I read something that refered to some proposed passenger train proposal as touting that the service would be "fast and frequent" (FAF). If high speed rail (HSR) will require high test infrastructure and grade separations, would it make more sense to start with passenger service that is fast and frequent (FAF), and build from there?
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Heck, yes ! That's been my position for a long time now. Let it become the introduction or 'gateway drug' to the convenience and merits of rail passenger service for the existing passengers ("preaching to the choir", as it were) and the incremental newer users - as the light rail and regional commuter systems - and grow from there.
- Paul North.
Fast and frequent makes a lot more sense for a whole variety of reasons (high frequency seems to work for Southwest Airlines), but it's a lot tougher to sell since it doesn't have the appeal of HSR. People seem to want everything at once and don't realize that HSR in Europe is the latest phase of an incremental approach that started back in the 1950's-1960's. Fast and frequent would be the first phase which the European carriers took years ago and realizes that we can't catch up in one step.
An excellent idea!!!
The California HSR to nowhere, Corcoran to Borden, is their proposed HSR start-up. What a rediculous waste of money.but typical for California. The current Amtrak service through the San Joaquin valley is adequate for that area, at least in the minds of those who think rationally.
Murphy Siding I read something that refered to some proposed passenger train proposal as touting that the service would be "fast and frequent" (FAF). If high speed rail (HSR) will require high test infrastructure and grade separations, would it make more sense to start with passenger service that is fast and frequent (FAF), and build from there?
Sounds like a plan..... but, it depends on a number of things.
1. Where? We still need to think of relatively short corridors (even shorter if not HSR) with population nodes. The elapsed time, point to point, is what counts, if you are going to snare people from using autos and planes. Else, why even bother?
2. How fast is fast? Maintained (average) speed is what counts. If over 90 mph, you will still need somewhat better infrastructure (hi-speed switches, smoother roadbed, better grade crossing protection). You will also need to deal cheaply with reducing the ridiculously long dwell times (8-15 minutes) at en route stations.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
But is one really a substitution for the other? And with the designation FAF, I understand what frequent means, but what does fast mean? If it is an alternative to HSR, I assume that FAF is not as fast as HSR, so how fast is it? Since much of the HSR that is envisioned for the U.S. will be relatively low speed for HSR, then the speed for FAF must be only the typical 79 mph. So why not just call it F for frequent?
And if the primary attribute of FAF is frequent trains, will this really attract more people to long distance rail travel? I don’t think it would. For long distance, you need fast. Frequent is much less important. For short distance such as commuting, you need frequent, and fast is much less important.
So I don’t see how I makes sense to start with FAF to attract ridership as a stepping stone to HSR, when each mode serves a different market.
CSSHEGEWISCH Fast and frequent makes a lot more sense for a whole variety of reasons (high frequency seems to work for Southwest Airlines), but it's a lot tougher to sell since it doesn't have the appeal of HSR. People seem to want everything at once and don't realize that HSR in Europe is the latest phase of an incremental approach that started back in the 1950's-1960's. Fast and frequent would be the first phase which the European carriers took years ago and realizes that we can't catch up in one step.
The USDOT current map of proposed priority HSR does not contemplate HSR for more than 400-500 miles with much of it shorter distances. So to begin with FAF should be a less expensive (for each project) but allow more projects.
Good idea and good slogan.
I'm no expert, but,
1: It seems to me that HSR is also going to have to be fast...and I guess it depends on what you mean by frequent.
2: If we're talking about rail service on existing lines as opposed to wholly new infrastructure, then isn't FAF even more expensive and a tougher sell? If nothing else, the operating expenses are much higher and if it's a heavily used rail corridor, the upgrades will be as well.
In short, I agree it makes more sense, but I don't think it's a much easier pill to swallow financially. Plus it isn't as Sexy.
And for the record, part of the reason California's HSR will go between those 2 points, is because it can build there without waiting for a bunch of political fights and eminent domain cases to be worked out.
YoHo1975,
Regarding the "HSR to Nowhere" prudent proceedure is to make sure you can complete the entire project before building something that will be a "White Elephant" for many years, perhaps forever.
But when in the last 10-15 years has California been prudent???
What about Dependable and Frequent (DAF)?
Getting more places depends on a network. As it is, miss a connection, lose a day. Even if it is limited to 79MPH top speed, knowing the next train leaves in under 4-5 hours is better than 24 hours.
Based on that concept, you could make a good mathematical case that trains leaving every 2 hours or even 4 -5 hours at 79 MPH is functionally much faster for intermediate distances - like 400 miles or so - end-to-end, than a once or twice a day scenario at a much higher speed.
And there's the seeds of an acronym we could all get behind, and one that our British members will understand immediately - "Dependable And Frequent Train", or "DAFT" . . . oh, never mind . . . .
Paul_D_North_Jr Based on that concept, you could make a good mathematical case that trains leaving every 2 hours or even 4 -5 hours at 79 MPH is functionally much faster for intermediate distances - like 400 miles or so - end-to-end, than a once or twice a day scenario at a much higher speed. - Paul North.
So if you want to take the train to Omaha, and the trip takes two hours, but it will be ten hours before the train leaves, then that is a twelve-hour trip? Is that how frequent is faster?
Bucyrus Paul_D_North_Jr: Based on that concept, you could make a good mathematical case that trains leaving every 2 hours or even 4 -5 hours at 79 MPH is functionally much faster for intermediate distances - like 400 miles or so - end-to-end, than a once or twice a day scenario at a much higher speed. - Paul North. So if you want to take the train to Omaha, and the trip takes two hours, but it will be ten hours before the train leaves, then that is a twelve-hour trip? Is that how frequent is faster?
Paul_D_North_Jr: Based on that concept, you could make a good mathematical case that trains leaving every 2 hours or even 4 -5 hours at 79 MPH is functionally much faster for intermediate distances - like 400 miles or so - end-to-end, than a once or twice a day scenario at a much higher speed. - Paul North.
Murphy Siding Bucyrus: Bucyrus: Paul_D_North_Jr: Based on that concept, you could make a good mathematical case that trains leaving every 2 hours or even 4 -5 hours at 79 MPH is functionally much faster for intermediate distances - like 400 miles or so - end-to-end, than a once or twice a day scenario at a much higher speed. - Paul North. So if you want to take the train to Omaha, and the trip takes two hours, but it will be ten hours before the train leaves, then that is a twelve-hour trip? Is that how frequent is faster? If you want to take the train to Omaha, and the trip takes only one hour, but it will be 23 hours before the train leaves, is that any better?
Bucyrus:
Bucyrus: Paul_D_North_Jr: Based on that concept, you could make a good mathematical case that trains leaving every 2 hours or even 4 -5 hours at 79 MPH is functionally much faster for intermediate distances - like 400 miles or so - end-to-end, than a once or twice a day scenario at a much higher speed. - Paul North. So if you want to take the train to Omaha, and the trip takes two hours, but it will be ten hours before the train leaves, then that is a twelve-hour trip? Is that how frequent is faster?
No that would be a slower trip (24 hours versus 12 hours) if more frequent = faster.
Frequent and reasonably fast service on lots of "corridors" would undboubtedly work in many cases. One such case I've always thoght about is from Milwaukee up to Green Bay with stops in FonDuLac, Oshkosh, Appleton, DePere and Green Bay. Anybody who has driven along Hwy. 41 on that route will tell you there are hundreds of thousands of cars that could potentially be taken off the road if FAF service were implemented on that route. The best way I think of looking at it is where do we now have interstate highways linking cities (Chicago-DesMoines-Omaha for example) and take the discussions from that point forward)....yes, FAF would work IMHO on such routes. Oh, yes, it must also be RELIABLE service.
Yes! All I want to know when I travel is "what time do I have to leave to be there by X?" Well, not all. There is cost and the overall "hassle factor" of the trip to factor in. FIrst mile/last mile considerations. What can I do during the trip and what do the blocks of time look like?
Fast has to be fast enough that is comes close to the driving door to door time. It could somewhat longer since the time on the train is more useful than that in the car. I'd view a 4 hour door to door train trip as equivalent to a 3 hour car trip.
Frequent doesn't necessarily mean the same frequency all day long. It just has to get me there when I want to get there. A couple of morning departures, a couple of evening departures and a mid-day or two would be a good start on "frequent".
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Paul_D_North_Jr Based on that concept, you could make a good mathematical case that trains leaving every 2 hours or even 4 -5 hours at 79 MPH is functionally much faster for intermediate distances - like 400 miles or so - end-to-end, than a once or twice a day scenario at a much higher speed. And there's the seeds of an acronym we could all get behind, and one that our British members will understand immediately - "Dependable And Frequent Train", or "DAFT" . . . oh, never mind . . . . - Paul North.
For the same cost of HSR, more DAF(T) routes? Say Minneapolis to Kansas City. Connections in Iowa to San Fransisco and all points in between. At Kansas City, Los Angles, Houston and all points between those ends.
It opens up more destinations than simply more frequent service along existing routes. Once again, dependable timing makes it possible. As with freight, knowing with reasonable certainty arrival at destination will effect the decision to utilize.
DAFT brings to mind RAILPAX. A twist on a pox upon thee AMTRAK was to cure. Is AMTHRAX worse than the French Pox?
I can't help but notice that all the discussion is about the positives of this idea so I assume there are absolutely no negatives. Things like the cost of the equipment and crews, where the stations would be and how people get to and from them and not least the funding since there is no state or federal sourcing since we are all broke. The general public will not tolerate a funds transfer from road building and maintenance.
There are big negatives to this DAFT proposal. Everyone is assuming that trains will run on existing routes. Running privledged passenger trains on two hour headways will consume virtually all of the freight capacity of a single track main line for as long as the frequest passenger servivr is provided.
On a single track line you would have to go to two main tracks from end to end and probably need a third track through congested terminal areas. Two main track routes would probably have to go to three. You could easilly spend a billion or two per corridor just to create the necessary infrastructure.
The freight carriers must and will insist on being left no worse off in terms of useable freight capacity then they are now. Paul's DAFT appellation is right on the money.
Mac
ndbprr I can't help but notice that all the discussion is about the positives of this idea so I assume there are absolutely no negatives. Things like the cost of the equipment and crews, where the stations would be and how people get to and from them and not least the funding since there is no state or federal sourcing since we are all broke. The general public will not tolerate a funds transfer from road building and maintenance.
FAF and HSR would both need dedicate ROW, the difference would mainly be that FAF at least theoretically could tolerate more curvature.
If you want to see the ultimate in FAF look no further than the people who make Rolex watches, the Swiss. There is only one segment of 125 mph running in the whole network, between Olten and Bern. But this graphic timetable is all you need to get from any rail served point in Switzerland to any other rail served point. Note the graphic is for 2009. With a few exceptions all trains run hourly, however on some routes there maybe additional trains offering different service types ( Intercity, Inter-regional, Local stopping, etc)
Swiss Graphic Timetable
The Northeast Corridor is more of an example of Fast and Frequent rather than High Speed Rail. The regional trains only average 68 - 70 mph between New York and Washington while the Acela Expresses average 84 mph between the same points. The regional trains and the Acela Expresses can be considered frequent but not particularly fast between New York and Boston.
The top speeds on the Northeast Corridor between New York and Washingvton is125 mph for the Regional trains and 135 mph for the Acela Expresses. What this means is fast and frequent passenger service may still require top speeds above 100 mph which in turn will require a higher class of track. This raises the question, is fast and frequent a logical economic step to high speed rail?
Murphy Siding As an example, I overheard some folks in a sandwich shop talking about a newspaper article on HSR this summer. They were thrilled at the idea of being able to hop on the HSR and zip down to Omaha (200 miles) in about an hour, in order to fly out from a bigger airport with lower fares. I imagine they're going to be somewhat disappointed with the reality of the situation
As an example, I overheard some folks in a sandwich shop talking about a newspaper article on HSR this summer. They were thrilled at the idea of being able to hop on the HSR and zip down to Omaha (200 miles) in about an hour, in order to fly out from a bigger airport with lower fares. I imagine they're going to be somewhat disappointed with the reality of the situation
The "rail dreaming" vision of the NARP issued about a year ago did have a Kansas City/Omaha/Sioux City/Sioux Falls/Twin Cities route. I'd suggest any train on that route is unlikely in our lifetimes, and to implant in the folk's mind that it is going to be true HSR is something approaching a sin.
The enemy of quick run times is intermediate stops in paticular those done in Amtrak's current style. As an example, there is a recent thread that observes that stops on the Illinois service take 5 to 10 minutes because they only open one or two doors and do the security theater thing. Upgrading the Lincoln route to 110mph is nice, but how many minutes could be shaved off the run times by fixing dwell times? Another example of a time killer is the proposed Madison service for which someone is advocating three or four stops within Madison itself.
beaulieu FAF and HSR would both need dedicate ROW, the difference would mainly be that FAF at least theoretically could tolerate more curvature. If you want to see the ultimate in FAF look no further than the people who make Rolex watches, the Swiss. There is only one segment of 125 mph running in the whole network, between Olten and Bern. But this graphic timetable is all you need to get from any rail served point in Switzerland to any other rail served point. Note the graphic is for 2009. With a few exceptions all trains run hourly, however on some routes there maybe additional trains offering different service types ( Intercity, Inter-regional, Local stopping, etc) Swiss Graphic Timetable
I agree that Amtrak's NorthEast Corridor is a darn good and effective FAF service, regardless of the brand names that are assigned to the various services. The problem with using it as a pattern or prototype for FAF elsewhere is that despite a typical 4-track mainline, the NEC is so cluttered up with other commuter operations alongside Amtrak's own trains that it really can't accomodate many freight trains. That is going to be unacceptable for most freight lines, so the FAF will have to obtain its own ROW anyway.
METRA is more of a commuter operation than a regional passenger service - but Jim's point about dove-tailing the passenger rush-hour schedules with the freight runs is well-taken.
For me, the better models are what Amtrak, California, BNSF, and UP have done with passenger trains service in the several corridors from Sacramento down to San Jose - the Capitol Corridor, the Pacific Surfliner, and the San Joaquin routes, on Amtrak's Califronia Routes webpage at - http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=Page&pagename=am%2FLayout&p=1237405732511&cid=1237608331430 - and their respective schedules which are linked from there. Of course, therea re also the 1-daily each way long-distance trains mostly through other portions of the Golden State, too.
On the East Coast, North Carolina DOT through Amtrak, the NCRR, and NS have recently attained a 'critical mass' of enough FAF trains to 'leverage' their synergies and attract a lot more patrons on those routes. There are now 3 daily trains each way between Raleigh and Charlotte - 173 rail miles on about 3-1/4 hr. schedules, about 52 MPH average - plus once or twice daily segments of the long-distance NY-FL "Atlantic Coast ("Silver") Service" in other smaller portions of the state. See the Amtrak webpage for "Carolinian/ Piedmont" service at - http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?c=AM_Route_C&pagename=am%2FLayout&cid=1241245666474 - and the Atlantic Coast Service schedules which are also linked from there.
Mac's point about trains on 2-hour headways using up almost all capacity of a single-track line is also valid. That's why NCDOT, NCRR, and NS have been busy working to 2-track and multiple track more segments of that line.
I'll also venture an opinion that a 79 MPH passenger train with a couple stops each hour - though necessarily much shorter than Amtrak's current "dwell" times as also pointed out above - might not be all that inconsistent with scheduled slots for freight trains at 40 MPH or so. For example, a 79 MPH train that loses 15 minutes each hour to stops is effectively moving at 60 MPH, which is highway-competitive but not as much faster than the 40 MPH freights as a 'pure' and steady 79 MPH would be.
The Metra Corridors have been Commuter for what? The past 100 years? They've been built to be commuter corridors, they have the capacity. Comparing them to new startup service on "any given section of track in the US" is not reasonable.
Similarly the NEC is owned by Amtrak and is primarily a passenger line. Of course they can accomplish fast and frequent there. That's what it was built for.
Pacific Surfliner from LA to SD is on track that has pretty much always had the San Diegan. And the SD portion is owned by the county and sees low freight utilization.
The Capital Corridor and the Lines in the Central Valley are better examples, but again, those are relatively short hauls.
I don't know why we're waiting for people to post the negatives, I posted them on the first page.
Yes, HSR requires and operating cost and this service could simply use that same operating budget, but HSR was defined to be on all knew track if not explicitly all new RoW. That's a big different.
The proposed alternative may seem easier, but I suggest it is harder.
1: it requires cooperation with private entities (the railroads) for which this would potentially disrupt their revenue generation
2: It would require significant public expenditure to expand infrastructure to support these services on top of the operating costs.
3: It is not sexy. If you are asking the Federal government to pay for it, they better be able to crow about it. They can't crow about this, so it will be extremely hard to implement.
Now, having said all that, I'd argue that this is in some sense what the states and Amtrak have been doing. And so, for practical purposes, diverting HSR funds to such projects might not be so hard.
In fact, one might argue that 110MPH Max running really is just a slightly more advanced version of this.
Though I don't think HSR should be abandoned entirely.
And again on California, I think you're simplifying things. Getting from the outskirts of the Bay area to the Outskirts of the LA area are the most important parts of the network. Dinking around on the peninsula or through the LA suburbs is not. Getting started in the valley makes complete sense. Though those 2 points in absentia do not. Get from the Top of the valley to the bottom first makes sense.
Sorry, but the Metra corridors were first and foremost built as freight railroads that also handled long distance passenger trains and as the population of Chicago begain to migrate North, West and South there became a need for commuter service and it was THEN that the freight railroads (in my case the CB&Q) initiated commuter service...these railroads were NOT built for the express purpose of handling commuters as you say.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.