, either), so we had to schlep everything by MTA over to the airport to get a car. We would have done that even if they had been open because the rates at South Station were almost double those at the airport.
Take a Boeing 737 make point a to b and mark the travel time. Add two hours for boarding and two to get off the thing.
Now, build a pax train system that will match or best this 737's time.
That is the pax I would like to see all over the USA.
The replies to the post correctly note that dependability and frequency will do more for ridership than sheer speed (although nobody will seriously spend money on a high-speed line without the expectation of a frequent headway.)
That noted, there is a lot that railroads and transportation policy makers could do to achieve greater speeds without massive investments in electrification and new generation trains, let alone magnetic levitation. The 110 mph figure of merit is a good place to start ... that's what C. H. Bilty and K. F. Nystrom had in mind for the Hiawathas, with an intended 60 minute nonstopper Chicago to or from Milwaukee. It's doable on existing infrastructure, particularly if the Federal Railroad Administration would do away with Interstate Commerce Commission era orders that were put into place to ensure that carriers that made an investment in automatic train control of various kinds were able to earn a reasonable return on that investment ... which they did by making it "contrary to the public interest" to run trains faster than 79 mph if they hadn't made that investment. A review of Official Guides from the end of World War II to the early 1950s is instructive ... the Acela Express gets a rider from Baltimore to Boston not much faster than the Afternoon Zephyr got a rider from St. Paul to Chicago. See <http://coldspringshops.blogspot.com/search?q=afternoon+zephyr>.
Stephen Karlson, DeKalb, Illinois
During WWII I did once ride an Advance Congressional (coach seat, non-reserved, regular low fair) Washington - NY 3:05, stopping only at Newark. Full train too, about 12 coaches and Parlor.
The NE corridor can be improved. Money can be spent on the Hell Gate Bridge line between New Rochelle and Harold/Sunnyside in Queens to make much of it above 100 mph, and flyovers east of New Rochelle Station (west of the station requires much residential land taking with existing houses) with more use of track 5 at the station can smooth out schedule problems at this junction, helping both Metro North and Amtrak. The 150 mph stretch in Connecticut can be replicated Boston Switch to Route 128, since it is mostly straight track. Together these can cut about 20 minutes off Acela time. South of NY new catenary can make Baltimore - Washington 150 mph territory. Wilmington - Towsend also.
Rode one of the first Metroliners at 138 mph on the digital, a Turboliner at 110 mph.
All corridors don't need frequent all-day service to be successful. Some less dense could use one of two trains each way in the morning, 6AM earliest departure and 10Am latest arrival, evening 4 - 8pm. And people would ride if fast, comfortable, and convenient.
Is there some saying that in war, the amateurs talk tactics while the pros work on logistics?
Maybe with passenger trains, the amateurs talk Talgos vs Superliners while the pros work on signals. Adoption of some kind of universal GPS-based positive train control should be a goal of the advocacy community.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.