Hypothetical Scenario: Where should the high-speed rail go?

[daveklepper]

I stand corrected on the matter of GP-40-2 transition from series to parallel, but don't they have field shunting?

It is funny, but I never heard in the anyone in the Chicago area refer to an Erie Lackawanna train to Chicago as the Pheobe Snow, the locals persisted in calling the trains either the Erie Limited or the Lake Cities.   I guess I was misled by home-town prejudice!   But I did ride the Lake Cities just before the end of EL long-distance passenger service.

Further correction:   With practical diesel engines, every locomotive has to have the equivalent of transition.  Otherwise the prime mover will not be able to develop near full horsepower at low speeds, since the shaft of the prime mover is also the shaft of the alternator or generator, and the output voltage is proportional to speed of rotation assuming the same field current.  However, with an alternator and modern electronics, it is possible to change the voltage-amperage ratio at the output of the alternator, also helped with solid state switching, by segmenting the various alternator coils.  The transition can happen quickly, but it is still a transition, alternator output connection transition instead of motor input connection transition.   This is further refined and continuously variable with ac traction motors.   In any case, your original statement is correct for all types within each individual motor.  Low speed means high current and low voltage and high speed means high voltage and relatively low current.

All rotating electrical devices have a maximum rotational speed. Above that speed, centrifugal forces can produce deformation.   Also, the practical top speed of any electric or diesel-electric locomotive comes when the back electro-motive force (the voltage considering the motor as a generator) is almost equal to the maximum voltage that can be applied to the motors.   This maximum track speed is higher for the passenger geared locomotive than for the freight, since the motors on the passenger locomotive rotate slower at a specific track speed than on the freight locomotive.

[Chafford1]

  Between cities, some new ROW may need to be built to avoid going thru small towns where the speedster won't stop. I don't think i'd allow anyone to stand on the platform when a 100+mph train goes by.

In the UK, domestic trains travel at 125mph through stations, safe enough if adequate signs and yellow lines are displayed.  

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iTXve26RFHI

 

 

 

[Phoebe Vet]

"

For the record, the Phoebe Snow under Erie-Lackawanna ran for three years (63 to 66), via the Erie from Corning westward to Chicago Dearborn.

"

I know.  That's when I was riding her.  And Phoebe's cameo portrait hung in the cars.

[DMUinCT]

 I understand the EMD F3s (F7) switched the Field hookup with relays automaticly between the 4th and 5th Notch.

[oltmannd]

...and neither GP40-2s nor F40PHs have transition.

Are you sure about that? I know that the later SD's had alternator transition, where the two sets of windings would be connected in parallel at low speeds and in series at high speeds. Don't know about the GP's and the F's. 

GP40-2s are straight parallel, all the time.  Better diodes allowed it (higher voltage rating)

SD40-2s still had motor transition, but no field shunting.  SD50s were the first with alternator transition - which was wonderful because you didn't have to drop the load all the way to zero in order to make transition.   

[erikem]

...and neither GP40-2s nor F40PHs have transition.

Are you sure about that? I know that the later SD's had alternator transition, where the two sets of windings would be connected in parallel at low speeds and in series at high speeds. Don't know about the GP's and the F's. 

[oltmannd]

The above is correct up to a point.   Exceptions:

1.   The current and voltage comparisons are somewhat modified, with less differences, because of different speeds of transition (series to parallel, field shunt insertion), with transition occuring at lower speeds on the freight locomotive than on the passenger.

2.   The passenger locomotive will develop full horsepower to a higher speed than the freight locomotive and thus will reach a higher speed, even if speed limits (how fast can the motors' rotors be allowed to rotate) aren't considered.

3.   The freight locomotive will be able to start a heavier train because of limits on the amperes the motors can handle.

That's why I said "almost"

Your 3 items are definitely gear ratio related, though I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "even if speed limits (how fast can the motors' rotors be allowed to rotate) aren't considered." on #2.

...and neither GP40-2s nor F40PHs have transition.

[daveklepper]

The above is correct up to a point.   Exceptions:

1.   The current and voltage comparisons are somewhat modified, with less differences, because of different speeds of transition (series to parallel, field shunt insertion), with transition occuring at lower speeds on the freight locomotive than on the passenger.

2.   The passenger locomotive will develop full horsepower to a higher speed than the freight locomotive and thus will reach a higher speed, even if speed limits (how fast can the motors' rotors be allowed to rotate) aren't considered.

3.   The freight locomotive will be able to start a heavier train because of limits on the amperes the motors can handle.

[oltmannd]

your acceleration high speed trlates to motor gearing. The higher the ratio for the same horsepower the slower the acceleration. An AEM7 accelerates about like a p42. tqice as much horsepower twice as much speed same acceleraton

Locomotive gear ratio is almost completely irrelevant to acceleration on a train.  The magic number is HP.

power = force X distance / time

force = mass x acceleration

substituting:

power = mass x acceleration x distance /time

So acceleration is directly proportional to horsepower.

If you put a GP40-2 with 65 mph freight gearing and an F40PH-2 with 103 mph passenger gearing on the same train (and HEP on the F40 turned off), and had them race from 30 mph to 60 mph - it would be a tie.

What would be different is the volts and amps out of the traction alternator.  The passenger geared loco would be operating at lower voltage and higher amperage.

[JT22CW]

Sorry, but that is not correct.  The AEM-7 out-accelerates the P42DC by leaps and bounds, especially due to the instant availability of electricity from the overhead wires for traction.  A single P42DC, in addition, would never be able to haul the same length of train as a single AEM-7 with DC traction, never mind AC traction (the AEM-7AC reputedly can haul twelve to fourteen cars with a single unit, at speed, including handling all of the HEP needs).

Motor gearing relates solely to acceleration.  Horsepower is needed for the top end. 

For the record, the Phoebe Snow under Erie-Lackawanna ran for three years (63 to 66), via the Erie from Corning westward to Chicago Dearborn.

[blue streak 1]

your acceleration high speed trlates to motor gearing. The higher the ratio for the same horsepower the slower the acceleration. An AEM7 accelerates about like a p42. tqice as much horsepower twice as much speed same acceleraton

[Prairietype]

Don't want to get off-topic, but more on the Phoebe Snow.  Alfred Runte's book, Allies of the Earth: Railroads and the Soul of Preservation is very good, and a recommended read for those who would like to get a philosophical and emotional understanding about the critical passenger rail void in our nation. It is hard to express in (few) words all that one can gain from the book, but noone I know has been disappointed after reading it, on the contrary it has great impact on the reader. The Phoebe Snow is the subject of one chapter of the book.

[daveklepper]

The Phoebe Snow was a Hoboken - Buffalo day train.  Possibly when the Lackawana reduced service, its name was transferred to the other (night) train that carried through cars for the Nickel Plate for Chicago.   And at times it also carried through coaches and sleepers for Chicago.   But the train was never known as the Phoebe Snow while on the Nickel Plate.

After consolidation with the Erie, the Erie Lackawanna ran one through train.   It ran via Scranton instead of Port Jervice (the Erie's route) and split at Hornell with one part going to Buffalo and the rest west to Chicago.  It was named the Lake Cities.  The Buffalo section was discontinued several years before the Chicago section.   Rode Hoboken - Chicago some time before the train was discontinued completely.   Excellent late dinner leaving Hoboken, comfortable night in the roomette, but the sleeper off at Youngstown, the diner off at Huntington, and an all coach and head end train into Dearborn Station.

[alphas]

I'm aware of the Phoebe Snow but its route was much longer than the direct route I described which would roughly run along much of the current I-80 route (at least into eastern OH).   The Federal and PA governments spent a fortune building I-80 (and still spend one maintaining it) through the middle of the mountains that exist all the way between NJ and Ohio exactly because it is the closest thing to a straight line between NYC and Chicago.  (Only for about 40 miles or so in the middle of PA where it drops south towards Milesburg does it deviate much from the staight line concept.)

[Phoebe Vet]

If the Country was ever to build a truely long-distance high-speed rail outside the NEC, which it never will because of the cost and the environmental impact, the logical choice would be direct NYC to Chicago running through central/northern PA, and continuing on to O'Hare, with two intermediate stops--one in NE Ohio to serve Cleveland/Akron area and one in NW Ohio to serve Detroit/Toledo area (with connecting rail transit from high-speed stations to major poulation areas served by the 2 stops).    Dreaming on, you could even have a cross-platform high-speed connection at NE Ohio to serve Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, and St. Louis (continuing on to Lambert).    And to complete the dream you could have a 3rd stop/high-speed connection somewhere in Central PA (nothing of importance really there except the State College area so station would basically be just a transfer point) to service Washington, DC with a stop at Frederick, MD area where passengers could do a cross-platform change for high-speed to Baltimore.   Unfortunately for rail fans, a dream is all it will be.

 

There used to be a train that ran from Hoboken, NJ (which is right across the Hudson River from Manhatten) to Chicago via Scranton, PA, Binghamton, NY, Elmira, NY, Buffalo, NY, Erie, PA and Cleveland.  The Erie Lackawanna Train #1 Known as the Phoebe Snow.  It was discontinued in November 1966 because of lack of riders.

[D.Bernie]

I'd go for a Midwest System.

The NorthWest leg Chicago-Milwaukee-StPaul. Branches to Madison & Green Bay.
The NorthEast leg thru Gary-Kalamazoo-Detroit. Branches to Grand Rapids, Lansing, Flint,Toledo.

The SouthEast leg to Indianapolis. Branches to Cincinnatti & Louisville.
The SouthWest leg to St Louis & Kansas City. Branches to Peoria, Decatur, etc.

The Chicago Rail Plan would be implemented so it dosen't take an hour to get from CUS to the city limits. O'Hare would get a decent passenger station with connections to the NW leg & Milwaukee Mitchel Field.

 

I agree with this approach.  I think it covers the opportunity best of all.  I think, too, that including several cities rather than points will make it more attractive if slower.

[alphas]

If the Country was ever to build a truely long-distance high-speed rail outside the NEC, which it never will because of the cost and the environmental impact, the logical choice would be direct NYC to Chicago running through central/northern PA, and continuing on to O'Hare, with two intermediate stops--one in NE Ohio to serve Cleveland/Akron area and one in NW Ohio to serve Detroit/Toledo area (with connecting rail transit from high-speed stations to major poulation areas served by the 2 stops).    Dreaming on, you could even have a cross-platform high-speed connection at NE Ohio to serve Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, and St. Louis (continuing on to Lambert).    And to complete the dream you could have a 3rd stop/high-speed connection somewhere in Central PA (nothing of importance really there except the State College area so station would basically be just a transfer point) to service Washington, DC with a stop at Frederick, MD area where passengers could do a cross-platform change for high-speed to Baltimore.   Unfortunately for rail fans, a dream is all it will be.

[Prairietype]

First off, I wouldn't quite call people living next to the airports lucky - People in Chicagoland have been suffering the noise and traffic for years, and now they're failing to prevent a 3rd airport from being built (many there say we need high-speed trains - the maglevs are silent!), contributing to light, sound and air pollution. One family member I have lives near LaGuardia Airport (I know, it's NYC), and whenever I'm there it's not even worth looking up to see one of man's greatest inventions (besides trains, of course).

How many people travel from Kansas City to Denver anyway? Wouldn't a flat trip from southern Kalifoonia to Nevada have much more traffic, and save the globe a little bit more? LA is so car-oriented it's almost disgusting - but that's only because everything is so spread out, and none of the other modes of transport are even near satisfactory or efficient. Honestly, they'd need supertrains to get around town! If there was a formidable system, such as BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) or light rail, coming to one termini like they do in Rome (say, Union Station), and then there was a high-speed route between Las Vegas and San Francisco, then the world would be saved form global warming hands down.

The Acela works well, but read this over and over again as you may, America will NEVER abandon their cars (they'll convert to the Toyota Prius "Hey, I'm helping!") and their über-fast airplanes. It might not make sense, but talk to someone with no knowledge of trains and see how much they care about trains.

Travel websites: How would you like to travel? By car, or by airplane?

Gavriel,

I need to clarify a few of my comments about HSR in my original message. The reference to the "lucky few", was blatant sarcasm.

The proposal for HSR across Kansas was a practical notion, based on ridership capacity on a single train unit, the ease of building and avoidance of a lot of crossing nightmares, the avoidance of lawsuit dilemmas when terraforming drastically changes the infrastructure landscape, and related considerations. 

Secondly, I don't think this is going to happen, anywhere, soon; 15+ years from now? maybe.  Kansas City, like every major city sends 10 flights a day to Denver and vice-versa; the Boeing-Chevrolet 737 (more sarcasm) packs 150 sardines into a flying hot dog with wings; 10 flights moves 1500 people between these two points, and most "deplane upon arrival." I'd rather "detrain."

Kansas Citians take great pride in their cars.  This is the excuse for why KC exists in the most backward tier of major cities fighting tooth-and-nail against a light rail system over the most trivial crap anyone has ever heard; e.g. "well, you'll still have to drive 5 blocks to a park and ride, so why not drive (the other 28 miles)?" or, (great pride) "Kansas City ranks 85 in traffic congestion, that's a good thing". Kansas Citians love their cars.   

So I just threw out the flatland prairie HSR mostly for kicks. I'm not so invested in it as just reestablishing passenger rail service directly between Denver and Kansas City. It has nothing to do with the wisdom of putting HSR in a less densely populated region, or that it wouldn't work well; rather it was just my notion for a test bed system across a former ocean bed. However, if there was a scientific approach to determine whether this is a good thing or practical thing, such a point-to point-system would certainly reveal the ridership potential over a distance, based on regional population, without critics throwing monkey wrenches into the analysis based on certain questionable-mitigating claims. 

 

 

[Anonymous]

First off, I wouldn't quite call people living next to the airports lucky - People in Chicagoland have been suffering the noise and traffic for years, and now they're failing to prevent a 3rd airport from being built (many there say we need high-speed trains - the maglevs are silent!), contributing to light, sound and air pollution. One family member I have lives near LaGuardia Airport (I know, it's NYC), and whenever I'm there it's not even worth looking up to see one of man's greatest inventions (besides trains, of course).

How many people travel from Kansas City to Denver anyway? Wouldn't a flat trip from southern Kalifoonia to Nevada have much more traffic, and save the globe a little bit more? LA is so car-oriented it's almost disgusting - but that's only because everything is so spread out, and none of the other modes of transport are even near satisfactory or efficient. Honestly, they'd need supertrains to get around town! If there was a formidable system, such as BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) or light rail, coming to one termini like they do in Rome (say, Union Station), and then there was a high-speed route between Las Vegas and San Francisco, then the world would be saved form global warming hands down.

The Acela works well, but read this over and over again as you may, America will NEVER abandon their cars (they'll convert to the Toyota Prius "Hey, I'm helping!") and their über-fast airplanes. It might not make sense, but talk to someone with no knowledge of trains and see how much they care about trains.

Travel websites: How would you like to travel? By car, or by airplane?

[daveklepper]

Of course bypass New York to serve the Boston to Philadelphia Batlimore Washington market.  But also retain the present level of service for New York to Washington High Speed and New York to Boston High Speed via the present route.   There would be across the platform transfer at New Haven between the Boston Washington Super Acela and the Boston New York Acela, so even Providence and New London to Baltimore and Washington passengers would gain, and Boston - New York passengers willing to change at New Haven could also save a half hour.

The reason for bypassing New York for the Boston Washington service is the absolute impracticality of making the New Haven - New Rochelle Metro North line truly high speed.

That is the reason, and it is a very good reason.

The new Poughkeepsie Bridge super high speed line might well use the West Trenton alignment to Philadelphia instead of the route through Elizabeth, New Brunzwick, Trenton, and Frankfort Junction.

[Prairietype]

My suggestion falls under option I.

Every locale in the country could benefit from high speed rail. The train has a limited capacity, maybe 1000 people max. Every big city connection probably exchanges 1000 people between another single big city per day. The number is probably much greater than that. Ideal time-distance for a 200 mile an hour train is 600 miles and 3-4 hours. Where in the country would it be easiest to build and cover such distances (between big cities)?: The southwest, or across Kansas (wide open and flat, with a straight as an arrow line running from Kansas City to Denver-650 miles)

This would be a great place for a federally subsidized demonstration development that could test the technology, analyze the impact, and study for application elsewhere. The rail corridor along I-70 is not that heavily used.  Since this will cost a lot of money anyway, and have limited capacity in its early development, why not across Kansas? People traveling there will have the opportunity to outpace all highway traffic and for all practical purposes outpace the airlines: a flight from Kansas City to Denver takes 1.5 hours in the air and an hour on the ground. That's 2.5 hours which translates to an average travel speed of about 260 miles an hour in the air. High speed rail comes close enough to that for all practical purposes to make all things equal because of the point-to-point connection from city-center to city-center. Kansas City's airport is about 20 miles out of town, and Denver's is at least the same. Business travelers would avoid airport waste time, ground transportation costs and nightmares, the discomfort, weather delays, and all the other crap that goes along with flying the friendly skies. 

Right now, at 79 miles an hour, it is quicker to travel between Chicago and Kansas City by rail than by air, except for those lucky few who live within the armpit of the international airports in these cities. 

 

[Phoebe Vet]

I would take a map and a compass, draw a 500 mile ring around NYC and run high speed sevice to every city of more than 100,000 people in that ring, with intermediate stops as appropriate to each market.

Then I would do the same thing around DC  Then around Atlanta, then around Chicago.

Where rings overlap, connect them.

I'm sure people from western USA can pick cities for the same treatment.

 

Unrelated suggestion.  What if the Feds sold Amtrak and used the money from the sale to put in a national rail system with rail traffic control and charged a toll to use it.  Then anyone who can afford an engine and a few cars could start a passenger rail service.  The competition might improve the offerings.  Making it more like the other transportation systems.  How many trucking companies and bus lines do you think we would have if each one had to build and maintain their own roads?

[snagletooth]

 I still say, follow the domestic airline market. if you can beat NWAL CHI-DET. than you've won. CHI- INDY. What a winner! seriously. I drove that route MANY years, what a cash cow! I-65 on friday at 5 PM is b.t.b. to 47th. in Chitown! you truckers known, RIGHT? C'mon, Indie's nightlife is Rush Street!

[JT22CW]

Back in the mid-1960's when the Metroliners were being designed as one of the first high-speed rail concepts, consideration was given to building a bypass around Philadelphia to improve speeds and times for through trains.  The idea was rejected based on property acquisition costs and the fact that Philadelphia is a major traffic source.

I would say that property acquisition cost was the sole reason/excuse for not building a Philly bypass.  After all, how many LGA-IAD air shuttles make a quick stopover in PHL?  Once you get the speeds up on the rails, you can apply airplane thinking to trains as well—but not too much of it, lest the trains lose their uniqueness.

Consider the potential of the Trenton Cutoff as a passenger route, as well.

So why would you want to bypass a huge traffic source like New York City?

Oh, there are advantages…if there were advantages in the past, there would be advantages now.

[DMUinCT]

  Aggree,

     The Airline Route, should have been used, Amtrak looked at it, but was overruled.  It was the route of "The New England Limited", AKA "The Ghost Train", a joint venture of the New York & New England with the New York, New Haven and Hartford.  In the 1880s/90s, without bridges yet built in Saybrook and New London, the overland route was the fastes line to Boston.  In the Amtrak era, Washington wanted the Northeast Corridor built by way of New London CT.  The New London area is the home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the North Atlantic Submarine Base (Groton), and the Electric Boat Div. of General Dynamics (builder of Nuclear Submarines).

The line was "cut", not by choice, but by the 1955 Hurricane that took out bridges and right of way.   As it stands now much has been converted to a "Rail Trail".

Boston to Franklin, welded rail, concrete ties, commuter rail.

Franklin MA to Putnam CT tracks gone.

Putnum to outsde Willimantic tracks and bridges gone.

Willimantic to Portland Ct tracks gone.

Portland to New Haven heavy freight service.

New Haven to New York is the Northeast Corridor.

 

 

 

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Back in the mid-1960's when the Metroliners were being designed as one of the first high-speed rail concepts, consideration was given to building a bypass around Philadelphia to improve speeds and times for through trains.  The idea was rejected based on property acquisition costs and the fact that Philadelphia is a major traffic source.

So why would you want to bypass a huge traffic source like New York City?

[daveklepper]

New Haven to Boston should be accomplished by the old White Train route through Wilamantic and Blsackstone, leaving the present service to adequately serve Nerw Londonn and Providence.   This new route could really be truly high speed, because the area is far less built up than the Shore Line Route, does not involve movable bridges, and was originally much straighter anyway.   Much of the right of way is land banked and some is in use for freight service by regionals and short lines.    New Haven New York is pretty much hopeless.   comnmuter congestion, built up areas, close track centers, curves, all the problems possible.   Metro North and Amtrak together do a very fine job considering their problems.   But BostonPhiladelphia and Boston Washington business could be had by bypassing New York completely, as proposed earlier via the Poughkeepsie River Bridge and the Maybrook Line.

[dam4023]

1) Minneapolis, Mn, - Madison, WI, -  Chicago,Ill, - Kalamazoo, MI,- Ann Arbor, MI, - Detroit, MI, - Toronto, Ont, - Montreal, Ont.

2) Grand Rapids, MI, - Lansing, MI, - Ann Arbor, MI, - Toledo, Oh, - Cincinatti, Oh,.

3) Denver, Co, - Omaha, Ne, - Des Moines, Ia, - Chicago, Il, - Elkhart, In, - Toledo, Oh, - Cleveland, Oh, - Pittsburg, Oh, - Washington, D.C. 

[DMUinCT]

High Speed Rail?    In the USA?

We have it, it works!!  The Amtrak Northeast Corridor.    But at a cost that the goverment will not spend again. They do not even want to pay to maintain it and high speed rail is high maintenace.

The cost of rebuilding the New Haven to Boston, x New Haven RR, from an 80 mph railroad to a 150 mph railroad took 5 years, including raising bridges for Catenary and eliminating grade crossings, at HUGE cost overuns. 

That headlight a 1/2 mile down the track will blow by you in 12 seconds!