blue streak 1 I really did not want to give this cite because I cannot give the exact date. There was a long article in the Wall Street Journal saying that it has been found that there is a significant rise in pollution related illness near automobile locations. the locations are places like traffic lights, parking lots, etc. I cannot give the exact date or a copy of the article I feel that a conservative publication like the WSJ gives it more credence.
I really did not want to give this cite because I cannot give the exact date. There was a long article in the Wall Street Journal saying that it has been found that there is a significant rise in pollution related illness near automobile locations. the locations are places like traffic lights, parking lots, etc. I cannot give the exact date or a copy of the article I feel that a conservative publication like the WSJ gives it more credence.
Several similar studies have been done in Texas during the time that I have lived here (36 years). Whilst I lived in Dallas I was within a stone's throw of LBJ Freeway (I-635). Researches found that children in particular who lived near the expressway, now more like a parking lot, have elevated traces of lead, as well as other nasties, in their blood stream. It was one of the factors that led to the discontinuance of lead additives in gasoline. Moreover, the research also contributed to the requirement to change the formula for gasoline sold in Dallas during the summer to reduce Ozone, which is bad for anyone with respiratory problems.
Whether trains, especially high speed trains, help reduce air pollution is debatable. There are many variables to consider. My gut reaction is they do if the load factors are high and the operating conditions minimize dwell times. However, those justifying trains, especially high speed trains, as the best transport option to reduce air pollution, overlook the fact that the competing technologies are also cleaning up their act. That is what I was trying to say with the post regarding the cleaner airplanes coming along shortly.
I will be in Baltimore and Washington next week. I will be going to New York for a day. I will be taking Amtrak from Baltimore to New York. But I am a bit odd, and so too is the NEC. Most Americans, at the end of the day, are going to stick with their cars, at least for the foreseeable future. I don't believe that will give them easily. They are too convenient. And for the family they are still the best economic choice in most instances.
Sam,
I don't think a rapid rise in CO2 is a good thing, but don't think it is as bad as the "non-deniers" believe. My concern is that other aspects of the earth's heat balance aren't sufficiently understood with cloud formation being the most important. On a short term basis, the contrails from aircraft appear to have a much larger impact on climate/weather than the CO2 from the aircraft - will be interesting to see what effect the more fuel-efficient aircraft will have on contrails. There was a major effort into improving airliner fuel efficiebcy in the early 1980's (e.g unducted fans), but that faded away when oil prices dropped in the mid-80's. With oil prices expected to remain high, the newer fuel efficient planes should quickly pay for themselves in reduced operating costs.
Getting back to Cal HSR - I would think implementing 110 MPH top speeds on the LOSSAN corridor with aggressive reduction of slow trackage would cost less and have a lot more benefit than a 220 MPH line in the Central Valley. Electrification would be necessary to ensure adequate acceleration as the goal is to improve average speed. One advantage of electrification is that natural gas costs are likely to be substantially less than oil and very little new infrastructure is needed to supply power plants with natural gas.
- Erik
P.S. I wonder if the origins of "tree-hugger" date back to the song "Dragging the Line" by Tommy James?
Erik,
Thanks for the update on California's generation picture. Having been retired for more than six years, I don't stay as up to date on the electric utility industry as was the case when I was in harness.
I am not a tree hugger. But I am concerned about global warming, which appears to be a acerbated by CO2 emissions. With the introduction of the Boeing 787, as well as the forthcoming release of the 737MAX and A320neo, jet airplane emissions will be reduced by approximately 40 per cent per airplane.
Sam1 I understand that California has not built any significant generation capacity for more than 30 years. To make up the generation shortfall, California's electric utilities buy a significant amount of power from generators in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. Some of this power is generated by coal fired power plants. Accordingly, the energy for California's HSR project may not foul California's air, but it will increase air pollution in the aforementioned states to the extent that they produce the juice with coal and gas fired generators.
I understand that California has not built any significant generation capacity for more than 30 years. To make up the generation shortfall, California's electric utilities buy a significant amount of power from generators in Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, etc. Some of this power is generated by coal fired power plants. Accordingly, the energy for California's HSR project may not foul California's air, but it will increase air pollution in the aforementioned states to the extent that they produce the juice with coal and gas fired generators.
There hasn't been any significant construction of conventional steam plant construction in the last 30 years, there were some small (under 50 MW) combustion turbine plants and wind farms (and other alternative energy sources) built between the late 1970's and early aughties. One reason was that laws establishing the Cal Energy Commission were passed early 1976, with new permitting hoops to go through for power planets larger than 50 MW and transmission lines of 200 kV and higher. This law was passed under the pretext of "speeding up" the permitting process (note who was Governor and who was the Governor's chief of staff at that time).
Things changed rapidly after the power crisis of 2000, work on permits for new generation started in earnest. Most of the new generation has been combustion turbines with some combined cycle plants being built. The state legislature in its infinite wisdom has decreed that investor owned utilities cannot engage in long term power contracts from coal fired utilities and has also decreed that 33% of the power come from renewable sources by 2020, without seriously considering whether it makes economic or even ecological sense. The original version of the law specifically prohibited rooftop solar, which is probably the least intrusive means of generating renewable energy besides harvesting methane from decomposing garbage and other bio-material.
As for CO2, I'm rather doubtful that the reductions in CO2 emissions will be worth anything near the cost of HSR. If there is any significant climate benefit from HSR, it will be from reduction in aircraft contrails (which appear to be orders of magnitude worse for effects on climate than the CO2 from aircraft). From what I see, the science of climate is far from settled.
Please, let's not invest too much in the pollution-reduction justification for new passenger rail (vs. rail's real long suit, the faster and more comfortable movement of people in certain corridors).
Granted, smog -- to which auto exhaust certainly contributes -- is a problem in some of these corridors. But passenger rail is not going to make that smog go away, just not get worse. The freeways will still be bumper to bumper.
But the main thought to hold onto is that the supposed arch-villain, carbon dioxide -- otherwise known as the staff of life for plants and trees, which are supposed to be good -- makes up less than one-half of 1 percent of atmospheric gases. To which "this busy monster, manunkind" contributes less than 5 percent, despite the best efforts of the U.S. and the big new Third World exhalers like China and India.
Even when discussing California high-speed rail, we needn't surrender to "California thinking."
erikem Paul Milenkovic: Last I checked, the California HSR Web site was claiming 100 percent of the fuel use of a car trip as the CO2 savings. It is pretty safe to assume that the Cal HSR, if built, will be electrified. It is possible that the electricity used is generated by means that do not result in CO2 emissions (at least for operation, neglecting the CO2 needed to build the generating capacity or the HSR lines, etc). Having said that, I like to emphasize the word possible as opposed to practical or that it is even likely that California will have carbon free electricity by 2033. HSR in France, for example, involves very low CO2 output for operations as 70% of France's electrical energy comes from nuclear generating stations. One of the more subtle advantages of railroad electrification is the greater number of options for the initial source of energy, where diesel locomotives, cars, truck and planes are pretty much limited to liquid hydrocarbon fuels. It would be much easier to capture carbon from a stationary generating plant than from a diesel locomotive, car, truck or plane. - Erik
Paul Milenkovic: Last I checked, the California HSR Web site was claiming 100 percent of the fuel use of a car trip as the CO2 savings.
Last I checked, the California HSR Web site was claiming 100 percent of the fuel use of a car trip as the CO2 savings.
It is pretty safe to assume that the Cal HSR, if built, will be electrified. It is possible that the electricity used is generated by means that do not result in CO2 emissions (at least for operation, neglecting the CO2 needed to build the generating capacity or the HSR lines, etc). Having said that, I like to emphasize the word possible as opposed to practical or that it is even likely that California will have carbon free electricity by 2033. HSR in France, for example, involves very low CO2 output for operations as 70% of France's electrical energy comes from nuclear generating stations.
One of the more subtle advantages of railroad electrification is the greater number of options for the initial source of energy, where diesel locomotives, cars, truck and planes are pretty much limited to liquid hydrocarbon fuels. It would be much easier to capture carbon from a stationary generating plant than from a diesel locomotive, car, truck or plane.
Paul Milenkovic Last I checked, the California HSR Web site was claiming 100 percent of the fuel use of a car trip as the CO2 savings.
Paul Milenkovic said:
This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). Maybe some road trips are single occupant, maybe some are double or multiple occupant, the California HSR is supposed to operate a lot faster than the Japan one, but let's stipulate that the HSR uses half the fuel of a car trip.
Dave, under the handle Phoebe Vet said:
Phoebe Vet There is nothing in that reply that supports your false claim that your Toyota is as fuel efficient as the Shinkansen, and I can see that further discussion about it is pointless. Have a nice day.
There is nothing in that reply that supports your false claim that your Toyota is as fuel efficient as the Shinkansen, and I can see that further discussion about it is pointless.
Have a nice day.
I never claimed that the auto and train gas mileage were equivalent. My claim, based on assumptions that I clearly stated and based on recorded data for the auto and published data for the train, that the advantage of the HSR over the auto is most likely a factor of two. This ratio of two has to be discussed as a likelihood as there are factors that cause fuel efficiency to vary.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Phoebe Vet Paul Milenkovic: Phoebe Vet: Paul Milenkovic: This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). . At 220 MPH? Yeah, the Camry reaches 220 MPH terminal velocity driven from a cliff. I will also believe it when a California HSR train reaches 220 MPH cruising speed let alone a 220 MPH station-to-station speed implicit in the CHSRA Trip Time Calculator. OK, this is not HSR, this was supposed to be 110 MPH kinda-fast rail. Here we are at the Mad City Model Railroad Show and Sale, and Our Leader is briefing us on our talking points to use staffing the literature table promoting the Midwest Regional rail thing. "Ask them, how does 1-hour to Milwaukee, 2-hours to Chicago, 3-hours to the Twin Cities sound to you? (from Madison, WI)" Did, like, anyone at WisDOT actually conduct trials using Train Simulator or the professional version of same and actually work out a 300-minute schedule Chicago-St Paul, taking into account all of the stops and speed restrictions on the line? For back in the day, I don't remember the Chicago and Northwestern having a "300" train between Chicago and the Twin Cities -- I think it was called the 400. The famous Hiawatha train had 100 MPH plus running and didn't make anything like a 5-hour schedule. OK, OK, this is (was, I guess, back in the day prior to November, 2010) supposed to be done with lightweight Talgo trains with a lot of Diesel horsepower (were they going to use Genesis locos or some new lightweight design akin to the British HST "Intercity 125" trains? No one at WisDOT seemed to know). Or maybe the 5 hours Chicago-Twin cities was, like, made up as part of the marketing campaign for the trains? You specifically compared the gas mileage of your Camry to the Japanese Shinkansen . I merely pointed out that it is a pointless comparison unless you compare it at similar speeds.
Paul Milenkovic: Phoebe Vet: Paul Milenkovic: This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). . At 220 MPH? Yeah, the Camry reaches 220 MPH terminal velocity driven from a cliff. I will also believe it when a California HSR train reaches 220 MPH cruising speed let alone a 220 MPH station-to-station speed implicit in the CHSRA Trip Time Calculator. OK, this is not HSR, this was supposed to be 110 MPH kinda-fast rail. Here we are at the Mad City Model Railroad Show and Sale, and Our Leader is briefing us on our talking points to use staffing the literature table promoting the Midwest Regional rail thing. "Ask them, how does 1-hour to Milwaukee, 2-hours to Chicago, 3-hours to the Twin Cities sound to you? (from Madison, WI)" Did, like, anyone at WisDOT actually conduct trials using Train Simulator or the professional version of same and actually work out a 300-minute schedule Chicago-St Paul, taking into account all of the stops and speed restrictions on the line? For back in the day, I don't remember the Chicago and Northwestern having a "300" train between Chicago and the Twin Cities -- I think it was called the 400. The famous Hiawatha train had 100 MPH plus running and didn't make anything like a 5-hour schedule. OK, OK, this is (was, I guess, back in the day prior to November, 2010) supposed to be done with lightweight Talgo trains with a lot of Diesel horsepower (were they going to use Genesis locos or some new lightweight design akin to the British HST "Intercity 125" trains? No one at WisDOT seemed to know). Or maybe the 5 hours Chicago-Twin cities was, like, made up as part of the marketing campaign for the trains?
Phoebe Vet: Paul Milenkovic: This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). . At 220 MPH?
Paul Milenkovic: This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). .
This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). .
At 220 MPH?
Yeah, the Camry reaches 220 MPH terminal velocity driven from a cliff. I will also believe it when a California HSR train reaches 220 MPH cruising speed let alone a 220 MPH station-to-station speed implicit in the CHSRA Trip Time Calculator.
OK, this is not HSR, this was supposed to be 110 MPH kinda-fast rail. Here we are at the Mad City Model Railroad Show and Sale, and Our Leader is briefing us on our talking points to use staffing the literature table promoting the Midwest Regional rail thing. "Ask them, how does 1-hour to Milwaukee, 2-hours to Chicago, 3-hours to the Twin Cities sound to you? (from Madison, WI)"
Did, like, anyone at WisDOT actually conduct trials using Train Simulator or the professional version of same and actually work out a 300-minute schedule Chicago-St Paul, taking into account all of the stops and speed restrictions on the line?
For back in the day, I don't remember the Chicago and Northwestern having a "300" train between Chicago and the Twin Cities -- I think it was called the 400. The famous Hiawatha train had 100 MPH plus running and didn't make anything like a 5-hour schedule.
OK, OK, this is (was, I guess, back in the day prior to November, 2010) supposed to be done with lightweight Talgo trains with a lot of Diesel horsepower (were they going to use Genesis locos or some new lightweight design akin to the British HST "Intercity 125" trains? No one at WisDOT seemed to know). Or maybe the 5 hours Chicago-Twin cities was, like, made up as part of the marketing campaign for the trains?
You specifically compared the gas mileage of your Camry to the Japanese Shinkansen . I merely pointed out that it is a pointless comparison unless you compare it at similar speeds.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul Milenkovic's comparative analysis is excellent. He is one of the most thoughtful and seemingly knowledgeable contributors to these forums.
Why a 220 mph train other than for bragging rights? It is approximately 420 rail miles from LAX to SFO. If a train could maintain an average speed of 105 mph between the two points, it could cover the distance in four hours. This would be two hours better than the estimated driving time according to MapQuest. I have found MapQuest's estimates to be a bit optimistic.
I don't know what the top speed would need to be over what distance to achieve an average speed of 105 mph between the two points, but I suspect 220 mph is on the high side. Could it be achieved with a top speed of 150 mph? If the answer is yes, would the cost of building the railroad come in less than the estimated $167 billion, which includes an estimate of the financing? Or would an average speed of 90 mph make the train competitive with driving? What would that do to the cost estimates?
As I have pointed out in previous posts, proponents of high speed rail, according to studies by the GAO, as well as others, consistently overstate the benefits and understate the costs. As Mr. Milenkovic has made clear, it appears that the proponents of the CHSRP have followed suit.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Phoebe Vet You specifically compared the gas mileage of your Camry to the Japanese Shinkansen . I merely pointed out that it is a pointless comparison unless you compare it at similar speeds.
There are a number of reason why it is certainly not a pointless comparison.
One is that the Japan Shinkansen does not go, to my knowledge, anywhere near 220 MPH and certainly not 220 MPH average between station pairs. My original point was not that the California HSR was bad but that the promoters were over promising its performance.
Two is that the California HSR is being sold as a replacement for automobile trips resulting in dramatic reductions in CO2 emissions. The comparison to an automobile is on the CHSRA Web site. I am not disputing that the CHSR will emit somewhat less CO2 than an auto or that the CHSR will be faster than an auto trip over the same route segment. I am asserting that the amount of CO2 reduction over a car along with the time saving over a car are greatly overstated on their Web site. I am arguing that this works against advocacy for trains because it goes to credibility of claims of the benefits people can expect from trains.
Three is that the speed advantage of the HSR is regarded as a necessity to get people out of their cars and pay to ride the thing. Working against the putative 220 MPH speed of that train in respect to the 65 MPH (legal) speed of the car, and I will believe the 220 MPH speed when the trains roll that fast, are a number of factors. The train needs to accelerate and slow down between station stops, and even HSR accelerates and brakes at lower rates than anything automotive. The train needs to observe urban speed restrictions -- the Japan Shinkansen from my experience was limited to 80-per traversing Greater Tokyo.
More importantly, a person wanting to get from point A to point B has to get to the train station, park if they drove themselves, wait for the train to arrive, board, exit the train at point B, and then find some mode of transportation to where they really want to go. Cars famously have complete point-to-point trip completion (yeah, yeah, the congested, dense downtown, but we are talking about California, not New York or Boston) along with much greater scheduling flexibility. As the train needs to be faster than a car, and the CHSR people are arguing it needs to go at 220 MPH in order to divert people from their cars in order to make meaningful impacts on congestion and CO2 mitigation, it is entirely point-full to make a comparison between the 220 MPH train and the 65 MPH Camry.
Or are you also claiming that the CHSRA is making a pointless comparison?
Paul Milenkovic Phoebe Vet: Paul Milenkovic: This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). . At 220 MPH? Yeah, the Camry reaches 220 MPH terminal velocity driven from a cliff. I will also believe it when a California HSR train reaches 220 MPH cruising speed let alone a 220 MPH station-to-station speed implicit in the CHSRA Trip Time Calculator. OK, this is not HSR, this was supposed to be 110 MPH kinda-fast rail. Here we are at the Mad City Model Railroad Show and Sale, and Our Leader is briefing us on our talking points to use staffing the literature table promoting the Midwest Regional rail thing. "Ask them, how does 1-hour to Milwaukee, 2-hours to Chicago, 3-hours to the Twin Cities sound to you? (from Madison, WI)" Did, like, anyone at WisDOT actually conduct trials using Train Simulator or the professional version of same and actually work out a 300-minute schedule Chicago-St Paul, taking into account all of the stops and speed restrictions on the line? For back in the day, I don't remember the Chicago and Northwestern having a "300" train between Chicago and the Twin Cities -- I think it was called the 400. The famous Hiawatha train had 100 MPH plus running and didn't make anything like a 5-hour schedule. OK, OK, this is (was, I guess, back in the day prior to November, 2010) supposed to be done with lightweight Talgo trains with a lot of Diesel horsepower (were they going to use Genesis locos or some new lightweight design akin to the British HST "Intercity 125" trains? No one at WisDOT seemed to know). Or maybe the 5 hours Chicago-Twin cities was, like, made up as part of the marketing campaign for the trains?
Phoebe Vet Paul Milenkovic: This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). . At 220 MPH?
Don,
Assuming the freight railroad has the "more or less standard" 100 foot right of way, the property line is 50 feet each side of the center line of a single main track. The freight railroad will have no influence on what an adjoining HSR will do, but as a practical matter the HSR will need at least 100' row. If they use 25 foot track centers that is 12.5 feet each side of center which would put center to center 50 + 38.5 or 88.5 feet. If freight line is two main tracks also on 25 foot centers there is 77 feet center to center of nearest "other guy's track".
The point is the HSR is not "on the property", which is any rational freight operator's goal in the matter.
Mac
Paul Milenkovic This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). .
schlimm Paul M. "You are not going to go a constant 220 MPH endpoint-to-endpoint. You need time to accelerate and brake the train, you are going to have restricted speed in the urban areas. As to the CO2 saving that are in excess of the CO2 output of a fuel-efficient modern car -- just simply made up." http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf Maybe yes, and then again maybe not.
Paul M. "You are not going to go a constant 220 MPH endpoint-to-endpoint. You need time to accelerate and brake the train, you are going to have restricted speed in the urban areas. As to the CO2 saving that are in excess of the CO2 output of a fuel-efficient modern car -- just simply made up."
http://www.cnt.org/repository/HighSpeedRailEmissions.pdf
Maybe yes, and then again maybe not.
This report you cite on Page A1 lists the Shinkansen (Japan "bullet train") at .15 kWHr per passenger mile. In rough round numbers, that works out to about 100 passenger miles per gallon. Two people in a Camry works out to 70 passenger miles per gallon (I get 35 highway MPG out of mine and have gasoline usage logs to show this). Maybe some road trips are single occupant, maybe some are double or multiple occupant, the California HSR is supposed to operate a lot faster than the Japan one, but let's stipulate that the HSR uses half the fuel of a car trip. Last I checked, the California HSR Web site was claiming 100 percent of the fuel use of a car trip as the CO2 savings.
There are tradeoffs -- you could go 5-across seating (I think they even have 6-across seating on some Japanese trains), you could go demand-management like the airlines to crank up the load factor in exchange for making trips more inconvenient, you could reduce the seat pitch and crowd the leg room -- all these factors can boost train fuel efficiency (if it is electric, the fuel comes from somewhere).
The report you cite gives a ballpark of about a 50% savings in fuel use or CO2 output as a reasonable performance measure of trains, and the tables they give put trains HSR or other midway in fuel efficienc between cars and intercity buses, pretty much confirming what I am saying. There are people out there who believe (CHSRA) that HSR uses some small fraction of the energy of cars, and it just isn't so.
It is not that people are promoting, they are over-promoting and over-selling.
Mac: "Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. "
One would hope the freight rails could run safely enough to not need 100' of space because if they do there are a lot of neighborhoods in constant danger.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
If the federal government is in any way involved in a rail project you can count on ten years and half the project money being spent on consultants doing the paperwork before the first shovel full of dirt is moved.
PNWRMNM oltmannd: They will play...but not for free. Don, In the "higher speed" or "more frequency cases" I agree and we are seeing it already. My statemet was in the context of 220 MPH true HSR which is not just incompatible, but grossly incompatible, with a 40-60 MPH freight operation. I can see no gain(reason) for the railroads to give them cause to even think about involving their asset base in that undertaking. Mac
oltmannd: They will play...but not for free.
They will play...but not for free.
In the "higher speed" or "more frequency cases" I agree and we are seeing it already.
My statemet was in the context of 220 MPH true HSR which is not just incompatible, but grossly incompatible, with a 40-60 MPH freight operation. I can see no gain(reason) for the railroads to give them cause to even think about involving their asset base in that undertaking.
Yes. Agree. There is no way a 220mph (or even a 150 mph) train should share track - other than in terminal areas, for short stretches, at greatly reduced speeds. But, to say a dedicated passenger track can't be built 100' from the frt RR.....I dunno. The frt RRs might not even have a say in it. Might be better for them politically if they looked like the "good guy" rather than an obstructionist.
The frt RRs can safely stand pat now because the speed and direction of this whole CHSR thing looks like it might wind up being a very expensive, nowhere to nowhere, 100 mile test track.
The thing that bugs me the most about projects like this isn't the money being spent, but how slowly things get done once the money is allocated. A sure way to kill any return on a project is to stretch out the time from "go" to when the revenue starts flowing in. With these multi-layer gov't projects, nobody seems to care a whit if it takes 2 years or 10 to get something done.
A good example would be those ALP45 locomotives for NJT. Are they going to test them forever? Or, do they have any plans to actually run them this century. I'm sure a good chunk of the money for them is already out the door. Sheesh. What's to know? Do they go? Do they stop? Do they ride safely? DONE!
oltmannd They will play...but not for free.
PNWRMNM Don, I agree it is a rare event, but probably among the highest consequence events for the HSR train and passengers. I seem to recall that CSX and Metro had one of this type of Ax in Maryland a few years ago. Look at the consequences of one head on collision involving a ***** comunter train in California four years or so ago. My point is HSR is all pain and no gain for the freight carriers. They will not play. Mac
I agree it is a rare event, but probably among the highest consequence events for the HSR train and passengers.
I seem to recall that CSX and Metro had one of this type of Ax in Maryland a few years ago. Look at the consequences of one head on collision involving a ***** comunter train in California four years or so ago. My point is HSR is all pain and no gain for the freight carriers. They will not play.
blue streak 1 PNWRMNM: Don, Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. If there is side hill geography, then cars can go all the way to the bottom of the slope and more. Mac MAC: DON: I have to wonder if a concrete barrier much like what divides many interstate lanes will mitigate this concern. A slide fence type detector on top of the median might be the way to go?
PNWRMNM: Don, Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. If there is side hill geography, then cars can go all the way to the bottom of the slope and more. Mac
Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. If there is side hill geography, then cars can go all the way to the bottom of the slope and more.
MAC: DON: I have to wonder if a concrete barrier much like what divides many interstate lanes will mitigate this concern. A slide fence type detector on top of the median might be the way to go?
I like the slide fence. Concrete would be an expensive solution to a small problem. That, or some other mechanism to alert the high speed train that its right of way may have been violated. Something as simple as the dispatcher being able to drop the signal in the face of the high speed train. There are a zillion "what ifs" that could cause trouble for high speed trains. A freight train derailment scattering itself across the landscape without there being time to stop the approaching high speed train would be pretty rare event. It's a pretty rare event in the freight railroading world. In fact, I can't think of a major wreck that had one train running into a major derailment - even on busy double track.
This is a 2006 study. I read the executive summary. Several things come to mind.
A lot has changed since 2006. Over the past 24 months the Administration announced new fuel efficiency standards for U.S. road passenger vehicles. By 2025, if they are implemented, vehicles will be much cleaner than they are today. Over time this will have a significant impact on air pollution.
Recently, Airbus and Boeing announce new airplanes (A320neo and 737MAX) that will be ready by 2016-2018 or thereabouts. They will reduce jet airplane emissions by 40+ per cent.
These two events are likely to change the inputs used for the study. Moreover, my observations of the Trinity Railway Express operations, plus an analysis of the route information furnished me by DART, suggest that the environmental advantages attainable by most transport modes are less than the laboratory results suggest.
Studies citing the benefits of one mode of transport over another or vice versa are frequently based on lab assumptions that don't square with field operations. Actual load factors vs. pro-forma load factors, for example, can have a dramatic impact on real world results.
On the TRE, for example, the average load factor is approximately 33 per cent, ranging from a high of nearly 85 per cent during rush hours to less than 10 per cent for early morning and late evening operations. The rush hour trains may be fuel efficient, i.e. burn per seat mile. But the off peak operations don't appear to deliver the same benefits. Moreover, each TRE run includes a 25 minute layover in Dallas and a 25 minute layover in Fort Worth. During these layovers, the engines (Tier 1) continue to pump out pollutants. I wonder if these operating conditions are factored into the studies?
Streak,
Those concrete higway dividers will resist low angle impacts by cars and trucks just fine. Hit at 60 to 90 degrees by 250,000 pounds of flying car body, I would stand no closer behind a highway barrier than I would without one. Make it solid concrete 12'x12' square maybe you have something that will work 95% of the time at 50' from the freight main.
A slide fence is a signaling device, not a rock catcher. I do not know what you expect it to do.
PNWRMNM Don, Your notion of a 100 foot minimum separation might be safe for both parties. I have seen any number of 40 to 50 MPH freight derailments where cars ended up at least 50 feet from the center of the main track. If there is side hill geography, then cars can go all the way to the bottom of the slope and more. Mac
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.