Sam1 BaltACD: The only political will in the country today is for each party to obstruct the other at the expense of the country. No winners....only losers. Whether the political environment is more contentious today than in the past is debatable. On more than one occasion members of Congress have gone after each other with fists, canes, clubs, etc. Those familiar with the nation's history know that the debates from the 1820s to 1860 were rife with acrimony. As long as the funding of transportation and its infrastructure is controlled by politicians, who gets favorable treatment will be hotly contested by the representatives of those who are left out or get fewer dollars than they think that they deserve. This is true irrespective of which political party is in power or the party of the representative who is on the losing side. A better way would be to stop all transport subsidies, make sure the full cost of each mode is displayed at the price point (ticket window, pump, etc.,) and let the chips fall where they may. If this were allowed to happen, passenger rail might be able to compete in relatively short, high density corridors where the expansion of highway and airway capacity is cost prohibitive. Unfortunately, it will never happen. The politicos will never give up their grasp of the transport purse strings. Surrendering the ability to pass out political goodies is too much to ask of politicians. So the subsidies will continue to flow. And few people will understand the mish mash outcomes. If passenger rail or any other mode of transport could not survive in an open, competitive market, it should be allowed to die.
BaltACD: The only political will in the country today is for each party to obstruct the other at the expense of the country. No winners....only losers.
The only political will in the country today is for each party to obstruct the other at the expense of the country. No winners....only losers.
Whether the political environment is more contentious today than in the past is debatable. On more than one occasion members of Congress have gone after each other with fists, canes, clubs, etc. Those familiar with the nation's history know that the debates from the 1820s to 1860 were rife with acrimony.
As long as the funding of transportation and its infrastructure is controlled by politicians, who gets favorable treatment will be hotly contested by the representatives of those who are left out or get fewer dollars than they think that they deserve. This is true irrespective of which political party is in power or the party of the representative who is on the losing side.
A better way would be to stop all transport subsidies, make sure the full cost of each mode is displayed at the price point (ticket window, pump, etc.,) and let the chips fall where they may. If this were allowed to happen, passenger rail might be able to compete in relatively short, high density corridors where the expansion of highway and airway capacity is cost prohibitive. Unfortunately, it will never happen. The politicos will never give up their grasp of the transport purse strings. Surrendering the ability to pass out political goodies is too much to ask of politicians. So the subsidies will continue to flow. And few people will understand the mish mash outcomes.
If passenger rail or any other mode of transport could not survive in an open, competitive market, it should be allowed to die.
Hey! I agree with you! And that's a change! ...from a contentiuos and pugalistic congress to scrubbing everything down to the bones I agree is what has to happen in order for any changes can be made.. And that it will never happen, I doubt there would ever be even a 90% consensus on all of that. But, if we could get the bargainers--the planners--to at least think in terms that nothing exists and that they are building from scratch, and doing this part without political interference, then there might be hope that a real rational, efficient, and effective transportation system/service might be able to be discussed. and perhaps even understood.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
BaltACD The only political will in the country today is for each party to obstruct the other at the expense of the country. No winners....only losers.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
But if that is the program that is the program which all parties agree to and carry out...doesn't matter what is; it is what is accepted to be done that matters. Compensatons, re-lay the Erie or build a 300 mile an hour roadbed for passenger and 150 for freight. Whatever happens it is what will be agreed to and planned for and reasoned out. It is something totally outside today's box.
Again, not very practical. Who compensates NS and CSX for all the money that has been poured into their existing routes to make them modern freight haulers? Or pays them to re-lay the old Erie, say, and bring it up to modern freight standards?
The DL&W-NKP, Erie, LV-NKP, B&O, CNJ-RDG-PRR (via Willamsport and Erie), and the NYC West Shore are routes that would be consdered under your idea, Schlimm. However they are also routes which don't go through major markets as did the NYC and PRR. The alternative would be to use the NYC and PRR routes for passenger and HSR and return the likes of the Erie for freight service. That is of course if the freight railroads are only interested in the end points of these routes and not going to worry about small market services..
The real point is that there are alternative paths available for use either way and that if thought through the ability to come up with a viable solution is possible.
Pretty clearly any sort of HrSR or HSR service between NYC and CHI, serving some cities in between is not going to be able to use the currently heavily used freight lines. Back in the day, how many different RoW's were there? PRR seemed to have had several; ditto NYC (West Shore line). There were also the Erie, NKP/DL&W, and B&O (at least most of the way. Are some of those lines lightly or underused or abandoned and could be rebuilt?
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
oltmannd Sam1: tnchpsk8: The PRR had four tracks running side by side over most if not all of this route. When Conrail took over they removed one of the tracks. How difficult would it be to replace that track for high speed passenger service only. The right of way is already there, owned by NS. Upgrading the roadbed and installing ties and rail would be the expense. In most new rail route building the land aquistion is the most costly feature of the enterprise. I rode the PRR for many years as a young man. Having grown up in Altoona, I took the train east and west on numerous occasions. Here is what I remember, although someone more familiar with the PRR or a better memory may contradict me. From Pennsylvania Station New York to Newark the line was two tracks. From Newark to Paoli it was four tracks. From Zoo Tower, where the north/south line intersected with the east/west line, I believe the north/south line was four tracks to Wilmington, but south of Wilmington it was a two or three track railroad until Baltimore. I cannot remember the configuration from Baltimore to Washington's Union Station, although just north of the station it was two tracks if I remember correctly. From Paoli to Harrisburg it was two and three tracks. From Harrisburg to the Rockville Bridge, it was two or three tracks, as was the case across the bridge. Once across the bridge, it was four tracks to Tyrone, except for the squeeze through the Spruce Creek tunnels. From Tyrone to Johnston it was four tracks. West of Johnston it was two and three tracks to Pittsburgh. West of Pittsburgh, whether it was to St. Louis or Chicago, it was a two track railroad. West bound freights out of Jersey City ran via the Trenton Cut-off, if I remember correctly. It was two tracks. And the line from Baltimore to York and Harrisburg was also two tracks. Pennsy publicity photos almost always show the railroad as a four track broadway, from which its flagship train got the name, but in reality it was more of a two track railroad than a four track railroad. Now I am sure there is someone out there who will contradict me. But hey, what are forums for if not for learning? If you count the parallel routes, it was four tracks nearly all the way. From the North Jersey terminals to Newark, the freight route, the P&H branch was double track. From Trenton to Banks, where the freight route through Enola rejoins the mainline, the "low grade line/Trenton cutoff" (Conrail called it the Enola Branch) was double track. From Conpit Junction, just west of Johnstown, the Conemaugh line was double track to where it rejoined the mainline on the north side of Pittsburgh. West of Pittsburgh, it's less clear, but the panhandle to Columbus and then the PRR main from Columbus to Chicago was also double track. So, there really wasn't a single ROW that was four tracks wide, but there were four tracks from NY to Chicago.....
Sam1: tnchpsk8: The PRR had four tracks running side by side over most if not all of this route. When Conrail took over they removed one of the tracks. How difficult would it be to replace that track for high speed passenger service only. The right of way is already there, owned by NS. Upgrading the roadbed and installing ties and rail would be the expense. In most new rail route building the land aquistion is the most costly feature of the enterprise. I rode the PRR for many years as a young man. Having grown up in Altoona, I took the train east and west on numerous occasions. Here is what I remember, although someone more familiar with the PRR or a better memory may contradict me. From Pennsylvania Station New York to Newark the line was two tracks. From Newark to Paoli it was four tracks. From Zoo Tower, where the north/south line intersected with the east/west line, I believe the north/south line was four tracks to Wilmington, but south of Wilmington it was a two or three track railroad until Baltimore. I cannot remember the configuration from Baltimore to Washington's Union Station, although just north of the station it was two tracks if I remember correctly. From Paoli to Harrisburg it was two and three tracks. From Harrisburg to the Rockville Bridge, it was two or three tracks, as was the case across the bridge. Once across the bridge, it was four tracks to Tyrone, except for the squeeze through the Spruce Creek tunnels. From Tyrone to Johnston it was four tracks. West of Johnston it was two and three tracks to Pittsburgh. West of Pittsburgh, whether it was to St. Louis or Chicago, it was a two track railroad. West bound freights out of Jersey City ran via the Trenton Cut-off, if I remember correctly. It was two tracks. And the line from Baltimore to York and Harrisburg was also two tracks. Pennsy publicity photos almost always show the railroad as a four track broadway, from which its flagship train got the name, but in reality it was more of a two track railroad than a four track railroad. Now I am sure there is someone out there who will contradict me. But hey, what are forums for if not for learning?
tnchpsk8: The PRR had four tracks running side by side over most if not all of this route. When Conrail took over they removed one of the tracks. How difficult would it be to replace that track for high speed passenger service only. The right of way is already there, owned by NS. Upgrading the roadbed and installing ties and rail would be the expense. In most new rail route building the land aquistion is the most costly feature of the enterprise.
The PRR had four tracks running side by side over most if not all of this route. When Conrail took over they removed one of the tracks. How difficult would it be to replace that track for high speed passenger service only. The right of way is already there, owned by NS. Upgrading the roadbed and installing ties and rail would be the expense. In most new rail route building the land aquistion is the most costly feature of the enterprise.
I rode the PRR for many years as a young man. Having grown up in Altoona, I took the train east and west on numerous occasions. Here is what I remember, although someone more familiar with the PRR or a better memory may contradict me.
From Pennsylvania Station New York to Newark the line was two tracks. From Newark to Paoli it was four tracks. From Zoo Tower, where the north/south line intersected with the east/west line, I believe the north/south line was four tracks to Wilmington, but south of Wilmington it was a two or three track railroad until Baltimore. I cannot remember the configuration from Baltimore to Washington's Union Station, although just north of the station it was two tracks if I remember correctly.
From Paoli to Harrisburg it was two and three tracks. From Harrisburg to the Rockville Bridge, it was two or three tracks, as was the case across the bridge. Once across the bridge, it was four tracks to Tyrone, except for the squeeze through the Spruce Creek tunnels. From Tyrone to Johnston it was four tracks. West of Johnston it was two and three tracks to Pittsburgh. West of Pittsburgh, whether it was to St. Louis or Chicago, it was a two track railroad.
West bound freights out of Jersey City ran via the Trenton Cut-off, if I remember correctly. It was two tracks. And the line from Baltimore to York and Harrisburg was also two tracks.
Pennsy publicity photos almost always show the railroad as a four track broadway, from which its flagship train got the name, but in reality it was more of a two track railroad than a four track railroad.
Now I am sure there is someone out there who will contradict me. But hey, what are forums for if not for learning?
If you count the parallel routes, it was four tracks nearly all the way. From the North Jersey terminals to Newark, the freight route, the P&H branch was double track. From Trenton to Banks, where the freight route through Enola rejoins the mainline, the "low grade line/Trenton cutoff" (Conrail called it the Enola Branch) was double track. From Conpit Junction, just west of Johnstown, the Conemaugh line was double track to where it rejoined the mainline on the north side of Pittsburgh.
West of Pittsburgh, it's less clear, but the panhandle to Columbus and then the PRR main from Columbus to Chicago was also double track.
So, there really wasn't a single ROW that was four tracks wide, but there were four tracks from NY to Chicago.....
Thanks for the additional insights. I had forgotten several of the points that you have made; the others I was unaware of. My memory stems primarily from riding the Pennsylvania's passenger trains, as well as some serious trackside train watching between Altoona and Lewistown or Altoona and Cresson.
I was able to ride most of the Pennsy's mainline passenger trains during the 1950s. I even managed a trip from Altoona to Chicago on the Broadway. As I remember it, the train was still all Pullman. At the time, to get a reservation out of Altoona, if I remember correctly, the station agent had to call Philadelphia and see if he could get an open space out of Philadelphia blocked for an Altoona passenger.
The best train riding experience that I had was a ride in the cab of an E7 from Altoona to Pittsburgh. The train was #25, which was The Duquesne. My father's sister, who was friends with a VP in Pittsburgh, organized it for me.
Sam1 tnchpsk8: The PRR had four tracks running side by side over most if not all of this route. When Conrail took over they removed one of the tracks. How difficult would it be to replace that track for high speed passenger service only. The right of way is already there, owned by NS. Upgrading the roadbed and installing ties and rail would be the expense. In most new rail route building the land aquistion is the most costly feature of the enterprise. I rode the PRR for many years as a young man. Having grown up in Altoona, I took the train east and west on numerous occasions. Here is what I remember, although someone more familiar with the PRR or a better memory may contradict me. From Pennsylvania Station New York to Newark the line was two tracks. From Newark to Paoli it was four tracks. From Zoo Tower, where the north/south line intersected with the east/west line, I believe the north/south line was four tracks to Wilmington, but south of Wilmington it was a two or three track railroad until Baltimore. I cannot remember the configuration from Baltimore to Washington's Union Station, although just north of the station it was two tracks if I remember correctly. From Paoli to Harrisburg it was two and three tracks. From Harrisburg to the Rockville Bridge, it was two or three tracks, as was the case across the bridge. Once across the bridge, it was four tracks to Tyrone, except for the squeeze through the Spruce Creek tunnels. From Tyrone to Johnston it was four tracks. West of Johnston it was two and three tracks to Pittsburgh. West of Pittsburgh, whether it was to St. Louis or Chicago, it was a two track railroad. West bound freights out of Jersey City ran via the Trenton Cut-off, if I remember correctly. It was two tracks. And the line from Baltimore to York and Harrisburg was also two tracks. Pennsy publicity photos almost always show the railroad as a four track broadway, from which its flagship train got the name, but in reality it was more of a two track railroad than a four track railroad. Now I am sure there is someone out there who will contradict me. But hey, what are forums for if not for learning?
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sam1 BaltACD: From a lot of the commercial flying I have done over the years....one right of way that rarely gets mentioned for HSR is High Voltage electrical transmission rights of way. Those would seem to be ideal....mostly direct point to point and a ready source of power for electric HSR. What frequently looks reasonable from 35,000 feet is not so reasonable when viewed from ground level. Many of our transmission lines cross some very rugged terrain, including steep grades. Much of the right-of-way would not be suitable for a railroad. Having spent most of my career working for a large investor owned electric utility, I know a bit about the industry. It would push back vigorously on any proposal to construct a high speed railroad along its rights-of-way. It would make the push back by the freight railroads look tame. The liability issues would have the lawyers doing a war dance.
BaltACD: From a lot of the commercial flying I have done over the years....one right of way that rarely gets mentioned for HSR is High Voltage electrical transmission rights of way. Those would seem to be ideal....mostly direct point to point and a ready source of power for electric HSR.
From a lot of the commercial flying I have done over the years....one right of way that rarely gets mentioned for HSR is High Voltage electrical transmission rights of way. Those would seem to be ideal....mostly direct point to point and a ready source of power for electric HSR.
What frequently looks reasonable from 35,000 feet is not so reasonable when viewed from ground level. Many of our transmission lines cross some very rugged terrain, including steep grades. Much of the right-of-way would not be suitable for a railroad.
Having spent most of my career working for a large investor owned electric utility, I know a bit about the industry. It would push back vigorously on any proposal to construct a high speed railroad along its rights-of-way. It would make the push back by the freight railroads look tame. The liability issues would have the lawyers doing a war dance.
Very aware of the rugged terrain, with at dedicated passenger only system with vehicle powered sufficiently to sustain 180 MPH 'in their element' the grades could be much steeper than what is economically acceptable to a freight railroad.
Railroad lawyers vs Electric Company lawyers....nothing new here...same old animosity different cause.....as in anything else, money will win the day.
Utility rights of way are usually straight lines wherever possible and thus on a map or from the air look great. Beyond the legal reasons and the utilities' not wanting interference of their business it is also true that thes power lines and pipe lines will go up and down mountains and hills at gradients not acceptable to even HSR.
The estimated cost of building the California High Speed Railroad Project (CHSRP) is $45 billion. However, when the financing charges are included, the total cost, assuming 30 year financing, is approximately $82 billion. This assumes the project comes in on time and within budget, which would be a minor miracle.
The CHSRP will be approximately 800 miles. Assuming the estimated project costs are achieved, the cost per mile will average approximately $103 million. Applying the same rate for a New York to Chicago line, which would be approximately 900 miles, the cost would be approximately $93 billion. If a New York to Chicago line could be built along existing right-of-ways, the cost could be less. I have no idea what it might be, but if the average cost per mile could be cut in half, the cost would be $46.5 billion.
Using the numbers shown in Amtrak's 2009 Financial Report, the cost of upgrading the NEC for high speed service was approximately $16 million per mile. This includes purchase of the Acela train sets. Applying this number to a New York to Chicago route, financed over 30 years, the cost of the project would be a bit more than $26 billion.
The Acela operations cover their operating costs. But they do not cover the capital costs, which means the taxpayers are stuck with most of the capital costs. Given the current federal debt of $14.1 trillion, coupled with more than $72 trillion in unfunded liabilities, how would a high speed railroad between New York and Chicago be funded? Or maybe a better question is what would justifying laying the cost of the project on the already burden backs of the taxpayers?
BaltACD From a lot of the commercial flying I have done over the years....one right of way that rarely gets mentioned for HSR is High Voltage electrical transmission rights of way. Those would seem to be ideal....mostly direct point to point and a ready source of power for electric HSR.
tnchpsk8 The PRR had four tracks running side by side over most if not all of this route. When Conrail took over they removed one of the tracks. How difficult would it be to replace that track for high speed passenger service only. The right of way is already there, owned by NS. Upgrading the roadbed and installing ties and rail would be the expense. In most new rail route building the land aquistion is the most costly feature of the enterprise.
Very true. It is easy for critics (who mostly are looking for reasons to not do anything) to nit pick and find a million reasons why not. The RoW of I 70 in Pennsylvania has plenty of curves, though mostly fairly broad, but it is going through some rugged terrain. So, if it were followed and widened for a double-track line (instead of widened for more highway lanes) there might be some stretches under 150 or 125 mph. But overall, the speed could be quite high.
blue streak 1 BaltACD: The Interstate system already has identified traffic volumes between metropolitan areas. Were HSR to be built along segments of Interstates....a HSR whistling past at 180 with road traffic doing 80 in a 70 would be eye catching. HSR with the power/weight ratio necessary to attain speeds in the 180 MPH range, has sufficient power to attack virtually any grade in much straighter line than is necessary to lug 20K tons of freight over the grade. By the same token, the curvature that permits 20K ton trains to surmount existing grades is sheer death to attaining 'high speed'. However the interstate system has many curves that are greater than the required 1 degree or less to maintain 150 MPH+. A HSR line would need to deviate from the I- corridor to counteract that problem.
BaltACD: The Interstate system already has identified traffic volumes between metropolitan areas. Were HSR to be built along segments of Interstates....a HSR whistling past at 180 with road traffic doing 80 in a 70 would be eye catching. HSR with the power/weight ratio necessary to attain speeds in the 180 MPH range, has sufficient power to attack virtually any grade in much straighter line than is necessary to lug 20K tons of freight over the grade. By the same token, the curvature that permits 20K ton trains to surmount existing grades is sheer death to attaining 'high speed'.
The Interstate system already has identified traffic volumes between metropolitan areas. Were HSR to be built along segments of Interstates....a HSR whistling past at 180 with road traffic doing 80 in a 70 would be eye catching.
HSR with the power/weight ratio necessary to attain speeds in the 180 MPH range, has sufficient power to attack virtually any grade in much straighter line than is necessary to lug 20K tons of freight over the grade. By the same token, the curvature that permits 20K ton trains to surmount existing grades is sheer death to attaining 'high speed'.
However the interstate system has many curves that are greater than the required 1 degree or less to maintain 150 MPH+. A HSR line would need to deviate from the I- corridor to counteract that problem.
I am not advocating exact adherence to Interstate rights of way...I am just saying that the Interstate System provides a easy way to measure the amounts of inter city traffic. Some (repeat some) Interstate rights of way could be used for a number of miles in many instances...especially when it comes to figuring a route into a city center ... the cost to purchase new rights of way would be mind bogglingly expensive. While many Interstate routes into city centers are not 55 to 70 MPH routes, they are generally less curve bound than rail rights of way into the same cities.
When it comes to HSR, there will not be one solution that fixes all problems...like any big transportation project significant segments of the public will view the project as absolute folly and a waste of investment....The Erie Canal was a folly in it's day. The B&O Railroad was laughed at by a large number of legislators in it's earliest years. Breaking ground into new undertaking is never easy and is never risk free. The Class I carriers that exist in the US are the descendants of hundreds if not thousands of railroad undertakings, virtually all of which foundered on the financial shoals of insolvency at one point in time or another during their short and long histories. It is 1000 times easier to criticize a project than it is to build and operate it.
BaltACD The Interstate system already has identified traffic volumes between metropolitan areas. Were HSR to be built along segments of Interstates....a HSR whistling past at 180 with road traffic doing 80 in a 70 would be eye catching. HSR with the power/weight ratio necessary to attain speeds in the 180 MPH range, has sufficient power to attack virtually any grade in much straighter line than is necessary to lug 20K tons of freight over the grade. By the same token, the curvature that permits 20K ton trains to surmount existing grades is sheer death to attaining 'high speed'.
BaltACD Existing carriers don't want HSR anywhere near their property....from a liability standpoint if nothing else. Operating HSR on a existing property is totally out of the question. The Interstate system already has identified traffic volumes between metropolitan areas. Were HSR to be built along segments of Interstates....
Existing carriers don't want HSR anywhere near their property....from a liability standpoint if nothing else. Operating HSR on a existing property is totally out of the question.
The Interstate system already has identified traffic volumes between metropolitan areas. Were HSR to be built along segments of Interstates....
That sounds like a very good idea. I hope it could be developed.
Water courses were followed by footpaths then roads, such as they were, followed by canals and railroads through the 20th Century...then concrete and gasoline virtually leveled the hills and now HSR can follow them in many places. And along these transportation corridors dots of civilization's towns and cities settled. The Erie Canal actually, after following water courses across New York cause the development of virtually every city and town from Buffalo to Rome and enriched those along the Mohawk from there to Albany and on down the Hudson to New York City. The railroads connected those dots in the 1830's and 40's and our highway system beginning in the 1910's, strengthened in the 1930's by CCC projects then the Eisenhower era Federal highways putting the two laners to rest. The highways first went where the rails made towns, not the other way around.
BaltACD Existing carriers don't want HSR anywhere near their property....from a liability standpoint if nothing else. Operating HSR on a existing property is totally out of the question. The Interstate system already has identified traffic volumes between metropolitan areas. Were HSR to be built along segments of Interstates....a HSR whistling past at 180 with road traffic doing 80 in a 70 would be eye catching.
Interesting thought! The early highways followed the railroads; now HSR would follow the highways ... and for the same reason.
Existing railroad rights of way were not laid out with any inkling of HSR and what it requires and what construction techniques can be applied in the 21st Century that weren't even a wild eyed idea in the 19th Century when the existing rights of way were laid out and engineered and those 19th Century rights of way were laid out for the benefit of moving freight at minimum cost....passenger in the day, just came along for the ride. While we marvel at the MILW's 'Slow to 90' curves for the Hiawatha's....HSR needs to be built for a 'Slow to 150' standard with service from and to significant Origin/Destinations no more infrequent than every two hours, with the preference toward 'Clocker' type operations.
But Schlimm, we can't attract investors nor build what will work until we find what the market wants and will pay for what it wants. Build a 90 mph railroad because it is cheaper to build when people want aand need a 150mph railroad and you wont get the riders. Set a schedule that leaves a 5 when the public wants to leave at 7 and nobody will be at the station. I want to ride the ACELA, but I have no reason to, so I will ride the Regional service instead, even a commuter service if it serves the purpose, my purpose. But somebody gotta get from NYC to Boston fast, in comfort, and in a cost effective manner for their needs and desires, then ACELA is the way to do it. But if you have just one chance to build the right thing, then you gotta study it, and build it right the first time. As a railfan, it don't make a difference, I'll ride as I have a chance or even possible need. But non railfans want the privacy and availability of their automobile, the speed of a jet plane, and the cost of walking. You've got to build the right shoe horn to get the right fit.
I can see two things happening neither good. Cresting at Galitzen all passengers must be wearing seatbelts to prevent the equivalent of hitting an air pocket in a plane when the transitioning from uphill to downhill at over 200mph. All passengers are forbidden from standing from Altoona to Pittsburgh due to the curves so no one is ejected.
You really are making far too much of market survey and planning, as though that solved everything. We all know where the metro areas are. The Erie was just a thought. Perhaps the ex-NYC parallel West Side trackage could work to Buffalo? In any case, you can't force CSX or NS freight off their tracks. The ex-PRR east of Pittsburgh has too many curves for HSR to work, and is heavily used. Use ex-PRR west of Crestline to CHI? Maybe. Some cities will get left out. The idea would be rebuilding in segments, on existing AND usable RoW, to reduce costs. [The Cali HSR does not use existing RoW's as much as they could, IMO, and thus has an overly high price tag.]
Ideas...good ones. But proof will be in market survey and planning. The past is mere prologue and may or may not be the bellweather for the future; we won't know until it is studied. The Erie route sounds great from Jersey City to Chicago but misses a lot of major markets almost in its entire length, so would it pay to put HSR on that track? Or should freight be put on that track/row and put HSR on the NYC and/or PRR rouites? There's a lot of thinking, studying, planning and, unfortunately, politicking that's gotta be done.
1. NY-CHI won't work in the marketplace unless it is true HSR.
2. Using/sharing the existing heavily used ex-PRR and/or ex-NYC routes seems unfeasible, as they really don't want HSR b/c compatibility problems. What about abandoned or lightly used RoW's from PRR, NKP, or Erie?
While I usually promote the concept of thinking outside the box, I think here we should look at more traditional "corridors": i.e., the Water Level (ex New York Central) and the former PRR routes. Amtrak does Pittsburgh-Youngstown- Cleveland-Chicago but is that best? NYC from NY to ALbany, Utica, Syracuse-Rochester-Buffalo-Erie-Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago serves a lot of people. Perhaps there should be NY-Phila-Harrisburg-ALtoona-Pittsburgh-Youngstown-Fort Wayne-Chicago HSR with a connecting HSR P'brgh-Cleveland branch...
....HSR is a new technology to us...achievable speeds and attending accompolishments could produce different product and service than traditional or reinforce the the paths as set up by PRR or even B&O. But real market surveying and planning must be done, not political track laying.
If a HSR route from CHI to NYC were to happen, I think it would work best by hitting as many large metro areas as possible. CHI-DTW-CLV-PIT-PHI-NYC would make the most sense to me. Though it wouldnt be a very straight line. At 220 MPH, one can deviate a bit from the most direct route and not lose too much momentum. The Pittsburg to Philly route could run at top speed if good infrastructure were built.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.