The difference in costs for Class 4 track (60 freight, 80 passenger) and Class 5 track (80 freight, 90 passenger) is substantial. While the increase in ties and other hardware is not that significant, the cost of the track geometry (alinement and surface) is significant. Going to Class 7 track (110 mph) basically means that you open the bank.
A larger factor is the VMax equation (49 CFR, Part 213.57) which determines speeds on curves. It doesn't take much curvature to really limit the train speeds. You can speed trains up by using a different Eu (the elevation provided by the train) but this means special equipment testing, so freight trains will pretty much not gain any speed advantage. In fact, they will probably see more costs as the low rails will wear faster in curves due to the difference in train speeds.
A very large cost is energy. Once a train gets above 30-40 mph, extra speed means huge increases in fuel consumption. This is due to the energy curve needed for the extra speed as well as the wind resistance that a train experiences.
Andrew Falconer If you are going to build a High-Speed Rail System, all of the mainline should be built for passenger trains operating at the speed of 120 miles per hour. The engineering and construction of the tracks has to be great enough for a reasonable commute time and a safe trip at 120 Miles Per Hour.
If you are going to build a High-Speed Rail System, all of the mainline should be built for passenger trains operating at the speed of 120 miles per hour.
The engineering and construction of the tracks has to be great enough for a reasonable commute time and a safe trip at 120 Miles Per Hour.
Although 120 mph would be a big improvement, it is far from HSR as it is defined.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
MidlandMike oltmannd Some discussion of maintenance costs here: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews255rpo.pdf The biggest problem is capacity. 110 mph passenger trains on what are already heavily used mainlines (think NS Chicago Line, CNO&TP, BNSF transcon, UP mainline, etc) is a non-starter. It would cause the lines to grind to a standstill. I still think an integrated, new "passenger main" to serve emerging corridors is probably a good way to improve passenger service. However, negotiating the murky PPP waters to get something like this done is not a trivial exercise. I could see that for an at-capacity double track line like the NS Chicago line, most all trains would be forced to run at current of traffic speed. However, for a single track line, where an Amtrak train runs once a day, if it can get over a route 10% quicker, then there would be 10% less time that it would be interfering with freight traffic.
oltmannd Some discussion of maintenance costs here: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews255rpo.pdf The biggest problem is capacity. 110 mph passenger trains on what are already heavily used mainlines (think NS Chicago Line, CNO&TP, BNSF transcon, UP mainline, etc) is a non-starter. It would cause the lines to grind to a standstill. I still think an integrated, new "passenger main" to serve emerging corridors is probably a good way to improve passenger service. However, negotiating the murky PPP waters to get something like this done is not a trivial exercise.
Some discussion of maintenance costs here: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trnews/trnews255rpo.pdf
The biggest problem is capacity. 110 mph passenger trains on what are already heavily used mainlines (think NS Chicago Line, CNO&TP, BNSF transcon, UP mainline, etc) is a non-starter. It would cause the lines to grind to a standstill.
I still think an integrated, new "passenger main" to serve emerging corridors is probably a good way to improve passenger service. However, negotiating the murky PPP waters to get something like this done is not a trivial exercise.
I could see that for an at-capacity double track line like the NS Chicago line, most all trains would be forced to run at current of traffic speed. However, for a single track line, where an Amtrak train runs once a day, if it can get over a route 10% quicker, then there would be 10% less time that it would be interfering with freight traffic.
Faster Amtrak on a single track line would clog it up faster, as the freights would have to clear sooner - proably one siding sooner - thus decreasing the capacity of the line. You cannot run a single track railroad with a double track mentality.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Buslist oltmannd PTC takes care of the signal system 79 mph limit, but you still have to contend with FRA track class: http://trn.trains.com/railroads/abcs-of-railroading/2006/05/track-classifications There is is quite a bit of class 5 Track on the western main lines and I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the class 4 mains come pretty close to class 5 standards.
oltmannd PTC takes care of the signal system 79 mph limit, but you still have to contend with FRA track class: http://trn.trains.com/railroads/abcs-of-railroading/2006/05/track-classifications
PTC takes care of the signal system 79 mph limit, but you still have to contend with FRA track class: http://trn.trains.com/railroads/abcs-of-railroading/2006/05/track-classifications
There is is quite a bit of class 5 Track on the western main lines and I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the class 4 mains come pretty close to class 5 standards.
Coming close to Class 5 standards and actually maintaining Class 5 standards are two different thing$. And the difference in $$$ is signifigant.
oltmannd Deggesty As I understand the matter, when the ICC imposed speed limits, it gave the railroads free rein wherever ATC, ATS, or ACS was in effect. If any one of these was in use, the territory covered was outside the ICC jurisdiction so far as speed was concerned. If this situation still holds, and PTC, which (I understand) provides even better protection than the above, is in effect the government will have no say as to speed--unless a law is enacted given it such authority. However, as as has been pointed out, there are great difficulties inherent in providing fast passenger service on the same tracks that carry heavy freight traffic. When the Southern inaugurated the Southerner, all other traffic had to clear its time by ten minutes--if a meet was set up at a certain point, all other traffic affected had to be in the clear ten minutes in advance of the Southerner's time at that point; note that this was a few years before the ICC set speed limits. PTC takes care of the signal system 79 mph limit, but you still have to contend with FRA track class: http://trn.trains.com/railroads/abcs-of-railroading/2006/05/track-classifications
Deggesty As I understand the matter, when the ICC imposed speed limits, it gave the railroads free rein wherever ATC, ATS, or ACS was in effect. If any one of these was in use, the territory covered was outside the ICC jurisdiction so far as speed was concerned. If this situation still holds, and PTC, which (I understand) provides even better protection than the above, is in effect the government will have no say as to speed--unless a law is enacted given it such authority. However, as as has been pointed out, there are great difficulties inherent in providing fast passenger service on the same tracks that carry heavy freight traffic. When the Southern inaugurated the Southerner, all other traffic had to clear its time by ten minutes--if a meet was set up at a certain point, all other traffic affected had to be in the clear ten minutes in advance of the Southerner's time at that point; note that this was a few years before the ICC set speed limits.
As I understand the matter, when the ICC imposed speed limits, it gave the railroads free rein wherever ATC, ATS, or ACS was in effect. If any one of these was in use, the territory covered was outside the ICC jurisdiction so far as speed was concerned.
If this situation still holds, and PTC, which (I understand) provides even better protection than the above, is in effect the government will have no say as to speed--unless a law is enacted given it such authority.
However, as as has been pointed out, there are great difficulties inherent in providing fast passenger service on the same tracks that carry heavy freight traffic. When the Southern inaugurated the Southerner, all other traffic had to clear its time by ten minutes--if a meet was set up at a certain point, all other traffic affected had to be in the clear ten minutes in advance of the Southerner's time at that point; note that this was a few years before the ICC set speed limits.
Johnny
conductorchris Mike - your point is valid, but . . . faster running could mean Amtrak wouldn't need as much equipment. As a practical example - A 90 mph Cresent could (if there weren't too many slow orders) get into New York with hours to spare before needing to turn back south -- saving an entire set of equipment. That would save $30 million or so in capital costs (in round numbers) -- probably not enough to pay for all upgrade work, but a good start. Then you have the ongoing savings of maintaining one less equipment set per day and employing less crews on the run along with the siginficantly higher revenue one could get. In round numbers, that might mean twice the revenue and 25% less costs. That starts to look like a good deal for the taxpayers.
Mike - your point is valid, but . . . faster running could mean Amtrak wouldn't need as much equipment.
As a practical example - A 90 mph Cresent could (if there weren't too many slow orders) get into New York with hours to spare before needing to turn back south -- saving an entire set of equipment. That would save $30 million or so in capital costs (in round numbers) -- probably not enough to pay for all upgrade work, but a good start. Then you have the ongoing savings of maintaining one less equipment set per day and employing less crews on the run along with the siginficantly higher revenue one could get. In round numbers, that might mean twice the revenue and 25% less costs. That starts to look like a good deal for the taxpayers.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1 Phoebe Vet Fast, frequent, and on time are the keys to success. I don't care if it goes 500 mph, one train a day will never be useful transportation. Dave ( Phoebe ) It is not a higher speed for passeng trains that is needed but an elimination of the slow spots. an example is the Crescent Wash - Atlanta at 634 miles. If all track was 79 MPH and at least 60 for freight the Crescent could make its 16 stops for 5 minutes and make up time of 5 minutes the Crescent would average 60 MPH and the freights running at 60 MPH that did not have to stop at stations could make 60 MPH except for crew changes. Granted some grade problems would need mitigating. Then the Crescent would take 10-1/2 - 11 hours Wash - ATL instead of its 13-1/2+ hours now. Those few area where some track can be increased to 90 MPH ( Charlotte - Greensboro ) would help on time operation. Note the Palmetto and Meteor cover identical distance in about 2 hours less and see how much business they have. Then a day train NYP - ATL ( over 750 miles ) becomes a 14 hour trip say 0700 - 2100 times. Another pair of day trains could originate / terminate WASH and go beyond ATL to make the 750 mile requirement.
Phoebe Vet Fast, frequent, and on time are the keys to success. I don't care if it goes 500 mph, one train a day will never be useful transportation.
Fast, frequent, and on time are the keys to success. I don't care if it goes 500 mph, one train a day will never be useful transportation.
That's exactly it. You want to shave time from the Crescent? Speed up Birmingham to Charlotte. That involves straightening curves and navigating Atlanta quicker.
I heard today, that SC and GA are "thinking about" ponying up some money to "study" (again!) HrSR in the southeast.
CMStPnP My view is that we should at least see a Federal lifting of the speed limit once PTC and electronic brakes are implemented system wide. That is if the latter ever happens as part of the new tanker car rules (have my doubts there and think they will fight that last stipulation in the courts). But if they ever do implement electronic braking and it does allegedly makes both passenger and freight trains more responsive to braking.........along with PTC. Should be enough of a safety margin to lift speed limits a little on track where they both exist together.
My view is that we should at least see a Federal lifting of the speed limit once PTC and electronic brakes are implemented system wide. That is if the latter ever happens as part of the new tanker car rules (have my doubts there and think they will fight that last stipulation in the courts). But if they ever do implement electronic braking and it does allegedly makes both passenger and freight trains more responsive to braking.........along with PTC. Should be enough of a safety margin to lift speed limits a little on track where they both exist together.
If you read the PTC rule it already states that PTC is considered a cab signal system so the limit is already lifted.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
PNWRMNMGreat idea, if US Govt pays for it!! Mac
Mac
A questionable use of taxpayers money.
As has been discussed here ad-infinitum, Amtrak needs more locos and rolling stock as they are running their existing equipment into the ground. Breakdowns are killing the LD routes.
We need more service frequency and clean, reliable trains! Well, and maybe some modest host RR capacity increases like lengthening a few key short sidings.
Links to my Google Maps ---> Sunset Route overview, SoCal metro, Yuma sub, Gila sub, SR east of Tucson, BNSF Northern Transcon and Southern Transcon *** Why you should support Ukraine! ***
Outside the NEC, speeds are not in the hands of Amtrak! Increased passenger speeds on freight railroads just increase the maintenance costs for keeping those higher speeds. Nearly ALL freight locomtives are geared for a maximum speed of 70 or 75 MPH. Nobody is paying for 70 MPH coal delivery. Nobody is paying for 70 MPH grain delivery. Intermodal is currently running at or near maximum allowable track/locomotive speed.
When PTC is in place (in a few years) the largest expense to upgrading track for faster speeds will have been taken care of.
That still leaves the matter of paying for maintenance at a higher level. When Amtrak has had the choice it has sometimes accepted downgrading the speed (for example on the Cardinal).
It is my opinion that paying for higher speeds generally pays for itself (lower crew costs, less equipment needed to run the same service and - siginficantly - an ability to charge higher fares and fill the trains). However that doesn't mean Amtrak has this opinion.
The higher speed limits as suggested would be of minimal consequence to freight operations, primarily intermodal, since the rolling stock would have to be at the least re-trucked and probably rebuilt to handle the higher speeds.
PNWRMNM Great idea, if US Govt pays for it!! Mac
Great idea, if US Govt pays for it!!
Be careful what you wish for. If the feds pay for upgraded RoW, you may end up with an infrastructure owned by the government and private railroads bidding to operate freight on it.
Is it time we push for a 90 - 110mph maximum speed for Amtrak outside the NEC? I think it would also benefit stack, car carriers and piggyback trains.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.