The trolleycar was supposed to be dead too. Admittadly some of the current new light rail schemes don't make economic sense, and I don't mean just pay for themsleves, but just have not developed the predicted patronage or economic development. But others are very successful with patronage beyond expected and the local taxpayers happy with the investment and the subsidization. And Toronto residents are very pleased they hung on to their streetcar system.
And their new streetcars are certainly very different than any classic ones, a step beyond the PCC as the PCC was from what went on earlier.
I'd say that Amtrak reprsents the PCC era in analogy to passernger railroading. The PCC did prolong the life of some heritage systems, and those that kept some lines now find it a lot easier to develop light rail where it will work well.
There were probably about a thousand North American streetcar systems just before WWI. In 1965 there were only nine or ten. One, New Orleans, was kept just for tourism. San Francisco for that reason for one part and because of the Twin Peaks and Sunset Tunnels for the other part. Newark and Shaker Heights were already light rail with complete separation from traffic. Boston and Philadelphia because of a downtown subway. Toronto is and was modern for its time as a streetcar system. Now there are new systems in Dallas, Houston, El Paso, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento. San Jose, Calgary, Edmonton, Buffalo, JerseyCity-Hoboken, Charlotte, Detroit, Kansas City, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Kenosha, possibly some I have left out and some more in design or construction.
High Speed to classic passenger railroading might be analogous to Light Rail to streetears.
And now, back to long distance high speed rail.
These various proposed routes can't all be built at once. The San Francisco-San Diego line abuilding will serve as a test prototype for the concept. Such things as funding sources, technical solutions, ridership levels, amount of parking provided, and the willingness for governments to actually pay for the land they confiscate can be tried out before the next route construction starts. And, as a nod to the above post, we can even see how the streetcar systems get built out to adapt to it.
We have the prototype under construction. Let's just see how it works out.
Ed
7j43kThe San Francisco-San Diego line abuilding will serve as a test prototype for the concept ... We have the prototype under construction. Let's just see how it works out.
None of that is a test prototype for anything except how to throw money at a whole bunch of things unrelated to actually running fast trains people want at a reasonable approximation to a profit.
This even if the trains and the track structure itself turns out to be capable of sustained 220mph, which I frankly doubt without very expensive perpetual maintenance of a level not planned in the already-bloated estimates.
Serving a bunch of towns along the 99 corridor is a cute mission for PRIIA-compliant 125mph service, not high speed. As noted, it's already verging on a boondoggle to run fast trains in a fairly substantial portion of the I-5 corridor, any compromise not proving anything we don't already know better from European and Asian practice. Conversely running a 220mph line into the San Diego end of the LOSSAN corridor involves going waaaaay away from populated areas on the other side of some fairly colossal, seismically-active, rock-that-can't-be-TBMed-easily terrain, to save how much time?
You'll get somewhat better information from the TC project ... assuming that speed tells you much of anything we haven't really known since the mid-Seventies. All the CBTC-style proposals I've seen have been both inadequate and misguided in terms of providing what a good instantiation of something as primitive, now, as TVM would.
The big problem with 220mph service, whether it be on a 'second spine' or on actual sensible service (like LA-SF on a direct route with minimum stops and NIMBY action) is that you have to have a whole lot of railroad built and debugged before you actually start to railroad. While the incremental-style construction as seen in Germany will get the job reasonably done, in time... it'll be a poky 2min here and 3min there until eventually the higher-speed begins to coalesce into meaningful sustained running and hence time reductions. By which point we'll be into generations who won't particularly care to wait for return on our hundreds of billions. (Or perhaps are willing to work under Green New Depression conditions to git 'r dun at reduced wages in renminbi or whatever it is by then)
Convicted OneSo you are saying that there will be less land required to build secure, grade-separated long distance HSR corridors (and it's infrastructure) than would be required by the handful of airports required to serve the same corridor?
He really isn't saying anything, considering that required runway length for the 'next generation of SSTs' is not particularly greater either for takeoff or landing than currently provided for any city that's a logical 'terminal draw' for direct HSR stops, and there's plenty of available PUD-capable real estate where the more likely 'regional' stops for true HSR spine service would be located. Meanwhile, both the current and prospective (~4100 facilities, if I remember the order of magnitude of the FAA planning correctly) regional network of 'attended-tower' or equivalent airports is either well-in-hand or involves little high-value land acquisition particularly as so much of the prospective traffic involves relatively small commuter-size aircraft that can bridge any gap in a good regional-rail combination of heavy and light rail closed last-mile by Uber or comparable ride-for-hire wireless-Internet-enabled service.
I don't recall the 'expanded' version of paying-corridor length at present: the numbers go up and down depending on the current state of technology, with 'permissible' rail corridor service getting longer with increasing PRIIA-compliant speed (up to fuel-limited 125mph or so) but shorter as the end-to-end capability of a pervasive regional system both for 'distributed-load' headcounts and for serving point-to-point traffic over the full corridor length in not many more minutes than shorter 'feeder' hops for the corridor spine, with more convenient spacing between likely more frequent flights during a given 24 hours.
Note that I do continue to see heavy PRIIA-style trains in corridors as a useful service when there are anticipated heavy passenger loads either between endpoints or relatively short 'peak' rider numbers between intermediate points. Think of anything regional as a counterpoint to that ... but there is quite a bit of margin to be squeezed out of a Zunum-like regional infrastructure once the initial capitalization has been either sterilized or paid down, and it is fair to compare this with long-distance HSR (using fair renewable factor costs, if that's important to getting it either sterilized or paid down quicker or better ) when deciding to make what is a trillions-plus up-front investment in what might be frequently marginally-patronized (by the time it's eventually built) true-HSR service.
I for one would like to see a 'future history' for two very famous roughly contemporary plans that did not get built despite considerable work: the proposed 36-minute railcar service between New York and Philadelphia just before the turn of the century, and the Chicago and New York Air Line Railway (which was essentially killed by little more than the panic of 1907). Would either of these -- touted as capturing essentially all the high-margin passenger traffic as well as M&E between the cities involved -- continue to be a success today as built, or even as 'improved' during the years they could show distinctive profit?
BackshopSo your NYC-Chicago route is going to have a new-build track for two trainsets?
In his defense, he was only giving illustrations of a couple of 'premier trains'; there would of course be considerable 'other service' much of which would be limited to parts of the overall structure, as well as the equivalent of M&E right up to prospective maintainable line capacity and condition. You don't have an asset like a HSR through main line and not use it; you don't have an asset like a HSR-capable train and not turn it as fast as possible to keep using it. Among other things this was the operational model that made the Niagaras both famous and successful ... for the period they were actually successful. There is a cautionary tale for HSR proponents in what happened with them 'afterward'.
Meanwhile, while we are on this long-spine HSR long-distance 'kick' -- who has thought about the logical effects of weather or microclimate on how these trains operate? I suspect there will be a great many times it's inadvisable to run these trains at full speed, or perhaps at all for a while, vs. the very limited actual windows that modern aircraft backed up by modern flight direction and PAR equivalent would be delayed.
Overmod None of that is a test prototype for anything except how to throw money at a whole bunch of things unrelated to actually running fast trains people want at a reasonable approximation to a profit.
I think "None" is a bit of an overstatement.
We'll just have to filter out the extraneous stuff, with an audit, say; and then with the trains running and the passengers riding and paying fares and the land owners either paid or not, I think we can get some good information on the matter.
That information can be used in considering what to do with following systems.
Now, possibly, the California High Speed Rail IS indeed a test prototype for throwing money. Here. And there. We can extrapolate from that, also.
Might I ask what CHSR is throwing money at that is unrelated...etc.?
I know they have a couple of miles of roadbed done, and some freeway relocation done. And maybe some land, or not.
What "inappropriate" throwing have they been doing? And is it really something following high speed rail systems won't be doing? Because if it is, that should be added to the projected costs of those projects.
Much of the commentary concerning expansion of commercial aviation and meeting expanidng needs is relevant for the immediate future. I have no problem with that. I'm looking beyond that. The next twenty years might see HSR NYCity Buffalo, but I doubt any HSR anywhere ekse. Other than that I'm looking at HSR expanding 50 or more years from now, when needs grow beyond any existing aviation expansion plans.
I am also uncertain that any long-terem-future true HSRvwill use the almost two-centuries-old normal ballast, resilient ties and tie-plates, creew or regular spikes, and T-rail. I can draw your attention to the paper:
Anders Nordborg, “Wheel/rail noise generation due to nonlinear
effects and parametric excitation,” Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 111-4, April 2002, p.1772-1781.
Possilby some form of slab-track, now routinely used in tunnels where track maintenance is most difficult, will be normal for HSR and sharply reduce incidences of sun-kinks and other failures. Possibly the entire trackbed will be heated in winter.
Only NYC-Buffalo. And California HSR? Cancelled?
Slab track is routinely used on HSR stretches in Germany.
daveklepperI am also uncertain that any long-term-future true HSR will use the almost two-centuries-old normal ballast, resilient ties and tie-plates, screw or regular spikes, and T-rail.
Spikes of any kind have been obsolescent in high-speed construction for decades. Resilient bedding in 360 degrees of contact with the rail (i.e. in the tie bed, gauging shoulders, and on the spring clamping) is also required.
Possibly some form of slab-track, now routinely used in tunnels where track maintenance is most difficult, will be normal for HSR and sharply reduce incidences of sun-kinks and other failures.
As noted, true HSR requires regular adjustment of even small changes in line and surface. This proves increasingly difficult with most kinds of slab track once the installation gets a few years old, with somewhat heroic means needed to restore top-down track geometry under load when it goes out. The very good initial fixation becomes a problem when some of the fixation geometry becomes wrong. Here is a somewhat older article that is still a good reference to the general idea.
Possibly the entire trackbed will be heated in winter.
This is not quite as wack as it might first seem, as (for example) the method used to keep footings for the Alaska Pipeline stable, with ground-source heat sinks deep in the subgrade and heat pipes providing transfer to key parts of the track structure, are possible without active power or more than periodic maintenance inspection. I wouldn't count on this actively removing accretions of snow, ice, or other climate-related things, though: my opinion up to this point is that it should be possible to keep the line clear with simple plowing/blowing/brooming up to a point ... with ease of removal of heavier deposits past that point. About the only thing that's likely to be actively heated is the immediate contact area of switches (which of course won't be frog-and-point design). One fortunate thing here, and with respect to many kinds of potential sabotage, is the cheap availability of good sensor-fusion cameras and software to coordinate them.
As noted, true HSR requires regular adjustment of even small changes in line and surface. This proves increasingly difficult with most kinds of slab track once the installation gets a few years old, with somewhat heroic means needed to restore top-down track geometry under load when it goes out. The very good initial fixation becomes a problem when some of the fixation geometry becomes wrong. Here is a somewhat older article that is still a good reference to the general idea. There is another contemporary report from AREMA here, although some here might be leery of the paper title in light of the authors' affiliation.
charlie hebdoRoadbeds aren't what they were on the 20th in the 50s.
Compared to what is necessary for 220mph speed, the state of the Water Level Route in the '50s might as well be cobblestones.
The things I'm mentioning are almost vanishingly slight in percentage; the problem is that they can be exacerbated by the longitudinal speed and made irritatingly noticeable to people trying to sleep. Hence the action of putting small-excursion servo compensation on the bedding or part of the compartment structure to neutralize it, and perhaps the effect of even shallow permissible curves on the 'reclining' vestibular canals...
Overmod charlie hebdo Roadbeds aren't what they were on the 20th in the 50s. Compared to what is necessary for 220mph speed, the state of the Water Level Route in the '50s might as well be cobblestones. The things I'm mentioning are almost vanishingly slight in percentage; the problem is that they can be exacerbated by the longitudinal speed and made irritatingly noticeable to people trying to sleep. Hence the action of putting small-excursion servo compensation on the bedding or part of the compartment structure to neutralize it, and perhaps the effect of even shallow permissible curves on the 'reclining' vestibular canals...
charlie hebdo Roadbeds aren't what they were on the 20th in the 50s.
Why reinvent the wheel? For high speed repackage, just borrow from the countries that have years of experience with it in getting it right.
Although HSR rolling stock would be compatible for operation where essentisal over existing tracks, most of the lines would be dedicated to the HSR. This means no compromize for lower-speed freight service (particularly cant compesation on curves) and no wesr-and-tear from heavily-loaded freightcars. Whatever the track construction is, it would be mated to the equipment. Whether tiltilng is buil-in or not, would be an enginerering and economics decision. For New York - Buffalo, I am not envisioning following the existing "Water-Level Route" exactly, but improving on it where possible. Probably not possible through major ciies, like Utica en-route.
Yes, Charlie, we should learn from others' experience. Certainly China has HSR though temperture extremes. Be interesting to get a trip report on this forum frm somebody who rode there, particularly on overnight with HSR sleeper, which they do have.
Or has Norway put the referended research in JASA into practice on its own HSR if it has any?
As to China: I have ridden Beijing to Shanghai and Shanghai to Hangzhou. My wife has additionally ridden Beijing to Tsingdao and Beijing to Tianjin. The services are very fast, comfortable, smooth riding, with pleasant, quiet coaches, comparable to or better than the numerous ICE trains in Germany or HSRs in Italy. Neither of us rode the overnight trains.
Should be able to do as well NY - Albany - Buffalo. And maybe the Californian situation will be straightened out, but it is a big political problem.
daveklepperShould be able to do as well NY - Albany - Buffalo.
Please, somebody recap why Buffalo is any kind of logical terminus for true and expensive HSR.
It started as important in the age of the canal, and its importance as a rail destination appears to me to have hinged on 'earliest access' to Great Lakes transshipment of fairly bulk cargoes (in particular, coal) which are no longer of particular strategic importance. Now it would be fun to rebuild the NYC station there (and preferably make it the center of a good PUD and then coordinated regional system at as quick a meaningful speed as possible) but is there really a distinctive future for whizzing people quickly there as opposed to, say, extending the trains to Toronto as a one-seat or coordinated-transfer ride?
(Of course there's also the temptation to wipe the eye of the weasels and provide HSR using parts of the CASO route ... now on elevated viaducting so without much necessary regard for those quick Lackawanna-Cutoff-style real-estate developments to prevent rebuilding it 'as a railroad' ... with a comparatively short extension of GO at the south/west end to connect to Toronto from that side...)
I honestly don't know the socioeconomic status or trendline of Buffalo, but it seems to be still stuck in the Rustbelt era, more than most areas. Perhaps comparable to Youngstown? If so, the only reason to put it on HSR routes would be the planners being stuck in the 1940s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4aaSzqT9s
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Maybe if Texas can get its HSR built AND running for awhile, others will take notice.
Much of the problem is political, revolving around people with Libertarian-OCD. Both of tag-team political parties love spending government loot on their construction and contractor buddies, so partying politics isn't an issue.
The only way to neutralize those with Libertarian-OCD is to spend the government loot ONLY on infrastructure. There's not much difference between "defense" industry, highway, and airport infrastructure. Sure, the Libertarians will still create their BS about how trains aren't "pure", but it will be less effective.
The power/influence of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex is far greater than the passenger railroad lobby. Ike knew it, but his warning has gone unheeded by Americans for almost 60 years.
Absolutely correct Charlie.
This came to me from David Klepper: ( seems he is having trouble logging on)
Why Buffalo?1. Economic Development. as a New York State project.2. Existing service improved, not starting from scratch.
Most HSTs would not be confined to the HSR, but wouldcontinue to either Toronto or Cleveland. The Lake Shore would be aday train, the HSR giving it a 14-hour NY - Chicago schedule,restoring decent Cleveland - Chicago service. Overnight NY - Chicagoservicre eoulf be restored as an HST when there is a Cleveland -Chicago HSR
Repeating the routes of yesteryear because that's what we always did.
The economic importance of metro areas changes. NYC and CHI remain, Cleveland, Toledo, Buffalo, South Bend, Erie and Ft. Wayne: not so much. Columbus is THE city in Ohio that should be getting HSR direct service, and so should Pittsburgh. This is the problem. The rail routes were determined by economic factors of 100+ years ago. Time changes things in many cases
MiningmanExisting service improved, not starting from scratch.
That won't be HSR, ever, except on a select few sections like the one where the jet RDC played. Note that no one has seriously proposed that a speed higher than the Empire Corridor 110mph be tried seriously as a priority ... and that's for the leg of the service where there's suitable density to justify the very high speed.
As it happens, we have a very detailed picture of the 'highest speed' for part of this specific run, developed with the aid of fairly sophisticated (for the time) computer modeling for a proposed TurboTrain service. I doubt that the cumulative effect of practical line adjustment for higher speed would give more than a few mnutes' advantage of what that train, with turbine power and inherent pendulum 'tilt', could produce. We will ignore the fun involved in sharing ROW with freight, even high-speed Z traffic, although that would sure queer any HSR proposal from Selkirk west (the old West Shore route being ill suited for rebuilding/relaying to any real HSR standards, no relief there either...)
Note that while the estimate was not continued as far west as Buffalo in the late '60s, it wouldn't be difficult to develop a current line profile, perhaps from GIS data, and use the dynamic assumptions to get corresponding speed and time profiling. Someone with the interest might try programming in the performance of a good contemporary tilting train that is self-powered and doesn't have clearance issues ... and 14 hours New York to Chicago is not HSR by even the most lenient potential definition. Even the 10 hours of the C&NYAL wouldn't likely qualify ... nor would it mean that much either as a 'day' or coach service or as a likely-bumpy and swoopy overnight sleeper, as the convenience of a very late departure for business travel isn't worth the enormous overall costs to provide that.
Overmod-- David Klepper replies. ( he thinks the issue is at home and is going to the University tonight so he may re-post this or add further comment)
1. We are talking about real HSR, with dedicated tracks. There areplaces where a new RoW will be preferred, but without the extremelyhigh real-estate costs of, for example, the Connecticut Shore Line orstraightening the Elizabeth, NJ, curve. There are places where fourtracks existed, now only two, so dedicated HSR on the RoW is possible,including space for a barrier separation if required.2. Assuming the Lake Shore is still around, it would be re-equippedto take advantage of the HSR where it exists. The 14-hour dayschedule would give much better service for intermediate cities, yetstill provide a useful NY - Chicago service for those who prefertrains or cannot fly.. It would not be as useful for thoseconnecting to Chicago - West Coast trains, but even today, I believethey are a minority of the Lake Shore's passengers. And it would beHSR only NYC - Buffalo, conventional speeds elsewhere.3. When a Cleveland - Chicago HSR exists, the day train's time couldbe shortened to ten hours and still serve intermediate points. And ifAmtrak's East Coast sleeper proves successful, then possibly anine-hour or ten-hour overnight service would be added in additionBut for this we may have to wait 50 years or more!4. There is precedent for this kind of thinking. The original HSRwas Paris - Lyon. But many trains continued on conventional tracks toMarseilles. For many years, now, there is HSR all the way.
1) Far too many curves up the Hudson, which were dramatic even in the 100mph Turboliner days. (There was one little restaurant in Garrison that had an open-air 'bistro' section with tables that looked to be about 10' from a posted 100mph blind curve... you got some interesting action whether you were a railfan or not!) HSR here will involve either substantial building out into the Hudson, or much more tunnelling and cutting for elevated ROW. I do think we'll see service faster than 110mph in the next 25 years, but I sincerely doubt it will ever reach 125mph at any point, and even then only with heroic degrees of tilt actuation, perhaps comparable to what the experimental APT-E was capable of achieving. Many potential older and disabled customers will NOT like the visible effect of that much tilt, or the close proximity to so much rock and 'scenery' flashing past.
Farther east, the ex-LS&MS from Erie west has a plethora of grade crossings. Remember that the old NYC 4-track main had pathetic track spacing compared to what even 1970s LGV requires, and Perlman's rebuilding in the Fifties leaves inadequate room for anything but pillars for HSR viaducting. At which point you have to consider the curve right in the middle of Geneva, and how you clear bridges like the ones on 534 and Rt. 11 to Ashtabula with viaducts high enough to clear the many, many grade crossings. Yes, the grade profile is often conducive to high speed, but not the sustained high speed and controlled curvature that is needed for even rudimentary 'true' HSR.
2) HSR is not for intermediate cities, only for those destinations that benefit from the high speed. Presume some improved regional connectivity for intermediate cities, both in New York State and further west, rather than stopping the train at more than a very select few stations. This is of course more critical for sleeper trains, which suffer tremendous time 'hits' if required to follow acceleration and deceleration profiles suitable for 'normal' sleeping people ... let alone the 'differently abled' or elderly.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.