High speed Trains.

[vsmith]

QUOTE: Originally posted by owlsroost

Yes, distance is the key - the optimum journey distance for high speed (160 mph +) rail is probably 250 - 500 miles, so Chicago to LA would never make sense since air travel has an unassailable speed advantage.

It's worth remembering that the development of high speed lines in Japan was due mostly to high population densities combined with the inability of the existing metre-gauge rail lines to support higher speeds and more traffic.

In France, the original Paris-Lyon TGV line came about because the existing lines were running out of capacity, and building a new line to take the passenger traffic was the best value option (as well as being a showcase for French rail technology). In the end the line was succesful beyond the most optimistic forcasts - they now run double-deck TGV trains to cope with the demand - and it was this success that spurred the building of the other high-speed lines in France/Germany/Italy/Spain.

I suspect that California might be the most fruitful ground for new line building (the success of the current Surfliner and Capitol/San Joaquin valley services, plus LA Metrolink suggests the demand is there). I think I'd start by building a direct Bakersfield - LA line (as this would be for high power-weight ratio passenger trains steep gradients wouldn't be a problem and would keep the cost down) to link the current systems together - changing to buses between Bakersfield and LA isn't the best incentive to travel by train.

I'd then buy some modern lightweight 125 mph tilting diesel trains (proven technology in Europe - we have a large fleet of them in the UK with a 750hp engine under each car) and progressively upgrade the current passenger (BNSF) San Joaquin valley route for higher speeds after shifting the freight traffic to the UP line.

I know the above would require the co-operation of both UP and BNSF but I'm sure the right financial package would persuade them e.g. public money to upgrade both the passenger and freight routes.

Tony

The most logical routes to start with here are the shorter more direct routes where the demand is: LA/San Diego, LA/Palmdale, LA/San Bernardino in the south and Sacramento/Oakland/San Jose up north, but all are now serviced by slower commuter services.

Its harder to justify adding HST when critics can point to the routes and say they are already being serviced (being slower never gets figured into their aurguments) The longer routes like LA-Sacramanto-Oakland which cover greater distances but are more expensive and time consuming to build also get critics saying "why are they spending millions connecting LA with Bakersfield", the fact that its going eventually to Sacramento or Oakland is conveneiently left out of the barrage of ney-sayers.

The biggest problem here in CA is that no one can see the bigger picture, and no politicians can think beyond the next election. Same in DC, no one will put there re-election on the line holding out whats best logically for the country. Instead we get funding to make airports more congested, highways more jammed and people given less options to get from point A to point B.[:(]

HST is the best option for many areas of the country like the Northeast Corridor, SoCal and the Bay Area in CA, even down the Mississippi plain from Chicago down to KC or even New Orleans. Florida from Miami up to Orlando. The routes are there, but I fear nothing will happen until the highway and airport system becomes so overcrowded and burdonsome to use that only then will government begin to act and even then it will be fought by some of our beloved politicians who's first loyalty is to their lobbiest and their re-election campaigns.[V]

I would like to see these systems being built today but its so dam hard to get people to think 20 years down the road, no one in government is willing to plan that far ahead. Short term & a quick payola is all anyone thinks about. You can only fly so many planes in the air and put so many cars onto the existing infrastructure before it grinds to a halt.

Depressing isnt it?

[Anonymous]

Tom,

Perhaps you missed out on previous posts regarding funding for roads and highways. Here's a Reader's Digest version: Local and State roads and highways are paid for by a combination of fuel taxes, property taxes, and sales taxes/income taxes e.g. a state's general fund to pay for state and local shares of road funding. The federal share of highway funding comes primarily from the Highway Trust Fund, which is paid for by fuel taxes and trucking fees. Some block grants from the feds to the states do end up in highway projects, but that is up to the discretion of each state. A state could just as easily use that money for rail infrastructure improvements. It's what ever a state prioritizes. But the fact remains that federal highway funds come from user fees.

So it is a myth to say that highways are paid for by the general fund, because you first need to differentiate the local, state, and federal shares. Then decide which government level you want to focus on. Since your original post implied federal tax dollars from the general fund are the primary source of highway funding, I simply corrected that error on your behalf.

In terms of railroads and highways, speed is the key. Up until the early 1900's railroads were the fastest means of travel, then roads started getting paved, autos got faster. If railroads had maintained their incremental speed increases, they would have stayed ahead of the highway modes. The fact that people love their autos should not have taken away from railroads ability to move people accross the country. Railroads could have used their technology to haul both the passengers and their cars over the longer corridors, and they probably would have made more money doing so. It is astonishing that it took until the last part of the 1900's until the AutoTrains appeared. Then again, look how long it took for the railroads to master TOFC. You mention LCL and express trucking, why should those be dominated by highway carriage outside of short haul corridors? If the railroads could manage 125 mph top sustained speeds over much of the rail network, they could beat over the road truckers even with the inherent terminal delays of modal transload between rail and highway.

So there are two opportunities missed by the railroads: Maintaining incremental speed increases (staying ahead of nominal highway speeds), and marketing railroad technololgy to garner the TOFC and private auto carriage. Since the railroads did not maintain the speed advantage or offer auto carriage, people had no choice but to demand long haul highways, if only to do what the railroads either wouldn't or couldn't do.

BTW, this idea that railroads are privately funded isn't quite so true. Never has been in the past, and it isn't now. Land grants enabled most of the remaining Class I's today, the Conrail bailout eventually aided NS and CSX, and as of now Congress has allocated over $35 billion in public aid to the railroads over the years. The thing of it is, none of that money ever came from railroad user fees, it all has come from non-railroad sources. So when you aver that railroads are privately financed while highway use general public funds from the federal treasurey, you may just have it backwards.

[Anonymous]

If the Trust fund, state and local taxes and block grants were all the infrastructure needed, how do you account for the new infrastructure bill that had a lot of pork, including a "bridge to nowhere" connecting an Alaskan village to the airport. The point is, not counting the pork, there were still hundreds of billions necessary to fix bridges and roads, etc. What Amtrak is gets counted in the single billion.

The second point is that most of us have a consensus that HSR works best between two medium-distant cities in densely populated areas. This country can't build a New Tokkaido Line between DC and NY (or Boston), but we can't build any more Interstate 95's or New Jersey Turnpikes either. As with freight, HRS will become a reality when people realize how unbalanced the transportation network is and how NOW, and not during homesteading, it gets so very little help from any level of gov't.

[Anonymous]

This is getting far too complicated, and I think missed an important point all along. http://www.trains.com/community/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=49171

[Anonymous]

I'll go back to what I said in an older post: HSR will only work if it is focussed on moving time sensitive freight first and foremost, and let the passenger thing come along as an adjunct. Moving freight makes money, and moving freight expediently makes even more money. For HSR to make sense, it needs some economic justification beyond moving people at a pace slower than rickitiest puddle jumper.

[TomDiehl]

First, Futuremodal, you're under the mistaken impression that 1. funding in any part of the tax structure is so segregated. 2. Excise tax on fuel and purchase of motor vehicles actually generates as much money as is made available in the Federal Highway Trust Fund. No, I did not miss anything. As far as the point where it is spent, that's not always up to the state. In fact, that's a fairly recent and still somewhat rare occurance.

The people's love of the private auto did not take away from the railroad's ability to move passengers, it took away their need to move them. People no longer wanted to be restricted to the destinations that the railroads served, they wanted to go where they wanted, when they wanted. This wasn't possible much before WWII. Remember that railroads in this country are private businesses and need to operate at a profit. Once a source of revenue (Passengers in this case) is removed or seriously reduced to the point that it is no longer profitable, the private business will want to get rid of a money losing segment. Unfortunately, the federal government wouldn't allow them to do it at this point in history based completely on ridership and profit figures.

Why are LCL and express shipping dominated by trucks? Very simple, versitility. When a new industry or store is built, roads are included in the construction package. Rarely is a railroad spur included. Workers and customers cars need to get to the business. That's all the infrastructure that trucks need. Even with distances, there's no incentive, in either time or price, to put it on the rails.

The reason railroad don't have tracks rated for speeds of 80 MPH or higher is simple, cost. They have to determine what level of maintenance will give them the best return on investment. Think of it as driving your car and comparing gas mileage at different speeds. There will be a certain speed where your car gets its best mileage, above that, even though you're moving faster, you're getting less miles per gallon. Maintaining trackage to a standard to allow higher speeds costs much more than the return they would receive on higher freight fees for faster service. A private business can't afford such a high investment on speculation that it will give them a return on investment to pay for the improvements.

The whole auto haulage idea has been tried. The Autotrain isn't the first, and under private ownership, it failed in both corridors. Again, it takes away the versitility of the private auto being able to go anywhere, anytime. Drivers won't put up with that. And smaller haulage distances definately wouldn't pay the railroads. Even if you want to travel by train, it's cheaper to get sleeping accomodations on the train and rent a car at your destination than to haul your car along on the train.

Railroads are privately funded. Very few and small investments come from the government. The land grants they received in the 1800's were land that was almost worthless because it was isolated. The private companies that built across the wilderness could easily have said, "forget it, there's nothing to haul out there for us to make a profit." The west never would have been developed, as it has been, with out the railroads. The grants and subsidies paid for less than half of the construction. Then the railroad has to operate at a loss until the farming and industry get going to the point that they'll have freight for the railroads to haul. Again, you're forgetting your history.

The railroad "missed opportunities" were business decisions, the, again, we have to put in historic context. At the beginning of the 20th century, things were relatively prosperous, and railroads were developing new technologies, mainly because the best engineering minds went to the railroads. Electric locomotion was being developed and refined. The world war came along (before we needed to number them) and the railroads were taken over by the government, which ran them into the ground to "move the freight and personnel for the war effort." At the end of the war, the government returned to the railroad companies, a heavily worn out and outdated physical plant and rolling stock. The idea of USRA standard designs was good, but the lead time for developing and producing the equipment was longer than the war lasted. The railroad had much work and large investments ahead of them to return the property and rolling stock to the prewar levels of maintenance. By the late 1920's, a lot of the plant was back to where it was at the turn of the century. Then in 1929 the great depression hit. There was little or no money, private or government, to even keep things as good as they were in 1900. Railroad still plodded along because they were necessary, but showed little if any profit for the next 10 years. The physical plant eroded. Then another world war (when we started numbering them) broke out in Europe and the Pacific, suddenly, the railroads had huge quanties of freight and passengers to move, but couldn't upgrade plant or equipment because of wartime production restrictions. They had to patch up worn and outdated equipment and canibolize where ever they could just to keep running. Post WWII is where the big difference came between US and European and Japanese railroads. At this point in history, railroads were considered strategic military assets, and targets to your enemy because of this. Most European and Japanese railroads were heavily bombed out by both sides to prevent enemy use. In the late 1940's US railroads were worn out, and little government assistance was offered. European railroads were being rebuilt new because there was pretty much nothing left, and the rebuild was financed by the Allied Forces. US railroads rebuilt using private funding, and this was the last great pu***o return passengers to the rails, and for a short time, it worked. But the private auto was being produced in large quantities and at prices that the middle class could afford, so soon they were everywhere. Rail passenger figures took a serious nosedive at this point and is where the railroads decided they needed to get rid of it. This was a business decision based on evolving technology, not just that the railroads decided to get out of the passenger business.

The Conrail bailout was probably the best thing to happen to railroads. The government was forced to operate a railroad working under their own regulations, which were still written as if the railroads were the only transportation option. The Staggers act came shortly after this. Another point you forget from history, Conrail was sold at a public stock offering, so the governments investment was heavily repaid in this, plus their education as to transport regulations was priceless.

The railroads still offer the best technology to move large quantities of freight and passengers in given corridors. The next logical step will not be full competition with trucking, but a merging of the technologies. Intermodal will start to grow again as the diesel fuel prices start another climb and the price advantage of rail will make it more profitable for even the trucking companies to put more trailers on the rails. If you follow the Railfan press, railroads are making big investments in the physical plant, a necessary step to be able to handle the additional load.

So, the $35 Billion figure you quote, is this to freight railroads? Commuter operations? Amtrak subsidies? One of the 43% of statistics that are made up on the spot?

[owlsroost]

vsmith,

QUOTE: Depressing isnt it?

Agreed (and it's not only the US that suffers from political short-sightedness).

Outside of the NEC, it seems to be taking forever to run passenger trains at 90mph+ and also to have developed a 'high tech solutions' mindset. All of this high-tech grade crossing protection is fine, but instead of paying out public money to companies to develop this stuff - which then has on-going maintenance costs forever - wouldn't it be better to spend the money on replacing the busy grade crossings with bridges/underpasses, closing the remainder and fencing the lineside in urban/high risk areas ?

That way you only have to spend the money once and it's safer than any amount of high-tech equipment.

Tony

[Anonymous]

Politicians aren't using their own money, so the amounts are meaningless. I don't like the idea of someone, not accountable for its success, running anything. Very simple.

[Anonymous]

Tom, the $35 billion quote comes from an article written by Paul Thompson of the UTU. It is posted on another thread, go take a look at it. Then you can be 43% of a man and apologize for accusing me of making stuff up.

You have no clue as to why industries don't build rail spurs at new facilities. Railroads act as monopolists, and if you know anything about economics you will know that reaction to monopolistic practices usually involves a disattachment from the monopolist. Why build a spur to a company that is going to charge you monopolistic rates? Talk about money down the sewer.

The land grants paid dividends for the railroads well into the 1990's. Without NP's land grants, the Hill Lines never would have survived the Great Depression, during which those land grants provided the necessary collateral for the Hill Lines to borrow funds to maintain operations.

The resultant slow down in incremental train speeds in the early 1900's had nothing to do with business, it was an ICC mandate, in that speeds above 79 mph required ATS. Thus, an arbitrary regulation requiring an expensive train control system doomed that advent of the run-of-the-mill 100 mph freight train.

And since when did Conrail repay the taxpayers? All the public got for the forced Conrail investment was to have more domestic industries forced into rail captivity and resultant higher comparative rail rates. The truth is, we're still paying for the Conrail bailout/Staggers et al through higher relative shipping costs and lost jobs in the domestic industrial sector, all to the benefit of Chinese imports. Gee, if it was okay to bailout Conrail, why not also bail out the Milwaukee? At least that would have prevented the current rate gouging of BNSF in Montana and North Dakota.

What you are presenting here is straight from the AAR handbook. It may come as a shock to you, but the AAR is only going to present the Class I's side of the story, be it rail history or current operations.

You seem to think that railroads are quick to react to business opportunities. So why did it take 50 years from the introduction of the auto to a mass market to advent of the AutoTrain concept? Why did it take nearly as long for TOFC to develop? Why did the railroads continue to operate passenger trains into the 1960's using 1920's logistics? An economist would tell you it is because of the inherent "natural monopolies" that engender closed access railroads, in that monopolists tend to lose the ability to make expedient changes to business operations.

Back to the HSR concept, you probably are aware that time sensitive freight tends to produce higher profit margins than non-time sensitive freight. UPS knows this, FedEx knows this, produce marketers know this. Yet the railroads (as a consequence of mandated speed reductions) decided that they would rather have low value bulk commodities that are primed for long slow trains. Funny thing is, the railroads could have had both the low value non-time sensitive freight and the high value time sensitive freight (most of which has all but been surrendered to trucks), if only there had been the necessary internal impulses to do so.

HSR can work, indeed can work well, but it must be predicated on time sensitive freight first and foremost, because that's where the money is.

owlsroost - You ask why U.S. passenger trains can't run at 90 mph+ outside the NEC? Because the rest must run on the private Class I freight network, and as you know the U.S. freight railroads are dedicated (some might say condemed) to running long slow trains. Kinda hard to mix 100 mph passenger trains with 25 mph carload freights.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

Tom, the $35 billion quote comes from an article written by Paul Thompson of the UTU. It is posted on another thread, go take a look at it. Then you can be 43% of a man and apologize for accusing me of making stuff up.

Since you're only 43% capable of reading the question, I see no reason to even give you 1% of an apology, except for the apology that I didn't write the question down to your reading level. Your answer came nowhere near the question.

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
You have no clue as to why industries don't build rail spurs at new facilities. Railroads act as monopolists, and if you know anything about economics you will know that reaction to monopolistic practices usually involves a disattachment from the monopolist. Why build a spur to a company that is going to charge you monopolistic rates? Talk about money down the sewer.

The lack of clue seems to be yours. And again, your lack of reading ability has led you off in some tangent. The economics of the situation is the exact reason they don't build spurs. Railroads, for most of their customers, had a monopoly from the beginning. Once technology brought smaller vehicles that weren't restricted to the rails (trucks) they no longer had a monopoly, and the infrastructure required by them would also serve the industry for worker and customer travel, parking, and other commerce (shipping and receiving raw materials, finished products, or delivery of merchandise). Railroads, as I've said before, in this day and age, excel in transporting large quantities of freight between two given points. The most recent example is the development of the Powder River Basin Coal Fields in Wyoming. If the railroad had a monopoly in the beginning, why did the coal mining companies still build the railroad spur? Simple economics. They had a freight pattern and quantity that fit perfectly with the strong point of rail freight. Since the first one opened the fields, more rail lines have been built into the area, so where is the monopoly you speak of?

[TomDiehl]

QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal

The land grants paid dividends for the railroads well into the 1990's. Without NP's land grants, the Hill Lines never would have survived the Great Depression, during which those land grants provided the necessary collateral for the Hill Lines to borrow funds to maintain operations.

And just how is this different than any other industry that survived the depression? If you were actually reading the above entries, you'd also note that I stated that the land that railroads received as grants was relatively worthless at the time it was granted. It was pure speculation that the land would some day be worth something. Again, you're thinking in todays terms, not how things were in the time period in question. It wasn't a matter of giving them land taken from other people by eminent domain, it was undeveloped wilderness that would not be developed without the railroads, or waiting another 70 years for the trucks and automobiles to be developed to do the same thing. If people hadn't wanted to move west to develop land, which now had transportation for their supplies and their products, the railroads would have been abandoned long ago. It's just like investing in the stock market. You can pick a winner (company pays big dividends) or a loser (company tanks and you lose everything), depending on luck. Research into the company you invest in is no guarantee of a winner.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

The ICC order in 1947 requiring cab signals and/or Automatic Train Stop in order to operate at speeds in excess of 79 MPH was in part in response to safety concerns from the public. The systems are expensive but they do provide an added layer of safety.

Perhaps the mudchicken or other engineering professionals can help out here, but I don't think that the existing common 3-piece freight car truck can economically be re-engineered to handle speeds above 70 MPH on a day-in day-out basis. Notice the difference between passenger and freight trucks on even a cursory inspection. High speed freight or passenger service is both labor and capital intensive and I don't think that there is enough of a market for 100 MPH freights at the higher rates required to earn a return on the additional investment to justify that additional investment.

[jchnhtfd]

A minor historical correction -- the Hill lines did not get land grants, although most other transcons did.

Paul is right on both the mechanical construction of freight trucks and, more important, on the economics of high speed freight service.

And, with the imminent demise of passenger railroading in the US, any other incentive for upgrading for higher speed is gone. Completely.

[Anonymous]

I'm not really sure there is that much demand for HSR for freight--if you want your stuff hauled across most of the USA in less than a week, there's always UPS-Blue and DHL, FedX, even priority mail. Rail excels at hauling commodity but I doubt anyone's going to be much better off paying vastly more money to get, for example, PRB coal to the Gulf of Mexico in two days instead of a week-plus.

Where I DO think HSR is necessary, in addition to the NEC and California corridors, is in situations where two metro centers are fairly close to one another and flying makes no sense. I know of no European country that would entertain the idea of commercial flight from Chicago/O'Hare to Milwaukee/Mitchell, a scant 90 miles away. The pitiful thing is we have -- almost -- a direct link already. Almost. It would require changing on the Antioch line to another depot, preferably Amtrak or Metra-to-Amtrak. The respective train stations are as of now not linked but it could be easily done by establishing a new route. At worst the trains would have to back in and out of Franklin Park.

Just imagine what a fast rail link would do if commercial flights from O'Hare to Milwaukee could be eliminated. The terminal at O'Hare would not be so desperately overcrowded and a proper rail link connection would not take much more time than a flight. And if no one is overadvantaged with a connecting flight, all would benefit. It could even be done with fast diesel trainsets of the regional type that are now available in the US (I think of foreign manufacture). It would also buy some time because even with terminal expansion, it looks like O'Hare will fill up again in not so many years because Peotone planning isn't going anywhere. In essence the terminal would be shedding inefficient flights to Milwaukee for more flights in which the plane truly excels, time-wise (perhaps some day we will have true HSR to Detroit or St. Louis, but not anytime real soon). Imagine how convenient a direct rail link would be if it included only a few intermediate stops: O'Hare - Glenview - Grayslake - Mitchell - Milwaukee downtown. And it wouldn't just be for airplane transfers!

Of course, much the same case has already been made for L.A. - San Diego. Have you ever flown in or out of the San Diego airport? It makes Midway look positively rural.

The problem is, and I think practically all of us would agree, is that nobody looks at the transportation infrastructure in a unified way. Plane is plane and train is either bilevels from the 1950s or even F7s from the Forties in the public's mind. Acela is a privilege of the Eastern Establishment, or so the feeling seems to be among the general public here in the Midwest. Effectively speaking, a fast train would break even in time between O'Hare and downtown Milwaukee and perhaps lose 20-25 minutes relative to O'Hare to Mitchell. Bear in mind, though, that almost no one wants to fly INTO O'Hare and then transfer to Mitchell. Maybe someone coming in on ATA from the west and gathers up baggage to head to Mitchell and Jet Blue, but that's so farfetched the system isn't made for that. And as we know the train doesn't get cancelled for fog or stack up across Lake Michigan.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by CSSHEGEWISCH


Perhaps the mudchicken or other engineering professionals can help out here, but I don't think that the existing common 3-piece freight car truck can economically be re-engineered to handle speeds above 70 MPH on a day-in day-out basis. Notice the difference between passenger and freight trucks on even a cursory inspection. High speed freight or passenger service is both labor and capital intensive and I don't think that there is enough of a market for 100 MPH freights at the higher rates required to earn a return on the additional investment to justify that additional investment.

You are correct about the 3 pc truck. You might get away with 80 mph or so on long cars(ala Super C all those years ago), but that's about it. Fortunately, higher speed trucks exist (think express cars) that don't break the bank, particularly when you start talking about high value commodities.

There likely is a niche for high speed freight - something on the order of overnight or 2nd day air freight in truckload lots between many major city pairs.

[jeaton]

smalling

You are absolutely correct about the planes are planes, trains are trains, trucks are trucks thinking. Sometime back the Department of Transportation had funding for "Intermodalism"-out of a mega-billion DOT budget, just about enough for one person and a secretary. That is barely enough to get the separate parts of DOT to exchange phone numbers. Then there is the congressional process. Think separate committees in each house for each mode.

It is nice to dream. I think that in the right circumstances, Milwaukee Airport to O'hara via the CP-Metra Line south to Pacific Junction then west would be a prospect.

Jay

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

A minor historical correction -- the Hill lines did not get land grants, although most other transcons did.

The Northern Pacific Railroad received some of the largest land grants ever. When the Hill interests took over the NP, they inherited the land grants as well. Also, the St. Paul and Pacific, one of the lines that later became the Great Northern, received land grants as well.

QUOTE:

Paul is right on both the mechanical construction of freight trucks and, more important, on the economics of high speed freight service.

The Mark VI truck used by RoadRailer, as well as the RailRunner truck, are rated for 100+ mph operation. There are also Amtrak Express trucks that could easily do the job. As for the economics, it would work in any corridor in which the HSR takes a day or more off the current rail transit schedules. Saving a few hours probaby wouldn't count for much, so in that vein the long and medium distance corridors are actually more preferable for HSR freight operations than the assumed aptness of HSR in shorter corridors.

QUOTE:

And, with the imminent demise of passenger railroading in the US, any other incentive for upgrading for higher speed is gone. Completely.

From the public perspective, you are probably right, in so much as the idea of HSR for freight hasn't even entered the lexicon of discussion among rail officials. It's too bad, because when you add freight to the mix of assessing viability of such projects, you are adding the value-added component that is always missing from passenger only concepts.

[Anonymous]

Call me old fasion for 14, but I never was to keen on the Japanese and Chinese High Speed prototypes that make everyones jaws drop. I prefer the old geeps and F units, as well as some of the newer EMD and GE locos out on the main these days.

[Anonymous]

If it hasn't been mentioned yet, let me intrude with the fact that the RPO's added significant revenue to passenger trains UNTIL ca. 1966. Rumor had it that LBJ took the mail away to tick off Bobby Kennedy because who would be the beneficiary of the increased truck traffic that resulted after the mail left the trains? Why, Jimmy Hoffa, of course! And "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." [bow]

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by smalling_60626
The problem is, and I think practically all of us would agree, is that nobody looks at the transportation infrastructure in a unified way. Plane is plane and train is either bilevels from the 1950s or even F7s from the Forties in the public's mind. Acela is a privilege of the Eastern Establishment, or so the feeling seems to be among the general public here in the Midwest. Effectively speaking, a fast train would break even in time between O'Hare and downtown Milwaukee and perhaps lose 20-25 minutes relative to O'Hare to Mitchell. Bear in mind, though, that almost no one wants to fly INTO O'Hare and then transfer to Mitchell. Maybe someone coming in on ATA from the west and gathers up baggage to head to Mitchell and Jet Blue, but that's so farfetched the system isn't made for that. And as we know the train doesn't get cancelled for fog or stack up across Lake Michigan.

We have the same lack of a joined up transport policy here in Britain. If we had a more joined up approach, the Channel Tunnel Rail link would go thru to London Heathrow airport. Then we'd be able to run the Eurostars from Heathrow to Schipol Airport in Amsterdam (which is challenging Heathrow for being busiest airport in Europe) in place of the shuttle flights. At one stage Briish Airports Authority (who operate the Heathrow Express rail service from Heathrow to Paddington station) were thinking about teaming up with British Airways to operate a Heathrow - Manchester Airport train service in place of BA's shuttle flights, thereby freeing up slots at both airports. But for a number of reasons this did not happen (largely due to the problems with the West Coast Main Line upgrade and Virgin's determination to stop anyone else using it). Instead they're now building a fifth terminal at Heathorw. This is crazy as the existing transport infrastructure can only just cope with the four present terminals; instead they should be making more use of other regional airports (most of which are already rail served) and rail links between them.

Still at least when the Channel Tunnel Rail Link opens to St. Pancras the French Postal TGV trains could run thru to London - saving send mail to the continent by plane.

[jchnhtfd]

Tulyar -- I'm not sure whether it's nice to know that you have the same problems on your side of the pond that exist on the western side. Except from the standpoint that misery loves company... I will say that it does seem silly to me (I frequently go from Boston to Edinburgh) that I can't get a direct rail connexion from Heathrow to the GNER service to Edinburgh... not that I don't enjoy taking the Express to Paddington, then the tube to Kings Cross, and onwards, but... why?

Otherwise, I will stand by my comment that without passenger service, there is no good economic incentive to appreciably increase the speed of freight service, and it simply won't happen. It would have to increase radically to make it worth while, and that would pretty well mean separate rights of way.

[owlsroost]

No direct help as yet, but in addition to Heathrow Express there is now a semi-fast 'Heathrow Connect' service running to Paddington (cheaper fares too I think, but obviously slower).

The original plan for this was to run to St Pancras station (next door to Kings Cross) - if this will actually ever happen is undecided, since it requires new electrification on part of the route (and is impossible at the moment due to the re-development work to turn St Pancras into the new Eurostar terminal).

Tony

[Tulyar15]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jchnhtfd

Tulyar -- I'm not sure whether it's nice to know that you have the same problems on your side of the pond that exist on the western side. Except from the standpoint that misery loves company... I will say that it does seem silly to me (I frequently go from Boston to Edinburgh) that I can't get a direct rail connexion from Heathrow to the GNER service to Edinburgh... not that I don't enjoy taking the Express to Paddington, then the tube to Kings Cross, and onwards, but... why?

Hopefully if the Cross Rail line gets built across London from Paddington to Liverpool Street, some of the Heathrow Express trains will then run thru to King's Cross and Liverpool street.

There was a proposal to electrify the line from Acton to Cricklewood so that Heathrow trains could run thru to St. Pancras and also across London via the Thameslink line to Gatwick Airport. I gather this plan hit the buffer because of the high cost of rebuilding a tunnel on that line. However other options are being looked at including:-

1) A Heathrow - Gatwick service via Kensington Olympia
2) Extending and doubling the freight only line from Southall to Brentford so that it joins up with the Hounslow loop line - I gather the trackbed is still clear so this could be a possibilty

Both these options would require dual voltage stock but the HX trains are designed for easy conversion. There is the possibility of a second rail link to the airport being built, for which dual voltage trains would be required.

I too like the HX service. It's definitely the acceptable face of privitisation. It was built and operates without a penny of subsidy. British Airports Authority who operate the service have an open access license to opreate on the national network, but the new line to the Airport is owned entirely by them and operates as a vertically integrated railway. Like a lot of people I think the higher fare is worthwhile for the time it saves. On occassion I calculated the extra £5 enabled me to get the last train to my home town of Malvern, Worcestershire, thereby saving me the £15 taxi fare from Worcester (England!) - a net saving of £10!

[Anonymous]

One thing HSR can do if done right, is travel relatively long distances at high speed without burning any oil or coal. I can't imagine hydrogen powered commercial jets flying around.

France gets most of it's electrical power from nuclear plants and I believe all the TGV lines are electric? The TGV's are said to be very popular with new lines planned as well as double deck cars on some others. TGV travel times in comparison to air is often touted as the reason, but forgetting about what's subsidized at what rate, how do airfares compare to HSR fares in France and other parts of Europe?

Does anyone think a U.S. based system could compete on fares with Southwest airlines in medium distance corridors at any realistic level of subsidy?

[Tulyar15]

TGV Fares in France are cheaper than air, but that's largely due to various subsidies from the French government. Eurostar fares, which are not subsidized, tend to be more expensive than air though there are some cheap fares available. At the moment there's a price war going on between the budget airlines here, which is also affecting over modes of transport. But since Virgin's new Pendolinos entered service they've been winning back business because they can offer faster journey times. Likewise the Eurostar now has the lions share of the business market from London to Paris; its new 15 minute fastrack check in for First Class passengers also helps.

Although the Eurostar receives no direct subsidy I think the UK government has written off its share of the costs of the trains as they were ordered based on a forecast of 15 million people a year travelling between London and Paris. In practice the market is only about half that size though Eurostar now has 2/3rds of the market overall and 80% of the business market. The Channel Tunnel Rail Link was originally meant to be self financing but the extra costs to pacify the green lobby and the Nimbys has resulted in the government meeting the extra costs. In return for this subsidy Eurostar will have to allow a minimum of 4 trains an hour from the Kent coast towns to use the CTRL as well. NEw 140mph trains have been ordered for these services. It is hoped they will help reduce unemployment in the East Kent towns. Freight trains may also use the CTRL in due course; loops have been provided to allow them to be overtaken by passenger trains. EWS is already running some container trains at 90mph.