schlimm If a line is to be HSR, meaning speeds of 160 mph or higher, it must be largely a dedicated line, separated from freight except in cities. The GM&O route does not have suffiecient wiidth to manage that, while the old IC line to Champaign probably does, since it was once double-tracked. Buying up ROW land in agriculture intensive Illinois is not cheap. Perhaps that consideration should be added into the thinking. Likely it was, but the study summary neglects to specify that.. As to traffic percentages, if you look, you would realize most traffic originates in the Chicago area (Ohare and the Loop) and then goes to the various destinations.
If a line is to be HSR, meaning speeds of 160 mph or higher, it must be largely a dedicated line, separated from freight except in cities. The GM&O route does not have suffiecient wiidth to manage that, while the old IC line to Champaign probably does, since it was once double-tracked. Buying up ROW land in agriculture intensive Illinois is not cheap. Perhaps that consideration should be added into the thinking. Likely it was, but the study summary neglects to specify that..
As to traffic percentages, if you look, you would realize most traffic originates in the Chicago area (Ohare and the Loop) and then goes to the various destinations.
The GM&O map in my Oct 1970 Official Guide showed double track from Chicago to well past Springfield.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Midland,
I agree the authors of the study answered the question asked which included a politically selected route. If the objective is HSR between Chicago and St Louis perhaps an argument could be made for the route chosen vs Bloomington and you would see a comparison of costs and traffic.
The thing really collapses when you add the Indianapolis leg which provides 5% of the traffic for, at best, about 25% of the cost.
Mac
CJ Train Guy, it's agreed that a "Y" shaped system would involve less construction that a full triangle (although I have my doubts that a IND-STL side would be built), but you would be permanently saddled with a less efficient operation. The report's survey shows a projected ridership of 5% ticket sales from Champaign, so it's hard to justify a 10% longer route to serve it, plus Bloomington on the straight alignment would make up for some of the volume. (Sorry, but for reasons stated previously, I don't buy the Indy leg.) We could argue about the merits of each route, but if you are looking for facts to back-up a comparison, you will not find it in the U of I report, because it offers no comparisons of alternatives, and evidently was created only to further the possibilities of the pre-selected route.
This is becoming silly. if you build an entirely new line from Chicago to Indy, it is about 186 miles or more. If you build an entirely new line from Champaign to Indy, (as part of a line serving other points as well) it would be 122 miles, a savings of 64 miles of expensive ROW, especially in the congestion of northern Indiana.
Also, that could be the basis of more lines connecting to Cincy, Columbus and even Pittsburgh.
schlimm According to n012944, who should know, the current CHI-IND route is actually 210 miles. So only 37 miles longer, not a deal breaker.
According to n012944, who should know, the current CHI-IND route is actually 210 miles. So only 37 miles longer, not a deal breaker.
Hard to understand how Amtrak's TT could be that far off. Nevertheless, the ATK route is somewhat cobbled together from various lines, and a new HSR alignment would be reasonably expected to take a straighter path. My Rand McNally road atlas shows 186 miles CHI-IND, so following the median of I-65 would make more sense than trying to replicate ATK's Indy odyssey.
MidlandMikeBut I can hear some saying that the jog to Champaign will allow a connecting leg to Indianapolis. The direct Champaign-IND route along the partly abandoned P&E was 118 miles (PC TT). The total CHI-Champaign-IND is 247 miles. ATK's present CHI-IND is 196 miles, but the old more direct Monon (TT) route was 184 miles. So the Indy route proposed would be up to 34% longer than a CHI-IND straight shot. Factoring in 34% more time and operating costs seems to make the Indy leg non-viable.
MidlandMike It's a little awkward replying to a third person post, but hopefully I won't take what CJ Train Guy said out of context. I first thing that struck me was the difference in rail and highway mileages between the two endpoints (CHI-STL). I thought a more applicable and consistent comparison could be made using all rail mileages if possible. I dug out both my 40+ year old Official Guide and Rand McNally RR Atlas.
It's a little awkward replying to a third person post, but hopefully I won't take what CJ Train Guy said out of context. I first thing that struck me was the difference in rail and highway mileages between the two endpoints (CHI-STL). I thought a more applicable and consistent comparison could be made using all rail mileages if possible. I dug out both my 40+ year old Official Guide and Rand McNally RR Atlas.
You are blessed with resources I didn't have. So I used Google maps. Since much of what we are talking about here is new ROW, I think it's 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. We're making educated guesses.
MidlandMike But I can hear some saying that the jog to Champaign will allow a connecting leg to Indianapolis. The direct Champaign-IND route along the partly abandoned P&E was 118 miles (PC TT). The total CHI-Champaign-IND is 247 miles. ATK's present CHI-IND is 196 miles, but the old more direct Monon (TT) route was 184 miles. So the Indy route proposed would be up to 34% longer than a CHI-IND straight shot. Factoring in 34% more time and operating costs seems to make the Indy leg non-viable. It seems CJ Train Guy and I agree on his last point.
But I can hear some saying that the jog to Champaign will allow a connecting leg to Indianapolis. The direct Champaign-IND route along the partly abandoned P&E was 118 miles (PC TT). The total CHI-Champaign-IND is 247 miles. ATK's present CHI-IND is 196 miles, but the old more direct Monon (TT) route was 184 miles. So the Indy route proposed would be up to 34% longer than a CHI-IND straight shot. Factoring in 34% more time and operating costs seems to make the Indy leg non-viable.
It seems CJ Train Guy and I agree on his last point.
An Indy leg via Champaign may be quite viable, even though it's as you say 34% longer than a straight shot. That straight shot is 100% new HSR ROW and only connects Chicago and Indianapolis. Going via Champaign means the dedicated Indy HSR ROW is shorter, and instead of being a corridor between endpoints, we now have a triangle system with connections between all 3 metros. That is what makes the plan interesting and potentially viable.
A high speed train can make the detour via Champaign and still have an attractive travel time Chicago - Indy.
As for totally straight as an arrow alignment or a small detour to catch a viable market, what I see from Europe where they've done this HSR thing for a while is that the higher speed allows them to go a little out of the direct way and still outcompete the other guys. So they don't seem to be concerned about a few % longer runs, with the possibly added operating expense, because the chosen alignment maximizes ridership (and revenue).
schlimm MidlandMike ... While a "Y" shaped route may save some initial construction costs, the longer distance will permanently cause extra travel time and operating costs, and will be a permanent drag on it's viability. I quote an earlier post by CJ train guy, which rebuts your extra distance, extra travel time and operating costs theory. "Amtrak lists a distance of 284 miles Chicago-St Louis on the current route. Travel time 5:20. When that corridor is all 110mph, the travel time will go down. Google maps says it's 297 miles to drive I-55 and will take 4:35. If I route the drive via Champaign, the mileage goes to 316 miles and it will take 4:50. The HST proposal lists a travel time Chicago - St Louis of 117 minutes (1:57) with stops in Champaign and Springfield. Apparently the fact that the rail distance via Champaign is maybe about 20 miles longer than the as-the-crow-flies current line, will not negatively affect travel times. It's just not a huge extra detour and is well worth it when one line can serve multiple purposes. Essentially, this concept allows the HST connection of 3 metro regions by building only a little more rail line than would be needed to just connect Chicago and St Louis." The deviation to Champaign is all of 20 miles, which adds maybe 10-15 minutes to the trip. Not a big deal! But the deal breaker would be if Indianapolis were not a part. In that case, stick to the existing UP route and upgrade the Champaign route.
MidlandMike ... While a "Y" shaped route may save some initial construction costs, the longer distance will permanently cause extra travel time and operating costs, and will be a permanent drag on it's viability.
...
While a "Y" shaped route may save some initial construction costs, the longer distance will permanently cause extra travel time and operating costs, and will be a permanent drag on it's viability.
"Amtrak lists a distance of 284 miles Chicago-St Louis on the current route. Travel time 5:20. When that corridor is all 110mph, the travel time will go down.
Google maps says it's 297 miles to drive I-55 and will take 4:35.
If I route the drive via Champaign, the mileage goes to 316 miles and it will take 4:50.
The HST proposal lists a travel time Chicago - St Louis of 117 minutes (1:57) with stops in Champaign and Springfield. Apparently the fact that the rail distance via Champaign is maybe about 20 miles longer than the as-the-crow-flies current line, will not negatively affect travel times.
It's just not a huge extra detour and is well worth it when one line can serve multiple purposes. Essentially, this concept allows the HST connection of 3 metro regions by building only a little more rail line than would be needed to just connect Chicago and St Louis."
The deviation to Champaign is all of 20 miles, which adds maybe 10-15 minutes to the trip. Not a big deal! But the deal breaker would be if Indianapolis were not a part. In that case, stick to the existing UP route and upgrade the Champaign route.
Amtrak's timetable shows CHI-Champaign as 129 miles. There is no direct rail route to Decatur, and the shortest route went 9 miles to Tolono, then 38 miles to Decatur (N&W TT) for a total of 47 miles Champaign-Decatur. There is an Interstate that connects the two towns, but the Illinois Highway map shows 49 miles, so we can stick to the shorter rail mileage. Decatur-Springfield is 39 miles (N&W TT). This brings the total CHI-Champaign-Springfield to 214 miles. Amtrak currently shows CHI-Springfield as 185 miles, so the route via Champaign is 29 rail miles longer. For the present CHI-STL trip of 284 miles, a deviation thru Champaign would add 10% more miles.
Now 10% longer on a 2 hour HSR trip is only 12 minutes, and you can argue whether that is significant or not to a traveler, but as I said, it is still extra time. On some routes, incremental time saved on multiple trips, has resulted in added frequency. Maybe more importantly, the 10% more miles represents 10% more crew time, 10% more electricity purchased from the power company, and 10% more equipment maintenance. I can't imagine any passenger route that is so flush, it can throw away 10% more money on operating costs.
Very good.
However, I understand that the GG-1's (first built more than 40-50 years ago) always used pantographs. I am not sure, but I think that the earlier PRR locomotives used with overhead supply also had pantographs. Did not the earlier Milwaukee electrics, as well as the Little Joes use pantographs and not trolleys? It seems to me that pictures of the box cabs and Bi-polars show pantographs on them. Also, the practice of not keeping the catenary centered over the track is also very old; as I recall at least in the fifties this was mentioned in an article in Trains.
Johnny
Thanks for an interesting lesson on wires! Never imagined there were more than two types. Below you can find two types from Paris and Swedish North.
blue streak 1 McKey: 1. The term Catenary is a mathematical term that predates any use of CAT for overhead electric traction. The term catenary refers to the mathematical formula that defines how any wire, rope, etc sags between two points with no interediate support. Of course the hanging wire has to have a constant weight per unit of distance. Some other poster may have the formula and know its origin. I know when I first heard it in college I was surprized. I have forgotten how the formula applies when there is a differnce in elevation between the two points. 2. The trolley wire you illustrated at Gare De Lyon is a simple contact wire that hangs from cross wires with some kind of insulator. The trolley wire hangs as a catenary sag between the cross wires. Trolley wire may have come to be known as such because of their use for street car, trams, trolley buses, It was sufficient for slower speed contact wire, etc and has no other definition that I know of. Until recently trolley wire was contacted from vehicles by a pole with either a wearable slider or wheel. But in the past 40 - 50 years some systems began using a Pantograph ( PAN ). The trolley wire received power at certain cross wire points depending on wire diameter and power demads from multiple vehicles. 3. Early variable tension CAT such as the PRR or the NY&NH RRs constructed used a top wire called a messinger that the contact wire was hung from using various lengths of hangers depending how fa from a cross support. That allowed the contact wire to have somewhat short distances between the hangers and be close to level with the tracks. Still the contact wire hung from the hangers on the mathematical catenary formula just not much.. This is variable tension CAT as the air temperature causes the messinger & contact wire to expand and contract with the tensioning changing as well with the consequence sagging during hot weather and over tensioning during cold weather. The messinger is hard connected to each cross support. 4. Modern constant tension CAT is different in that all 3 wires are bussed together in about 1/4 mile lengths. All are connected together at the end of these lengths to weights. The messinger is usually attached at the center of this 1/4 mile length but the rest can move with the various air temperatures. This allows the contact wire to be in constant tension. Note: The messinger is attached to either the contact wire or more likely an intermediate wire that is then connected to the contact wire. These connections are usually 2 - 3 ft apart and keep the contact wire almost level. ( the contact wire still hangs as a catenary between the hangers ).The weights exert a pull on the messinger and contact wires to keep it at a constant tension. The distance of the contact wire and the track also stays the same as the air temperature changes. Contact wire may be much smaller than trolley wire as the messinger wire carries the bulk of current. Just depends on design including distance between. Much of the power can be carried by the messinger allowing multiple power pickups. ( EMUs, multiple locos ) 5. Just as a guess trolley wire is good to about 70 MPH, Variale tension CAT to about 130 MPH & constant tension to unknown maximum. Even so variable tension may break under extreme cold as the wire gets too tight. Contrary a hot day will sag the wires and allow for the PAN to snag the wire and pull them down. Just depends. That seems to be the problem on the old PRR CAT between WASH & PHL that has not received enough maintenance. One further item modern CAT is not constructed directly over the center line of the track but sweeps back and forth to allow for longer life of the PAN's contact surface.
McKey:
1. The term Catenary is a mathematical term that predates any use of CAT for overhead electric traction. The term catenary refers to the mathematical formula that defines how any wire, rope, etc sags between two points with no interediate support. Of course the hanging wire has to have a constant weight per unit of distance. Some other poster may have the formula and know its origin. I know when I first heard it in college I was surprized. I have forgotten how the formula applies when there is a differnce in elevation between the two points.
2. The trolley wire you illustrated at Gare De Lyon is a simple contact wire that hangs from cross wires with some kind of insulator. The trolley wire hangs as a catenary sag between the cross wires. Trolley wire may have come to be known as such because of their use for street car, trams, trolley buses, It was sufficient for slower speed contact wire, etc and has no other definition that I know of. Until recently trolley wire was contacted from vehicles by a pole with either a wearable slider or wheel. But in the past 40 - 50 years some systems began using a Pantograph ( PAN ). The trolley wire received power at certain cross wire points depending on wire diameter and power demads from multiple vehicles.
3. Early variable tension CAT such as the PRR or the NY&NH RRs constructed used a top wire called a messinger that the contact wire was hung from using various lengths of hangers depending how fa from a cross support. That allowed the contact wire to have somewhat short distances between the hangers and be close to level with the tracks. Still the contact wire hung from the hangers on the mathematical catenary formula just not much.. This is variable tension CAT as the air temperature causes the messinger & contact wire to expand and contract with the tensioning changing as well with the consequence sagging during hot weather and over tensioning during cold weather. The messinger is hard connected to each cross support.
4. Modern constant tension CAT is different in that all 3 wires are bussed together in about 1/4 mile lengths. All are connected together at the end of these lengths to weights. The messinger is usually attached at the center of this 1/4 mile length but the rest can move with the various air temperatures. This allows the contact wire to be in constant tension. Note: The messinger is attached to either the contact wire or more likely an intermediate wire that is then connected to the contact wire. These connections are usually 2 - 3 ft apart and keep the contact wire almost level. ( the contact wire still hangs as a catenary between the hangers ).The weights exert a pull on the messinger and contact wires to keep it at a constant tension. The distance of the contact wire and the track also stays the same as the air temperature changes. Contact wire may be much smaller than trolley wire as the messinger wire carries the bulk of current. Just depends on design including distance between. Much of the power can be carried by the messinger allowing multiple power pickups. ( EMUs, multiple locos )
5. Just as a guess trolley wire is good to about 70 MPH, Variale tension CAT to about 130 MPH & constant tension to unknown maximum. Even so variable tension may break under extreme cold as the wire gets too tight. Contrary a hot day will sag the wires and allow for the PAN to snag the wire and pull them down. Just depends. That seems to be the problem on the old PRR CAT between WASH & PHL that has not received enough maintenance. One further item modern CAT is not constructed directly over the center line of the track but sweeps back and forth to allow for longer life of the PAN's contact surface.
The two above pictures show some of the underground spaces of Paris with 1500 V DC lines. I suppose this is the trolley type, simple and effective. Fits into small spaces when needed.
And below in one of the modern CAT I suppose. On the left you can see the steel (Swedish old style) counterweight hanging and keeping the tension to the overhead wire.
Maximum speed for overhead wire depends on a bunch of variables. The North Shore Line ran upwards of 80MPH on simple overhead - but they had a line car working every day. Chicago Transit authority experimented with speeds of above 80 MPH with pan trolleys (paired trolley poles with a cross shoe) on ex-CNS&M catenary but found that airfoils were needed to keep the shoes on the wire (CNS&M had used poles on the same catenary). PRR and PC ran metroliners regularly at speeds around 160 in tests (once hitting 176) on overhead that was built in the 1930s - but which then as now required regular, expensive maintenance. Amtrak still runs daily at 135 under the same wire.
The biggest benefit to the constant-tension sytems is that the amount of attention and adjustment required is greatly reduced, because the movement of the wire is predictable, even at extreme temperatures. Amtrak suffered several temperature-related wire problems this summer, but none were on the constant-tension wire east of New Haven.
Comment: Logically, extension of electrification outside the corridor should be first to Richmond (third rail in the Washington tunnel?) then to Pittsburgh, and maybe electrificaiion to Pittsburgh can bring running times down to make Phila-Pits a corridor. Then Penn NY to Albany and then to Buffalo.
Already in the works: SF - Gilroy, New Haven Springfield, California High Speed
Not mentioned in the descriptions in modern constant-tension trolley wire or contant-tension siingle-wire cantenary, whichever term you choose to ose. Most modern light rail systems use this, which is a lot better lookiing than two or three wire (messanger and contact wire with or withoiut intermediate wire) in urban and park environments.
Now if we could just start electrification outside the NEC in the US!
power substations. The me . or with . l
Part 2 as the part 1 got stuck and I coudl not edit it any more.
3. Any idea what the voltage of these staton tracks is?
This was answered already but lets add that using 1500V (DC) means that the distance between the wire and the structures can be minimal compared with what the 25000 volt wires would need.
4. How far out from station does constant tension CAT start and what are the speed limits just before and after ?
Again I don't quite understand what you mean but since it takes time to accelerate a super high speed train the speed limits reflect this. Besides this kind of trains are _noisy_ so who would like to see these run at full speeds at the inhabited areas.
5. Seems like a money saving construction ?
You have just found the most important point: the French are very careful money users, but are able to use it when it is needed. So if something works and can be improved to reflect the new situation, they always choose this, and save a huge amount of money. Which is not to say the super high speed lines would not be state of the art technology. And the lines are almost always built and taken into use in small sections so the benefits of the high speed can be used as soon as possible.
One important additon: the original line between Lyon and Paris is nearing its full capacity despite all efforts to stem this development, and there will be another line built near it to span the same cities in just 1- 2 decades. Will the Illinois line be in traffic by then ;) I do hope so.
Most of ther things got already answered while I slept overnight and while my post is waiting to be inspected. So I'll try to answer the rest.
The problem is, I'm here on probation, meaning all my messages are read and reviewed before posting, so real conversation on this forum is not possible until my probation is over. You know what I mean: If you ask a question and the answer comes maybe 12 hours later, no conversation is likely to be created. And if I answer this thread, it looks funny since so many discussion texts appear between my post and when it is published so the conversation gets easily unsycnhronized, which is really annoying to everyone here. It must be so to the censor at the Kamlbach end too.
The questions 1 already go answered. One addition: the French are actually planning an underground railway for TGVs under Paris, so sooned or later Gare de Lyon will have a modern underground station too (in addition to Metro connection). This underground will look like being overground with lots of natural light. And it will solve the problem with all the Paris station being terminals. After that running say from London _through_ Paris to Lyon and Mediterranean can be more effective than now going around the city. I think the passengers will enjoy being able to get of in 2 or 3 places rtight at the heart of the city too.
2. Notices that the overhead contact wire is straight trolley and not constant tension CAT.
Please be more specific, I don't udnerstand what you mean. The catenary in Europe is typically installed with counter weights here and there to keep the wires lined up, if that is what you mean.
CJtrainguy blue streak 1 McKey:: 1. Are all the tracks at Gare De Lyon stub tracks ? 2. Notices that the overhead contact wire is straight trolley and not constant tension CAT. 3. Any idea what the voltage of these staton tracks is? 4. How far out from station does constant tension CAT start and what are the speed limits just before and after ? 5. Seems like a money saving construction ? Like all the large train stations in Paris, Gare de Lyon is a terminus, so the tracks are stub tracks. Early French electrification was 1.5kV DC. Modern electrification is 25kV 50Hz. The TGV trains run on both systems. They simply connected the new high speed lines to the existing rail lines at the outskirts of the city. That allowed a cost effective solution vs building all new high speed line right into the existing train station and it's not like they'd be coming into the station going 170mph anyway. If it was all new construction or no prior catenary there, they would have put in 25kV 50Hz all the way into the station.
blue streak 1 McKey:: 1. Are all the tracks at Gare De Lyon stub tracks ? 2. Notices that the overhead contact wire is straight trolley and not constant tension CAT. 3. Any idea what the voltage of these staton tracks is? 4. How far out from station does constant tension CAT start and what are the speed limits just before and after ? 5. Seems like a money saving construction ?
McKey::
1. Are all the tracks at Gare De Lyon stub tracks ?
Like all the large train stations in Paris, Gare de Lyon is a terminus, so the tracks are stub tracks.
Early French electrification was 1.5kV DC. Modern electrification is 25kV 50Hz. The TGV trains run on both systems. They simply connected the new high speed lines to the existing rail lines at the outskirts of the city. That allowed a cost effective solution vs building all new high speed line right into the existing train station and it's not like they'd be coming into the station going 170mph anyway. If it was all new construction or no prior catenary there, they would have put in 25kV 50Hz all the way into the station.
MidlandMike schlimm Well if you had actually read what I cited, you would see that Indy would be one of the top traffic generating cities. It is an essential ingedient. Personally, I think they should stick with the UP (GM&O) route, upgrading stretches to 150 mph and upgrade the old IC mainline to 110, which is only 10 mph higher than it was 50 years ago. The tables with estimated passenger traffic you earlier cited were based on surveys, which were the subject of my response. So you may presume I read what you cited, understood the underlying basis, and offered a differing opinion of the implications. I would agree with you that Indy is an essential ingredient of the proposal, only because without it, the whole route deviation to Champaign falls apart. While a "Y" shaped route may save some initial construction costs, the longer distance will permanently cause extra travel time and operating costs, and will be a permanent drag on it's viability.
schlimm Well if you had actually read what I cited, you would see that Indy would be one of the top traffic generating cities. It is an essential ingedient. Personally, I think they should stick with the UP (GM&O) route, upgrading stretches to 150 mph and upgrade the old IC mainline to 110, which is only 10 mph higher than it was 50 years ago.
Well if you had actually read what I cited, you would see that Indy would be one of the top traffic generating cities. It is an essential ingedient.
Personally, I think they should stick with the UP (GM&O) route, upgrading stretches to 150 mph and upgrade the old IC mainline to 110, which is only 10 mph higher than it was 50 years ago.
The tables with estimated passenger traffic you earlier cited were based on surveys, which were the subject of my response. So you may presume I read what you cited, understood the underlying basis, and offered a differing opinion of the implications. I would agree with you that Indy is an essential ingredient of the proposal, only because without it, the whole route deviation to Champaign falls apart.
Stuttgart is a sad case. but It may not ever be fully realized because the cost is so high and it is horribly unpopular.
Schlimm: I couldn't agree more that we need train stations that are pleasant to be in and are airy and full of light.
Unfortunately, in many European cities they are on the bandwagon of "put it all under ground" too. Stuttgart in Germany is a prime example. A functional terminal station is being torn down to be replaced by a tunnel station with significantly less capacity (to the point that the station will have capacity constraints the day it eventually opens). Everyone is so enamored by how much that "freed-up" land or those air-rights can sell for.
I am pleased to see that design studies for a new Penn Station in NYC include views open to the sky. Just hoping they build it that way in the end.
Another takeaway from the post on TGV in Paris should be what open and pleasant stations there and elsewhere in Europe. Compare them with the dark, dreary hole in the ground called Union Station in Chicago. We need to have train stations in major metro areas that are a pleasnt place to be in and pass through.
Although all the intercity trains' tracks at Gare de Lyon are stub tracks, if I remember correctly somewhere in the station, at the side or below, are two regional express system tracks, which do continue across Paris possibliy to the Gare du Nord or some other station. Te regional express system is a suburban network roughly equivalent to BARTD in the SF area or the German Shnellbahn systems. More like Philly's SEPTA than the separate NY-area commuter systems. Uses only MU electric equipment and does share tracks with iintercity trains in some locations.
oltmannd Today's strange fact: Ridership gains on Chicago to St. Louis were pretty large in the past year. It looks like just the publicity working on 110 mph service increased ridership. That's pretty amazing, IMHO.
Today's strange fact:
Ridership gains on Chicago to St. Louis were pretty large in the past year. It looks like just the publicity working on 110 mph service increased ridership. That's pretty amazing, IMHO.
McKey Finally, from the European view point, sounds like you are serious about building the high speed rail line south of Chicago! What we have learned in Europe is that the super high speed route does not need to go the straightest route. Trains are so fast that small detours make only small additions to time travelled. Instead having the needed volumes to make the operations of trains and infrastructure profitable is crucial, so no more public subsidies will be needed and next lines can be buit to extend the first line(s). Look carefully what the French have done. And they only build an additional super high speed line (220 mph and more) if the plans show it is profitable. So far they have built over 2000 kilometers / 1300 miles of high speed track, joining the normal track where the high speed trains run too, only slower. More lines are in process, alhough slower, since the profitability declines once the best routes are built. Good luck for the building phase and the choise of the right rolling stock! Below: a few of the 650 units of the super high speed TGV train fleet. All these trains shown here are at just one busy station, Gare de Lyon of Paris, France.
Finally, from the European view point, sounds like you are serious about building the high speed rail line south of Chicago!
What we have learned in Europe is that the super high speed route does not need to go the straightest route. Trains are so fast that small detours make only small additions to time travelled. Instead having the needed volumes to make the operations of trains and infrastructure profitable is crucial, so no more public subsidies will be needed and next lines can be buit to extend the first line(s).
Look carefully what the French have done. And they only build an additional super high speed line (220 mph and more) if the plans show it is profitable. So far they have built over 2000 kilometers / 1300 miles of high speed track, joining the normal track where the high speed trains run too, only slower. More lines are in process, alhough slower, since the profitability declines once the best routes are built.
Good luck for the building phase and the choise of the right rolling stock!
Below: a few of the 650 units of the super high speed TGV train fleet. All these trains shown here are at just one busy station, Gare de Lyon of Paris, France.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.