Why the U.S. has no HSR

[samfp1943]

zardoz

Interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qaf6baEu0_w

 

             Seems like the [Zardoz's] OP's YouTube posting pretty well lays it out...It all starts with 'Capitalism' (?)...Then came the Buggymaker's; They figured out the 'Better Buggy'; replace the horse with an 'engine'.

Speed up transportation ! Trains and trolley's were imited by those darn tracks! So invent the 'Bus'.  It won't need those tracks, and can roam all over with out a dedicated right of way. Creating individual mobility!  The Buggymaker became a Car Company! So everyman could have their own car! [Or maybe,TWO?] 

Along came General Eisenhower[34th President from 1953 to 1961]  After seeing what the Autobahn's contributed to Germany; he pushed for the 1956 Bill in Congress for the Interstate and Defense Highway Act which created our system of about 41,000 miles of limited access highways. Giving Americans access to roam about in their privately owned transportation; eventully, putting passenger trains on a path to demise(?).

 

[creepycrank]

You forgot about airlines,

[CMStPnP]

Point of correction on the big transit systems being bought out by an Oil-Automobile-Tire conspiracy.    Had the discussion while I worked at GM at their HQ with their Economists.    The Economists raised the issue because they knew I was a rail afficianado.   Most of them were PhD's and knew their specific areas of coverage really well.    They all agreed this conspiracy theory was only partially true and the largest fact missing was the transit systems at the time of purchase were in serious financial trouble and the purchase and conversion to bus was an attempt to make them viable again via exchanging the rail infrastructure cost with the largely cost free and public provided paved streets.    It wasn't a nationwide goal to destroy rail or rail transit.    So every time I hear it I am going to throw the BS flag on that specific conspiracy theory.    It was the general move prior to WWII that continued after WWII to the private automobile and the U.S. standard of living which made one and two car households viable that led to the downfall of the privately run passenger train.

The Europeans had to start over again at near poverty after WWII because of the devastation of World War II, same with the Japaneese.   Rail transportation was immediately available and made much more sense than waiting for the time when Europeans could afford to buy their own car or even a second car (which many of them still do not have today).   Same is true of Japan and China.   If everyone in China owned an automobile or had two of them that country would be unliveable due to traffic congestion and pollution.

[54light15]

Regarding that old conspiracy about the streetcars, the systems were worn out, people started buying cars and all GM did was open thier bus catalog. 

[Flintlock76]

Pretty good report, but they DID leave several things out.

NIMBY and BANANA opposition.  Maybe a lot of people DO want high-speed rail, but not in their backyard, and they'll fight tooth and nail to stop it.  Add all those court costs to the construction costs.

Then, unions.  Especially in the major urban areas.  All those sky-high labor costs.  Then there's the corrolary big-city "where did the money go?" corruption.  Don't say it isn't real!  

Eviornmental study costs, I'm suprised they didn't mention what a major killer those things are.  Look at the Northeast, one environmental study after another to rebuild or improve rail lines that have been there since the 1850s!  How is a modern electrically (or diesel) operated rail line going to pollute more than a smoky 4-4-0?  Environmentalists are their own worst enemy sometimes.  Don't say how environmentally friendly high-speed rail is and then add to the difficulty in building it.

Property rights.  Thank God we have them, but other countries don't have that issue, especially dictatorships like China.  "A rail line's coming through.  Move or else!"  China doesn't have a problem with unions or labor costs either, to say nothing of environmental impact studies. Wonder why?

They did mention car culture.  Fair enough.  This is America, we love our cars and hate everything else.  An exagerration of course, but it's real, and it exists for a reason.  Car culture's all about freedom, you come and go as you please not tied to any schedule or location.

And let me tell you, the root of car culture goes back further than you think.  Ever hear of the "Great Bicycle Craze" of the 1890's?  By that time the modern bicycle as we know it was pretty much perfected.  Here was a mode of transportation, for local uses anyway, that was a LOT cheaper than owning a horse and not tied to rail or streetcar schedules.  You could come and go as you wanted.  That got other people thinking, Henry Ford for example, that there was a demand for personal transportation that was a market waiting to be tapped.  How right he was.

And we all know, it was the Wright brothers very successful bike business that funded their aviation experiments. 

And let me add, the demand for road improvements didn't start with the Model T owners, it began back in the 1890's with lobbying by the bicycle clubs, and there were a LOT of them.  

Here's the thing, when enough people stand up and demand high-speed rail we'll get it.  Right now the demand's not there.  You can't sell people what they don't want, no matter how attractive you make it.

Oh, and the Eisenhower interstate highway system?  Is there anyone who can imagine life in this country now without it?  Seriously?  For a reminder of what it was like before  the interstates let me recommend a movie from 1953, a Lucille Ball - Desi Arnaz comedy called "The Long, Long Trailer."   Oh, brother.  A very funny movie, and remember, for something to be funny it has to have a grain of truth to it.  "L-L-T" has more  than a grain of truth to it!

Ah, enough.  

[Convicted One]

CMStPnP

The Europeans had to start over again at near poverty after WWII because of the devastation of World War II, same with the Japaneese.   Rail transportation was immediately available and made much more sense than waiting for the time when Europeans could afford to buy their own car or even a second car (which many of them still do not have today).   Same is true of Japan and China

So you are saying that a devastating war might be the shortest path to viable HSR in North America?

[Overmod]

The greatest point is really cost.  Obama threw a fornicaton (or coproton, if you object to the term) of money at high-speed rail, and it's difficult to see where much if any of that actually contributed to 125mph+ service.  We've had the knowledge and the technical development (e.g. ALPS) to implement at least HST-level service on new lines with fairly radical peak grades for decades now.  

The great deal-killing thing I keep seeing is a point related to NIMBYism: a good HSR route is effectively a Chinese wall whether in neighborhoods or farm country, and it cannot deviate either for natural features or property boundaries.  Even a proportion of railfans wouldn't want to live within blocks of such a thing, and I see a large number of local politicians recognizing this fact even with respect to lower-speed developments like Brightline.  You'd need a significant preponderance of voters, or at least effective lobbyist-influenced voters, to get any headway toward political support of true HSR, and the relatively small group of people who would cough up the likely tariff for HSR trips aren't even a start on such a bloc...

I don't see the 'car' being as much of an influence on this issue as the 'good roads' movement, culminating in the idea that highways should be free (or, if toll, providing significant convenience benefits).  I was never prouder of Connecticut than when they abolished the toll on their turnpike, as they had initially promised, when it was paid off.  But that would have been a nail in the coffin of any remaining intrastate competition from the New Haven or one of its successors.  

We are now seeing, in the crumbling-infrastructure issue, what may become an end to cheap good-roads free access by 'anyone' (at least anyone who doesn't have a valid RFID account hotlinked to a major credit card or equivalent) and, unsurprisingly, an accelerating trend by Gen C or whatever it's called now to avoid the growing expenses and inconveniences of actual vehicle ownership.  While I doubt there's a better subregional approach than Uber/Lyft except in specific cases, there's increasing interest in feeder services to faster regional 'mass transit' -- although I still suspect that better very cheap buses are a likelier solution even there than overripe-tomato "transit" projects with bloated budgets and ridiculous "ROI".

If there is a model for observing actual gains vs. problems for modern American HSR, it will come out of Texas.  The problem then rapidly becoming that almost all the real gains of true HSR are on extremely long corridors or LD services.  Where the expense will be in large numbers of billions; the service to intermediate points difficult to achieve, let alone justify in many cases; and the 'financial' return from operations likely insufficient to cover above-the-rail costs, let alone interest on the investment.

[York1]

Flintlock76

Pretty good report, but they DID leave several things out. ...NIMBY and BANANA opposition. ...Then, unions. ... Eviornmental study costs....Property rights.....The did mention car culture.  Fair enough.  This is America, we love our cars and hate everything else

Here's the thing, when enough people stand up and demand high-speed rail we'll get it.  Right now the demand's not there.  You can't sell people what they don't want, no matter how attractive you make it. 

 

You pretty much nailed it.  Out of all of this, I think environmental opposition and private property rights are the biggest.

We can't even get a highway widened without studies of how it will affect the geen-striped hornfly, the studies take years, and even if the studies come back fine, the lawsuits from the environmental groups and adjacent landowners will add more years.

Imagine trying to build a new rail line, even out here in flyover country.  Imagine trying to reroute an existing rail line for high speed traffic.

It won't happen.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Overmod:

I don't see the impediment to HSR being cost.  I see HSR not getting built as the legacy of Ralph Nader.

Back in the day of urban planner Robert Moses and California Governor Edmund G "Pat" Brown (Sr.), whatever the project was, it got done.  This was the context in which Mr. Nader had his breakout idea, the context where the little guy got pushed aside in the name of a Greater Good.

Ralph Nader's idea was to fight this disrespect in the courts.  This has caught on; Nader has succeeded in empowering the little guy beyond his wildest imagination.

This is why HSR is all tied up in California.  This is what Thomas Friedman is admiring about China -- Friedman wishes restoration of a more authoritarian political order to get nice things like HSR.

[York1]

I truly believe an overstated issue is "our crumbling infrastructure".

A nominal search finds all kinds of gloomy reports, normally made by some civil engineering groups.  Isn't that strange?

And then those reports are trumpeted by politicians, who also would never, ever profit from increased government spending.

We then hear about it from media outlets who have no interest in reporting that a bridge is in good shape.

What about "structurally deficient bridges"?  Next time you hear about a deficient bridge, here is what the term actually means, from the DOT Federal Highway Administration:  "Structural deficiencies are characterized by deteriorated conditions of significant bridge elements and reduced load carrying capacity.  Functional obsolescence is a function of the geometrics of the bidge not meeting current design standards.  Neither type of deficiency indicates that the bridge is unsafe."

Highways are continually being rebuilt.  I know because I have sat in my share construction zones.  Railroads are continually repairing and upgrading.  Airports and airlines have the best safety records ever, and even old airports have been updated in the past 20 years.  Look at a map of the pipelines in our country, and remember how few pipeline accidents we have compared to the thousands of miles of pipe.  And our ports have been upgraded over the past years to handle huge amounts of trade.

 

[Erik_Mag]

Airines were one reason for no HSR in this country, but more specifically the likes of the Pacific Southwest Airlines and what PSA inspired (Southwest). During the 1970's, non-stop flights from Southern to Northern California took one hour from gate to gate, and Air Cal could fly from Oakland to San Diego in two hours with stops at San Jose and Orange County. In 1972, air fare between L.A. and the Bay Area was $20, San Diego and the Bay Area fare was $24.50.

High speed rail makes the most sense when there is a substantial population density along the route, that is where most of the trips do not involve travel between the endpoints, otherwise it makes more sense to fly. In Calfornia, the high population route follows the US 99 corridor, where the shortest and cheapest route would follow I-5. Cheapest since the I-5 route would have required far less utility relocation.

I still think the federal money that went to the Cal HSR project would have been better utilized on the LOSSAN corridor.

[Miningman]

Good thread. Good comments. 

Overmod is bang on about having to bulid the ' Chinese Wall' although I'm not fond of the term ( I understand fully why though)

So why would this be a difficulty if it was built above existing right of ways. Private railroads and all freight below, HSR (and other passenger perhaps)  but all passenger above, a public-private investment partnership. Might even be easier or desirable to go all electric on the private freight lines using the bottom of the above roof to carry the cat. 

Wishing and wondering why someone, like say, the New York Central in partnership with government didn't do this on their many passenger routes post war. That's what we saw in futuristic drawings. Now that would have evened out the playing field with airlines, highways and waterways. I think they knew of this at the time and could do it. It would require the full support and funding of Government. Imagine how far down the road and advanced things would be today. It would have paid for itself several times by now. 

Required competent people with vision. It was an opportunity at that time. 

[samfp1943]

Convicted One

CMStPnP

The Europeans had to start over again at near poverty after WWII because of the devastation of World War II, same with the Japaneese.   Rail transportation was immediately available and made much more sense than waiting for the time when Europeans could afford to buy their own car or even a second car (which many of them still do not have today).   Same is true of Japan and China

So you are saying that a devastating war might be the shortest path to viable HSR in North America?

  WWI and WWII and Poverty, in their wakes; was a catalyst, for 'change', not to mention some governance by assorted 'tin-pot dictators'. and for the 'love of pete'; I hope those events are not visited anywhere, on anyone.  Let the natural flow of 'Progress' bring the  changes we need, and not bloodshed.  

[Flintlock76]

Sam, I'm more than sure "Convicted One" had his tongue well planted in his cheek when he made his "devastating war" comment, hence the whistling emoticon.

We already had our cataclysm here in the 1860's.  We sure don't need another one!  Once was enough!

Wayne

[PNWRMNM]

Miningman

Wishing and wondering why someone, like say, the New York Central in partnership with government didn't do this on their many passenger routes post war. That's what we saw in futuristic drawings. Now that would have evened out the playing field with airlines, highways and waterways. I think they knew of this at the time and could do it. It would require the full support and funding of Government. Imagine how far down the road and advanced things would be today. It would have paid for itself several times by now. 

Required competent people with vision. It was an opportunity at that time. 

 

 

The short answer to why we did not do the above is that we were too busy buying private autos, building government roads and government airports, taxing the railroads, holding their fares down, and then Boeing introduced the 707.

 

Mac

[Miningman]

PMWRMNM-- Recalling the ads placed in Trains magazine by the railroads in the early to mid 50's that explained to us all what was going on and how unfair it was. 

What you describe is a societal direction encouraged and supported by Government with a policy in mind for a great lessening of the power of railroads. 

I think they were seen as old fashioned, especially in terms of moving people and freight deemed that could be handled by trucks instead.

The point is I do believe that they could have instigated a levelling out of all forms of transportation. The technology was available.

Instead of leading the world in HSR and other benefits in railroad transportation the influences of big business pushed things in a different direction. Not saying it was wrong headed, only that the railroads didn't stand a chance, watched their massive investment in new equipment go down the drain, lost a lot of revenue and they, as competition, were effectively eliminated. 

Instead Pennsylvania Station was tore down, passenger service and a lot freight was essentially eliminated and Ike warned of the Military- Industrial Complex. It could have gone all ways more to the benefit of all. 

[54light15]

I recall reading from many sources over the years that the railroads were not too pleasant to use during WW2. It wasn't all the Super Chief but rather days standing up in a day coach with no dining car. Maybe that's an exaggeration but that is what I recall hearing and the railroads did nothing to expedite getting the troops home in 1945. So, as soon as they could, people bought cars with all that wartime money (nothing to spend it on for the duration) and many vowed to never ride a train again. The choice was made and letting Robert Moses put highways through the middle of Bronx neighbourhoods and farmland on Long Island meant "progress" and if you weren't in favor of progress there was likely something subversive about you. 

[Convicted One]

Flintlock76

Sam, I'm more than sure "Convicted One" had his tongue well planted in his cheek when he made his "devastating war" comment, hence the whistling emoticon.

Absolutely correct!

I believe that one (successful widespread implementation of HSR) is about as likley as the other....unfortunately.

There are more barriers than just the popular talking points about evil NIMBYS and  ignorant BANANAs.  Corrupt politicians and the attendant cronyism, where they will oppose all options that do not afford them their desired participation, for one.....and what I will call "casual cynicism" for another.

The latter, citizens who would actually use the product so long as it's made convenient for them at a cost they consider reasonable.

A  HSR corridor between Chicago and Pittburgh seems reasonable to me...even desirable. But when it comes time to pay for it there is a problem.

For the Indiana section, roughly 160 miles from border to border...and an estimated cost of say $60million/mile, you're talking roughly ten billion dollars (rounded up to account for the cost of money)...divided between every man, woman, and child living in Indiana that comes down to about $1500 per person.

Now, if you live within a half hour's drive of the nearest station, that might look like a pretty good deal. But what about the Hoosiers who live 50 miles from the nearest station?  Or 100 miles? or 140 miles?  Those people are going to be considerably harder to pry away from their $1500.

So, obtaining the consensus to move forward on such a project, and having everybody happy to be paying into it, is going to be a challenge.

[CMStPnP]

Convicted One

So you are saying that a devastating war might be the shortest path to viable HSR in North America?

Actually, after the next major war I think we will finally move to infrastructure replacement on a serious scale.

[CMStPnP]

54light15

I recall hearing and the railroads did nothing to expedite getting the troops home in 1945

Nothing they could do, nature of military deployments.    Both the buildup and drawdown of troops takes months or years depending on the number of troops because we do not maintain a "surge" capacity anywhere in our transportation system on the military or civilian side.    In this case I would not blame the railroads because U.S. entry into WWII was sudden up until December 7, 1941 you had a strong countervailing argument that we would never enter the war and that was the environment the railroads had to plan in.   During the war, most everything was rationed and troops returning home en masse was probably low on the priority list.

[Flintlock76]

In the immediate post-war period the railroads were simply overwhelmed by all the returning servicemen, so much so that according to Bill Mauldin many ex-GI's (and sailors and Marines too) hopped boxcars in an effort to get home.

Railroaders usually turned a blind eye to it, after all they had sons trying to get home too.

Was it avoidable?  Hard to say.  Pile millions more passengers onto a system than it's capable of handling under normal circustances and there's going to be problems.

And remember, these homecoming veterans weren't coming home in dedicated troop trains as they did when going off to war.  Once they went through the discharge process they were on their own. Oh they had their discharge pay, but when it came to getting a train ticket they were no different than any other passenger.

And that was just one of the problems in the immediate post-war period, it took a while to get things back to normal.

Old cowboy saying, "There's bound to be a lot of tore-up ground where a herd's stampeded!"

 

 

[Gramp]

My dad rode the Golden State route from California back to Illinois when he returned from the Pacific. He telegraphed my mom saying this train has square wheels.

[CMStPnP]

My Great Uncle rode the Hiawatha back to Milwaukee.   I was shocked to find his interview by the Milwaukee Journal on the Internet, the reporter stated they were on the Northbound Hiawatha from Chicago which his station was at Fort Sheridan so I wonder how he made the choice.    He was at Corregidor and somewhat of a national hero for surviving all the torture, he missed the death march because he was captured in a Jeep and the Japs commandeered it but kept him in it for that part of history (plus being a Major helped).   

Also found some of his writings for the U.S. Army when he was in Hawaii after the war recovering, all the survivors of Corregidor were not immediately released but had to go through a period of medical and psychiatric observation as well as Army induced weight gain in Hawaii mostly.....he ran into a LT (promotion held back) who escaped the Corregidor assignment by feigning mental illness to get a better assignment in Hawaii prior to the Japanese attack that most of them knew was comming......interesting writings there worth reading.

The Alamo Scouts sprung him from his POW camp.    They made a movie on the escape and part of his history is documented by the Alamo Scouts veterans organization which is online as well.

Continuously surprised with what Google is able to uncover.   Ghosts from the past.

[BaltACD]

Flintlock76

In the immediate post-war period the railroads were simply overwhelmed by all the returning servicemen, so much so that according to Bill Mauldin many ex-GI's (and sailors and Marines too) hopped boxcars in an effort to get home.

Railroaders usually turned a blind eye to it, after all they had sons trying to get home too.

Was it avoidable?  Hard to say.  Pile millions more passengers onto a system than it's capable of handling under normal circustances and there's going to be problems.

And remember, these homecoming veterans weren't coming home in dedicated troop trains as they did when going off to war.  Once they went through the discharge process they were on their own. Oh they had their discharge pay, but when it came to getting a train ticket they were no different than any other passenger.

And that was just one of the problems in the immediate post-war period, it took a while to get things back to normal.

Old cowboy saying, "There's bound to be a lot of tore-up ground where a herd's stampeded!"

Our view of history - decades or centurys removed from the 'happening' - tend to pigeon hole that happening in neat, clean dates.  History is neather neat nor clean.  The logistics supporting history is likewise neither neat nor clean.  

Moving millions of people with a physical plant that has been stressed moving hundreds of thousands on a daily basis creates chaos.  Returning soldiers came back by the ship load, loads that probably held two to four times the number of 'passengers' than the ships had transported in their normal peace time service.  Throw several thousand 'passengers' on a single port city's rail transportation infrastructure at the same time and only chaos can result - especially when that transportation infrastructure is already operating at capacity.

[Convicted One]

Back on topic, why don't we build the nation's longest HSR corridor between San Diego and Houston Texas (with a spur to Brownsville of course), and kill two birds with one stone? There is nothing like synergy. 

[zardoz]

CMStPnP

 Convicted One

So you are saying that a devastating war might be the shortest path to viable HSR in North America?

 Actually, after the next major war I think we will finally move to infrastructure replacement on a serious scale.

 

Yes, like rebuilding the entire surface of the planet. Or rather, building the underground cities that the survivors will have to live in to try and avoid the radiation and biohazards.

[ccltrains]

Think Fred Frailey hit the nail on the head. He said it took 7 years to build the transcontinental line in the 1860s. If we had to do it today it would take about 100 years with all of the environmental reports, NIMBYs protests, court hearings etc.

[alphas]

Convicted One:

One of the two main reasons when PA looked into High Speed rail in the 1980's [for Philadelphia to Pittsburgh] that nothing ever came of it was that Pittsburgh had ceased to be an economically justified ending point due to its major loss of population and decreasing corporate headquaters.  (The other one was the politicans demanded it stop at way too many PA towns to have it be high speed--CA faces the same problem with their HSR attempt).    Pittsburgh has lost more population and most all of the remaining corporate headquarters since then.    So Chicago to Pittsburgh is not even a remote possibility for a successful high speed network.   

[NittanyLion]

I'm convinced that "the interstates" is a red herring. Passenger rail travel peaked in the 20s, well before the first shovel of dirt moved on any interstate. Cars were crushing it that early. 

[Convicted One]

alphas

Convicted One:

One of the two main reasons when PA looked into High Speed rail in the 1980's [for Philadelphia to Pittsburgh] that nothing ever came of it was that Pittsburgh had ceased to be an economically justified ending point due to its major loss of population and decreasing corporate headquaters.  (The other one was the politicans demanded it stop at way too many PA towns to have it be high speed--CA faces the same problem with their HSR attempt).    Pittsburgh has lost more population and most all of the remaining corporate headquarters since then.    So Chicago to Pittsburgh is not even a remote possibility for a successful high speed network.   

 

Your input is appreciated. 

The snake oil  salesmen currently pushing HSR projects in my neck of the woods are using Columbus OH as their proposed eastern terminus, which (to me) appears even less desirable than Pittsburgh.

The thought that occurred  to me is that  they could establish one corridor NYC-Philly-Pittsburgh and a second from Pittsburgh to Chicago.

Pittsburgh becoming a hub of sorts should the system further expand.

I know, I am a dreamer...but the world  needs dreamers too. 

[BaltACD]

The midwest is ripe with potential HSR corridors.  Pittsburgh defines the Eastern limit, Kansas City the Western limit with Chicago, St.Louis, Indianpolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Akron in between that can be constructed in manageable chunks.  Throw in Milwaukee and the Twin Cities if you want.

[Overmod]

"HSR to Columbus" appears little more than any other Midwest 'capital corridor' (especially if it helps recalcitrant Hoosiers by going via or within reasonable distance of Indianapolis on the way) using the added speed to make the equipment turn reasonable.  Without the political buy-in I think it's a financial non-starter even at 110mph peak (which isn't really even HrSR).

Pittsburgh has turned around dramatically since the late 1980s and would certainly be able to 'pull its weight' as an "anchor location" for LD high-speed rail ... but as a midpoint and significant traffic generator 'both ways', not an endpoint.  Whether Pennsylvania and Ohio have any interest in 'upgrading' the Pennsylvanian service as a counterpart or extension of true HSR is a much greater question.

Anyone who has had to fly or drive to Pittsburgh will appreciate what good HSR would offer.

[Convicted One]

BaltACD

The midwest is ripe with potential HSR corridors

What is the desired minimum distance between stations on a true HSR line, at which point  shorter distances begin to degrade the ability to call it true "HSR"?

[blue streak 1]

HSR and of course HrSR expansion in  this country will depend on several items.

1.   Auto transportation times beween points will become 125 % of  perceived train times.

2.  Air travel times are equal to rail times. Example NEC NY <> WASH and intermediate points.

3.  Direct auto opperating costs about 125% of rail fares.  Wnfortunatelyost ersons will only factor fuel, and toll costs .  Conviently forgotten by ost will be maintenance, insurance, and & depreciation expenses.  Those persons that include depreciation will move first as insurance costs are fixed and maintenance slightly variable. 

4.  A long term reduction is available fuel and the associated fuel prices not expected to lower..  Notelatest buying figures show most persons buyint high fuel cost SUVs.

5.  Road congestion increases travel times.

6.  Road lack of maintenance becomes intolerable.  ( Too many potholes )

[Overmod]

Before he answers: the spacing will differ a bit depending on line and type of equipment.  There is time lost in braking, time lost in comfortable acceleration back up to speed, plus station dwell (which might be held to Germanic standards, under a minute, for true HSR but I'd expect a couple of minutes for likely American clientele.

There is a bit of fudge with the cost if you have decent modern wayside storage in the electric plant (and have sited your station atop a hill, rising grade both ways) as the extended dynamic braking can be a bit more aggressive and quick acceleration less costly.  Effectively somewhere in the 5 to 10-minute range with the opportunity cost of not 'operating through' at line speed being a little less.

Note that much of the stop time is independent of top speed, so the effect is a bit less pronounced for HrSR speed... the problem then becoming that most regional corridors will require more stops closer together than pure HSR service.

Note the effect on NEC timing of having Wilmington (and Baltimore) stuck into Metroliner timings between Philadelphia and Washington. You can imagine the effect on "186mph" trains running that service, let alone on the 220mph+ stuff that the rest of the world will call HSR by the time we get the Second Spine resolved to the east.

[Convicted One]

That's kinda central to my curiousity. If there are so many stations between end points that the overall travel time bloats to uncomfortable levels, then the fact that the train is capable of reaching 200 mph for 5 minutes between each station becomes anticlimactic. 

I guess that is the "hook" that the "higher speed rail" guys are basing their hopes on?

[CMStPnP]

BaltACD

The midwest is ripe with potential HSR corridors.  Pittsburgh defines the Eastern limit, Kansas City the Western limit with Chicago, St.Louis, Indianpolis, Columbus, Cincinnati, Cleveland and Akron in between that can be constructed in manageable chunks.  Throw in Milwaukee and the Twin Cities if you want. Add Quote to your Post

I was surprised to find out that in Kansas City a lot of them travel to Omaha and would love to see rail service between KC and Omaha.   I never even considered that a viable corridor and maybe it is not but I never even considered it a route that a lot of KC folks would drive and never considered there was even a relation between the cities but there is somehow.   I wonder if it dates from the cattle drive days?

[CMStPnP]

Convicted One

What is the desired minimum distance between stations on a true HSR line, at which point  shorter distances begin to degrade the ability to call it true "HSR"?

The common definition seems to be 500 miles but I would dispute that and it depends on time vs distance covered in the corridor.    If you ask me Chicago to St. Louis has too many damn stops for it's length.   Depends on the state as well I would presume.   Folks in Texas will tend to be more tolerant of longer drives given the size of the state then someone in New York that just has to drive their car to the end of their property fence line (being sarcastic a little).

Someone should come up with a formula here.   I can see 600-700 mile HSR corridors in some cases.   In other cases 100-350 miles.

[CMStPnP]

Overmod

Note that much of the stop time is independent of top speed

Another point on the Chicago to St. Louis line.......Amtrak has yet to learn the art of the two min station stop which is pretty prevalent on DB in Germany.    Train the people to move faster (no pun intended).   It's not a matter of loading doors on the car either as I have been on DB trains that had vestibule doors just like current Amtrak cars and they got away with two min station stops using those cars.  Though in Europe the platforms were vestibule height so there was no climbing or climbing down of steps at the vestible (Amtrak can fix that).    It's the slow moving passengers on the cars in Amtraks case in my opinion.

[Convicted One]

CMStPnP

The common definition seems to be 500 miles but I would dispute that and it depends on time vs distance covered in the corridor

I think we might be having two seperate discussions together. My curiosity was not about corridor length, but rather about the  preferred minimum distance between station stops.

For example, for a 250 mile journey, (to me) having a scheduled stop every 50 miles seems about as close as I would want them, otherwise the trip time would be stretched out between acceleration, deacceleration and actual station stop time.

100 miles between station stops, even better.

I just wondered if there was a benchmark of any sort.

Public demand for participation (I.E. a station near everybody) might become the achilles heal of HSR in this country.

[CMStPnP]

^^^ I would say at least 150 miles.   Regional trains can run on or near the same route and stop at the skipped stations or you can take the same high speed train route and get high speed train to stop at the skipped stations and maintain the 150 mile distance by skipping the stations the first train stopped at (that would be cool wouldn't it?) in which case the station stops would be 75 miles but served by different trainsets?

[York1]

CMStPnP

I was surprised to find out that in Kansas City a lot of them travel to Omaha and would love to see rail service between KC and Omaha.   I never even considered that a viable corridor and maybe it is not but I never even considered it a route that a lot of KC folks would drive and never considered there was even a relation between the cities but there is somehow.   I wonder if it dates from the cattle drive days?

Some of it is because of certain flights, and there is another set of traffic going to Kansas City from Omaha.

Even if flying south, some KC flights won't get to a southern destination as fast as driving three hours to Omaha and getting a direct flight there.

Of course, that means nothing to many of us living in the Nebraska boonies.  I can drive to my daughter's front door in Southlake, Texas, (nine hours) faster than I can drive to an airport, fly to DFW, and take an uber to her house.

[rdamon]

For most, by the time you drive to MCI you are already well on your way to OMA :)

[Gramp]

At the same time as we talk about potential routes here, Japan marches on building its MagLev line, 178 miles between Tokyo and Nagoya with four intermediate stations.  Most of the line will be in tunnels.  One way to avoid potential NIMBY problems, I guess.  Start of service is planned for 8 years from now.  Then on to Osaka - 98 miles.

The first 4 1/2 minutes or so...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAPYin4MMPI

 Do you really feel like you're floating...gliding?  At 310mph?

[York1]

Gramp

At the same time as we talk about potential routes here, Japan marches on building its MagLev line, 178 miles between Tokyo and Nagoya with four intermediate stations.  Most of the line will be in tunnels. 

Why not here?  Aside from landowners, can you imagine the years that will be used by the lawyers and the environmentalists if this were attempted in the U.S.?

[Flintlock76]

Environmental study after environmental study after environmental study, and all the millions of dollars paid out to firms specializing in the same.

Call me a cynic, but it sounds more like a protection racket than a sincere attempt to save the planet.

If Al Capone were alive he'd say "Jeez! Why didn't I think of that?"

[Erik_Mag]

NittanyLion

I'm convinced that "the interstates" is a red herring. Passenger rail travel peaked in the 20s, well before the first shovel of dirt moved on any interstate. Cars were crushing it that early. 

Cars and buses were indeed competing with passenger trains in the 1920's, but the interstates did have an effect. Case in point, the AT&SF San Diegan trains were well patronized prior to the completion of I-5 in the 1964-65 time frame. Traveling on US-101 involved going through the downtown area of several coastal cities, with most of the route still intact (main exception is through UCSD).

[Convicted One]

CMStPnP

you can take the same high speed train route and get high speed train to stop at the skipped stations and maintain the 150 mile distance by skipping the stations the first train stopped at (that would be cool wouldn't it?) in which case the station stops would be 75 miles but served by different trainsets?

Interesting concept...alternating limited stop runs.   Seems like that would build an awful lot of overhead into the  plan. Now you got me wondering how many runs per day they would normally schedule, Pittsburgh to Chicago to Pittburgh?

I'm betting they won't turn even the first shovel of dirt on this during my lifetime.

[Overmod]

[quote user="CMStPnP" I would say at least 150 miles.   Regional trains can run on or near the same route and stop at the skipped stations or you can take the same high speed train route and get high speed train to stop at the skipped stations and maintain the 150 mile distance by skipping the stations the first train stopped at (that would be cool wouldn't it?) in which case the station stops would be 75 miles but served by different trainsets?[/quote]

Problem is that intermediate pairs may not line up, so a passenger boarding on one 'series' would either have to get off at one of the 'common' stations (like 72nd or 96th on the IRT) or actually go back from the destination (likely killing any advantage from higher speed).

Something I was bouncing around in the '70s involved the use of semiautonomous TVM as then planned, combined with trains of MUs - at that time married pairs of Metroliners.  Take for example an express going west out of Penn; it might stop at Newark and Iselin to receive passengers, with a subway-like platform division directing people to cars/sets by destination city, then run express to Washington.

Renember slip coaches?  The rear of the train slips and goes into the stop at 30th St, picks up passengers, then can run them express to Washington or make flag stopping as needed.  Another married pair slips at Wilmington; another at Baltimore.  All recombine into a set with their automatic couplers in Washington, to repeat the idea going back.

This gives full speed for the 'through' contingent and best speed for the others with a single carded departure.  The trick worked in reverse at 1970s traffic levels, but of course would be a problem now.

[BOB WITHORN]

So, why do we need HSR? Everyone keeps comparing the US to a bunch of small countries that are not as large as most of the states in the US. Seems like it would be fun to ride but why spend the money? Wouldn't it be more effective to invest in bettering the existing network with better train/auto grade seperation etc. to allow the existing equipment to actually perform at designed speeds?

[Overmod]

Very little of the 'existing network' is suitable for true HSR, even if the track were extensively rebuilt or 'remanufactured' with a TLM from the ballast up.  I suspect that most of the necessary regrading and curve elimination would of necessity include the grade separations as part of the (expensive!) work.

Grade separation or vastly improved grade-crossing security is necessary, as you note, even for 110mph operation (which, sustained properly, is ample for most of the current corridor services).  One of the problems is that many, many legacy communities on ROWs have grade crossings that physically can't be eliminated or remediated without colossal civil engineering; most of the communities concerned won't see any measurable real benefit from faster trains, so don't expect them either to 'do their fair share' or vote regionally to authorize the expense.  

There are corridors that would be viable with HSR (or 125-150mph HrSR) that couldn't be effective with slower 'achievable average speeds', and it is interesting to consider how the bill to develop them should be apportioned between local, state, Federal, and 'real-estate tie-in' interests.  An organized program a la the high-speed ground-transportation initiative of the mid-Sixties might be effective in getting the ball rolling, too.

[Overmod]

Very little of the 'existing network' is suitable for true HSR, even if the track were extensively rebuilt or 'remanufactured' with a TLM from the ballast up.  For example, most of the historic projects with heavy grade separation are 'low-grade' (with compensated curvature that is likely too heavy even for full tilt) rather than higher speed per se.  I suspect that most of the necessary regrading and curve elimination would of necessity include the grade separations as part of the (expensive!) work.

Grade separation or vastly improved grade-crossing security is necessary, as you note, even for 110mph operation (which, sustained properly, is ample for most of the current corridor services).  One of the problems is that many, many legacy communities on ROWs have grade crossings that physically can't be eliminated or remediated without colossal civil engineering; most of the communities concerned won't see any measurable real benefit from faster trains, so don't expect them either to 'do their fair share' or vote regionally to authorize the expense.  

There are corridors that would be viable with HSR (or 125-150mph HrSR) that couldn't be effective with slower 'achievable average speeds', and it is interesting to consider how the bill to develop them should be apportioned between local, state, Federal, and 'real-estate tie-in' interests.  An organized program a la the high-speed ground-transportation initiative of the mid-Sixties might be effective in getting the ball rolling, too.

[York1]

It's fun to dream of a beautiful, sleek high speed rail system crossing the country, with happy passengers enjoying the beauty of the countryside.

That's all it is -- a dream.  And with our present situation, that's all it will remain -- a dream.

1.  We have the best system of airlines in the world, which can transport huge numbers of people long distances in a short time.

2.  We have one of the best highway systems in the world, reaching nearly every city and town in the country.  It allows us the freedom to go comfortably where we want, when we want, and at a low cost compared to Europe.

3.  We have a huge environmental lobby, funded by some of the richest people in the world, which on the one hand advocates for clean high speed transit, yet which has teams of lawyers that will oppose and tie up in court any efforts to build such a system.

4.  We have an innate respect for property.  Our nation was founded in part because of a respect and protection for private property.  Some countries mentioned in the video, such as China, have no such respect.

5.  We have no real national feeling that a new system is necessary.

 

[JPS1]

York1

 We have no real national feeling that a new system is necessary. 

Or to put a slightly different spin on it, there is no real market demand in most parts of the country for high speed passenger trains.  

[York1]

Sorry for the long posts.  I have nothing else to do today.

My little town (population 7,000) voted in 2008 to set up a quiet zone.  We have five double-track BNSF crossings, with between 40 and 70 trains per day, mostly coal trains.  The engineering studies were done, a ½¢ sales tax was levied, and the engineering work was begun, with a total projected cost of $580,000.

2008!  As of May 13, 2019, two of the crossings have been finished.  No work has even begun on the other three, and the trains still use horns at the two finished crossings.

Eleven years.  Why?

1.  Engineering studies, with environmental impacts of the re-engineered crossings took a long time.  Because we sit on a huge aquifer, anything that involves turning over a shovel of dirt guarantees protests from environmentalists.

2.  Liability arguments between the county and the town over one of the crossings.

3.  County objections to one of the crossings because the installation of the crossing signals would limit the width of farm implements using the road.

4.  The railroad has no real interest in doing this, even though the town was bearing the cost, so they do not even respond to the town's efforts.

So here we sit, 11 years and counting, paying sales tax which disappears into the general budget, and we face the possibility this single project probably won't be finished in our lifetime.

 

Now let's suppose it's decided there will be a HSR coming through.  Our town obviously is not large enough to have it stop here.   What possible reason would we have in supporting this, especially after all the headaches, wasted time, and lack of progress in doing something as simple as redoing several crossings?

Can you imagine environmental protests against new rail lines?  The protests over straightening existing lines or regrading sections.  And we are in the middle of nowhere.  Imagine what the protest will be in scenic areas, or areas with endangered wildlife.

[Overmod]

JPS1

Or to put a slightly different spin on it, there is no real market demand in most parts of the country for high speed passenger trains.

I do think we should recognize, however, that there's no CURRENT real market demand.  We're a nation that by and large doesn't know what modern HSR could provide, so we judge by memory (and both memory and current Amtrak reality are pathetic).

I suspect there may be some of the same effect noted for highways, where emergent demand rapidly scales up to full utilization of a new road even where prior traffic counts indicated less than full use of existing plant (the canonical example in college transportation courses, years ago, being the Santa Monica Freeway parallel to Olympic Boulevard).  

The problem remains that the initial capital outlay to get even remotely close to the point meaningful numbers of people 'take the train' is (as Carl Sagan liked to say) 'billyuns and billyuns' more than any political entity would throw at the segment.  Instead of safer social(ist) or 'green' initiatives with greater perceived political bang for the buck.  We won't take up what private enterprise left to its own devices would produce on the requisite national scale (far more than a Brightline or TC).

 

Or, for that matter, if even a 100% take rate, by the people who can afford seats on the trains run on an American HSR system, would produce enough political clout to justify the costs involved in providing the system...

[York1]

Overmod

Or, for that matter, if even a 100% take rate, by the people who can afford seats on the trains run on an American HSR system, would produce enough political clout to justify the costs involved in providing the system...

 

And that's exactly why I grow so tired of reports like the video that started this forum topic.

We are not Europe.  I, for one, don't want us to be like Europe, or China, or Japan.  The video asks why those other places have HSR and we don't.

We don't because we don't want it.  We have something we like better.

[charlie hebdo]

York1

We are not Europe.  I, for one, don't want us to be like Europe, or China, or Japan.  The video asks why those other places have HSR and we don't. We don't because we don't want it.  We have something we like better.

Says the guy in sparsely populated Nebraska, where there are probably more livestock than humans.  However, most Americans live in urban areas and many would benefit from and want HSR, if they ever knew what it could be like, as Overmod quietly stated.  Fortunately, many Americans are not so parochial, as more and more get a sampling of everyday travel on modern passenger rail systems (not just HSR) in Europe, Japan, China, etc.

[zugmann]

York1

We don't because we don't want it. We have something we like better.

Who is "we"?  Nebraska?

 

 

[diningcar]

Are we learning anything from the California fiasco?

[diningcar]

sorry for the duplication

[York1]

charlie hebdo

York1

We are not Europe.  I, for one, don't want us to be like Europe, or China, or Japan.  The video asks why those other places have HSR and we don't. We don't because we don't want it.  We have something we like better.

 

 Says the guy in sparsely populated Nebraska, where there are probably more livestock than humans.  However, most Americans live in urban areas and many would benefit from and want HSR, if they ever knew what it could be like, as Overmod quietly stated.  Fortunately, many Americans are not so parochial, as more and more get a sampling of everyday travel on modern passenger rail systems (not just HSR) in Europe, Japan, China, etc.  

 

Why, yes, there are more cattle than people in Nebraska.  Next time you eat a steak, you can thank us.  However, we pay our taxes just like everyone else.

"many Americans are not so parochial".  Really?  How many?  Where is the huge groundswell to raise taxes to pay for a European-style system?  Where are the people who would support drastically altering the American landscape to build the system?

If people in urban areas who "would benefit from and want HSR" want it so badly, then more power to them.  Let them pay for it.  I'll wish you good luck with that one.

By the way, I moved to sparsely populated Nebraska from a large city.  I don't think there are as many people as you think willing to pay for and live next to more rail lines.

[York1]

zugmann

  York1

We don't because we don't want it. We have something we like better.

 

 

Who is "we"?  Nebraska?  

 

"We"?  In our country, if enough people wanted HSR, there would be congressmen willing to work on this, there would be companies begging to build it, and there would be people demanding that their taxes be raised to pay for it.

I moved to Nebraska from a big city.   I didn't hear of a great groundswell of support for any more mass transit than was already in place.

[diningcar]

Are we learning anything from the current California fiasco?

[zugmann]

York1

If people in urban areas who "would benefit from and want HSR" want it so badly, then more power to them. Let them pay for it. I'll wish you good luck with that one.

Willing to have your state give up its farming subsidies as well?

[York1]

zugmann

 

 

York1

If people in urban areas who "would benefit from and want HSR" want it so badly, then more power to them. Let them pay for it. I'll wish you good luck with that one.

 

 

Willing to have your state give up its farming subsidies as well?

 

 

You bet, as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs.

Besides, we're not asking for hundreds of billions of dollars so someone can ride a train instead of flying or driving.

[BaltACD]

York1

 

zugmann 

York1

If people in urban areas who "would benefit from and want HSR" want it so badly, then more power to them. Let them pay for it. I'll wish you good luck with that one. 

Willing to have your state give up its farming subsidies as well? 

You bet, as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs.

Besides, we're not asking for hundreds of billions of dollars so someone can ride a train instead of flying or driving.

Ah!  the current story of the USA.  If I don't directly and personally benefit from it - RIGHT NOW - I'm not going to pay for it.

Enviornmental regulations - imagine wanting to breathe unpolluted air and drink unpoisioned water how totally archaic a thought.  Will farmers turned their fields into super fund sites by their aniti-enviornment actions?  Will farmers recreate the Dust Bowl conditions of the 1930's?  

[zugmann]

York1

You bet, as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs.

Somehow I doubt everyone is on board with that one.

Although considering the importance of aquifiers to your state, your scoffing at environmental regs is intriguing.

[charlie hebdo]

York1

as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs.

Ever wonder why people consume less and less beef (and chicken) here?  Why more people have turned to grass-fed beef minus growth hormones and antibiotics?  Non-GMO products?  Obviously the market is there for healthy foods. In this day and age, people are willing to spend more for healthier foods but more and more folks are fed up with subsidizing corporate farming. It might have made sense in the depression, when we mostly had small family farms of ~100 acres.  Times change.

[BOB WITHORN]

If the Gov't stopped paying the farmers, all we would hear is the yelling about the high food prices in the stores and restaurants. Another "catch 22".

[BOB WITHORN]

Boy is that 'non- GMO' blown out of proportion!  I especially like the signs that proclaim 'organic'.  If it grew it's organic!!!  The world will starve without GMO products and the railroads won't much corn to haul.

[York1]

BaltACD

Ah!  the current story of the USA.  If I don't directly and personally benefit from it - RIGHT NOW - I'm not going to pay for it. Enviornmental regulations - imagine wanting to breathe unpolluted air and drink unpoisioned water how totally archaic a thought.  Will farmers turned their fields into super fund sites by their aniti-enviornment actions?  Will farmers recreate the Dust Bowl conditions of the 1930's?  

1.  I have no problem paying for something that would really benefit the country.  However, the payoff on this one is ridiculous.  California HSR continues to hurt your cause.  $77 Billion (probably $90 Billion) estimate right now, for 200 miles.  And for what benefit?  So that we can be more like Europe?

2.  Farmers don't spit out here without filing a 42-page form for the EPA.  Do you really think today's farmers would pollute their own land?  They know more about pollution control than anyone else.  They know more about soil conservation and preserving the land than you give them credit for.

[York1]

charlie hebdo

York1

as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs.

 

 Ever wonder why people consume less and less beef (and chicken) here?  Why more people have turned to grass-fed beef minus growth hormones and antibiotics?  Non-GMO products?  Obviously the market is there for healthy foods. In this day and age, people are willing to spend more for healthier foods but more and more folks are fed up with subsidizing corporate farming. It might have made sense in the depression, when we mostly had small family farms of ~100 acres.  Times change 

 

1.  Non-GMO?  There's no such thing.  Humans have been crossbreeding and genetically modifying plants since ancient times.

2.  Corporate farming is a non-issue.  When you read that over 90% of farmland is corporate-farmed, you instantly get the idea that some large nefarious company somewhere is plowing the landscape.  The vast majority of farms are still family farms.  The family has formed a corporation for tax and liability reasons.   Nearly every farm in my area is corporately owned, and those corporations are completely owned by the farming family.

[charlie hebdo]

Per capita beef consumption reached its peak in 1976 - 94.1 lbs.  2018?  57 lbs. A real growth industry, down 39.4%.

[York1]

charlie hebdo

Per capita beef consumption reached its peak in 1976 - 94.1 lbs.  2018?  57 lbs. A real growth industry, down 39.4%.  

 

And what does per capita beef consumption have to do with HSR?  You were the one that brought up the whole livestock issue:  "Says the guy in sparsely populated Nebraska, where there are probably more livestock than humans. 

So if we lower beef consumption, we can then have our HSR system?

[charlie hebdo]

Instead of posting non-scientific erroneous statements, try telling the public what is in non-organic, GMO foods.

A few choice substances: 1. the use of the neurotoxin extraction agent, hexane. 2. glyphosate, linked to kidney disease, birth defects and breast cancer 3. use of growth-promoting ractopamine, which is linked to cardiovascular disease. 

[charlie hebdo]

York1

 

 

charlie hebdo

York1

as soon as you drop the environmental regulations that increase farming costs.

 

 Ever wonder why people consume less and less beef (and chicken) here?  Why more people have turned to grass-fed beef minus growth hormones and antibiotics?  Non-GMO products?  Obviously the market is there for healthy foods. In this day and age, people are willing to spend more for healthier foods but more and more folks are fed up with subsidizing corporate farming. It might have made sense in the depression, when we mostly had small family farms of ~100 acres.  Times change 

 

 

 

1.  Non-GMO?  There's no such thing.  Humans have been crossbreeding and genetically modifying plants since ancient times.

2.  Corporate farming is a non-issue.  When you read that over 90% of farmland is corporate-farmed, you instantly get the idea that some large nefarious company somewhere is plowing the landscape.  The vast majority of farms are still family farms.  The family has formed a corporation for tax and liability reasons.   Nearly every farm in my area is corporately owned, and those corporations are completely owned by the farming family.

 

1935 average farm size 154.8 acres; 2016, 442 acres, almost triple, 41% of farms have sales over $500K, with average size ~2300 acres.  So much for the little family farm.

[York1]

charlie hebdo

1935 average farm size 154.8 acres; 2016, 442 acres, almost triple, 41% of farms have sales over $500K, with average size ~2300 acres.  So much for the little family farm.

If you reread my post, you'll notice I didn't say anything about the farm's size.  I talked about corporate farming.  Yes, farm size has increased.  

And before you make too much of that sales figure, try figuring in the cost of the equipment, seed, fuel, and taxes.  That's why farms have grown.  It would be impossible to survive on a small farm.

[York1]

charlie hebdo

Instead of posting non-scientific erroneous statements, try telling the public what is in non-organic, GMO foods.

A few choice substances: 1. the use of the neurotoxin extraction agent, hexane. 2. glyphosate, linked to kidney disease, birth defects and breast cancer 3. use of growth-promoting ractopamine, which is linked to cardiovascular disease. 

 

 

I assume this comment is not aimed at me.  I don't recall posting any "non-scientific erroneous statements" about organic or GMO foods.

Again ... how does any of this have anything to do with the discussion of American HSR?

[York1]

This discussion has really gone off the deep end, and for that I'm sorry.  I posted my comments about why I thought HSR in our country was not something to be pursued.  You guys obviously disagree.  That's fine.

And GMO foods, farm size, and hick farmers poisoning the air, land, and water really have nothing to do with it.

[charlie hebdo]

I apologize also.  The thread subjects were connected, if barely.  One fact directly related to HSR is this: In 2012 the federal government spent over $20 billion on subsidies to farm businesses, 39% of the 2.1 million farms receiving them. That $20 billion is an unnecessary pork barrel of the worst sort.  If it were used for passenger train improvements, that would be an investment in the future.

[diningcar]

with all of the diverse discussion I notice no one wishes to talk about California's  very current, complex and expensive situation

[Convicted One]

diningcar

with all of the diverse discussion I notice no one wishes to talk about California's  very current, complex and expensive situation

 

We kinda did that already a few months ago over in the "Passenger" section.

Nobody could come up with a reasonable answer to the question "if somebody wishes to earn $15/hr working at McDonalds in San Fran,  while living on the cheap in a quonset hut out in the middle of the high desert,  why do they deserve a subsidized commute to boot?"

[Gramp]

I think this whole discussion can really be sourced in the watershed year 1913. The 16th amendment was ratified then, allowing the federal government to tax people’s income without paying attention  to the population of each state. With a couple other events that year, what was set into motion was policy that supports the federal government in our time as the “great provider”.

To me, the great provider ethic yields the California HSR mess. In contrast I look to the Pennsy’s building of the Hudson River tunnels plus Penn Station.

This is one reason I am so interested in and a supporter of what Texas Central is trying to do.  Our country needs “generators”, not “providers”.

As an aside, I don’t like when word meanings are hijacked.  “organic” is muddled to mean “bad pesticide-free“ now.  Dumb and dummer.

My 2 cents. One for the postcard, one to mail it.

 

 

[Falcon48]

I'm late to this party.  But let me make an observation, for what (if anything) it may be worth.

If a given corridor has no or minimal passenger rail service today, it's not going to be a good candidate for HSR.  My understanding is that most of the European HSR corridors were important passenger corridors with multiple trains per day long before they were upgraded to HSR (notice I say "corridors" not lines - I recognize that an HSR line may not precisely follow the non-HSR line, but the major markets will be the same). 

Now look at the California fiasco. For many decades, the only rail passenger service between Los Angeles and San Francisco has been one train per day in each direction.  So, we are expected to believe that there is, nonetheless, a huge unfulfilled demand for rail transport that would miraculously materialize if a zillion dollars were spent on an HSR line?  Something like this could only be conceived in a state that has legalized pot.    

[BaltACD]

Gramp

I think this whole discussion can really be sourced in the watershed year 1913. The 16th amendment was ratified then, allowing the federal government to tax people’s income without paying attention  to the population of each state. With a couple other events that year, what was set into motion was policy that supports the federal government in our time as the “great provider”.

To me, the great provider ethic yields the California HSR mess. In contrast I look to the Pennsy’s building of the Hudson River tunnels plus Penn Station.

This is one reason I am so interested in and a supporter of what Texas Central is trying to do.  Our country needs “generators”, not “providers”.

As an aside, I don’t like when word meanings are hijacked.  “organic” is muddled to mean “bad pesticide-free“ now.  Dumb and dummer.

My 2 cents. One for the postcard, one to mail it.

While the Income Tax is one thing.  The real defining moment was when Eisenhower signed the Interstate Highway legislation in 1956 with 90/10 federal/state funding to create the Interstate system.  At that same relative point in time Japan was begining to undertake the Shinkasen high speed rail system as they were starting to reach economic 'normalization' after the war, the European countries were also starting the reach economic normalization and making plans for their futures, not just recovering from the destruction of the past.

The USA made one choice, other countries made a different choice. The 'land grab' that was required for the Interstate system, in relative terms precludes a second land grab that would be required to build and implement real HSR.

[Gramp]

Baltacd, your observation is well taken. 

I should add one of those other 1913 events - the 17th amendment. Allowed senators to be elected by popular vote rather than be selected by state legislatures.   A natural check on spending disappeared because up until then, state legislatures had to foot the bill of increased spending. The states lost their control over the senate. Both the houses could pander directly to the electorate. The federal government slowly took over many state powers, and gained the upper hand.

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

Much of the push for direct election of United States Senators (the Seventeenth Amendment) was the result of the corruption involved in the selection of Senators by the various state legislatures.  Mark Hanna (and many others) were pretty free with "campaign contributions" and less thinly veiled incentives to gain and hold their Senate seats.

[Convicted One]

BaltACD

The USA made one choice, other countries made a different choice. The 'land grab' that was required for the Interstate system, in relative terms precludes a second land grab that would be required to build and implement real HSR.

Balt, maybe that is the best answer.

For all it's flaws and short comings, the highway system is, (for the most part) "open access", so taxpayers have less objection to supporting it than they would paying a king's ransom to build a system that somebody else is going to control via a farebox. America loves it's "freedom",  rah! rah! and all that.

Perhaps if the expanded toll road system concept gains momentum, that might change some minds? 

[BOB WITHORN]

I'm one of those that likes the freedom of an automobile. I'm not taking a train if I can drive. I like the trip and I don't have to view all the slums to get there, I get to choose my route.

[zardoz]

Falcon48

Something like this could only be conceived in a state that has legalized pot.    

Right! Much better would be all the wonderful ideas that are forthcoming from legislatures populated with well-past-their-prime fossils who are soaked in whiskey.

[Gramp]

 

Convicted One

For all it's flaws and short comings, the highway system is, (for the most part) "open access", so taxpayers have less objection to supporting it than they would paying a king's ransom to build a system that somebody else is going to control via a farebox.

Perhaps if the expanded toll road system concept gains momentum, that might change some minds? 

 

Convicted One,

I’ve wondered about the full rollout of self-driving vehicles.  An administrative state’s dream. Millions of vehicles to control. 

[charlie hebdo]

zardoz

 

 

Falcon48

Something like this could only be conceived in a state that has legalized pot.    

 

 

Right! Much better would be all the wonderful ideas that are forthcoming from legislatures populated with well-past-their-prime fossils who are soaked in whiskey.

 

 

Last I looked, California is hardly the only state to legalize marijuana. 10 states + DC have legalized for recreational use and another 23 states allow varying medical uses.

[Euclid]

Gramp

 

 

Convicted One

For all it's flaws and short comings, the highway system is, (for the most part) "open access", so taxpayers have less objection to supporting it than they would paying a king's ransom to build a system that somebody else is going to control via a farebox.

Perhaps if the expanded toll road system concept gains momentum, that might change some minds? 

 

 

 

Convicted One,

I’ve wondered about the full rollout of self-driving vehicles.  An administrative state’s dream. Millions of vehicles to control. 

 

Yes, I think this will be the dark side of self-driving cars.  They will also be self-regulating in every imaginable way.  You just register your trip plan, and then climb aboard and ride.  It will be your personal mass transit. It will keep track of your mileage fee which will vary according to where you drive, the time you drive, and the purpose of your trip.     

[BOB WITHORN]

Euclid, a very scary thought indeed

[Overmod]

Euclid

It will keep track of your mileage fee which will vary according to where you drive, the time you drive, and the purpose of your trip.

Much the same system that has prevailed with 'road tax' in England for decades.  (They had, and perhaps still have, a similar system for 'broadcast' television!)

The truly dark and alarming part is that (doubtless partly justified by 'improvements to the service') the system will take all sorts of supervisory audio, video, and metadata records as you drive, and stream them to an ever-widening pool of 'joint venture partners' and other "value stream augmentors" ... probably including your insurance company, which will helpfully remind you about every jot and tittle of the near-zero-defects maintenance regimen an autonomous vehicle really ought to have.  Oh, and stream you all sorts of directed advertising and 'helpful opportunities' as you drive.

Think of it, a whole nation of inside- and outside-facing cameras accessible by people you really don't want to have information on you, or who really don't have your personal best interest at heart.  What's left of real railroaders by then will be laughing to see how we like it.

[Murphy Siding]

Overmod

 

Euclid

It will keep track of your mileage fee which will vary according to where you drive, the time you drive, and the purpose of your trip.

 

 

Much the same system that has prevailed with 'road tax' in England for decades.  (They had, and perhaps still have, a similar system for 'broadcast' television!)

The truly dark and alarming part is that (doubtless partly justified by 'improvements to the service') the system will take all sorts of supervisory audio, video, and metadata records as you drive, and stream them to an ever-widening pool of 'joint venture partners' and other "value stream augmentors" ... probably including your insurance company, which will helpfully remind you about every jot and tittle of the near-zero-defects maintenance regimen an autonomous vehicle really ought to have.  Oh, and stream you all sorts of directed advertising and 'helpful opportunities' as you drive.

Think of it, a whole nation of inside- and outside-facing cameras accessible by people you really don't want to have information on you, or who really don't have your personal best interest at heart.  What's left of real railroaders by then will be laughing to see how we like it.

 

  I'm not so certain that you didn't just describe the internet.

[54light15]

Me, I'm waiting for everyone to be microchipped. Think of the opportunities for businesses to rake it in! "Notice how those chippies have head of the line privileges? How I hate them." 

[JOHN PRIVARA]

HSR rail in the US doesn't exist now because the government doesn't own the railroad infrastructure.   The US had HSR from the late 1930’s until the 1950’s, but there was no way to transition from private investment to the public investment required to make improvements to that HSR infrastructure.  So, the investment stopped and the rest is history.   The French government kept investing, and so did the Japanese (and, the rest is history).

Maybe if the government owned the NYC right-of-way in the 1900’s, by the 1950’s there would have been a railroad infrastructure scam that matched the Interstate highway and airports scams which were just getting rolling.  Too bad, it would be interesting to see a Great Steel Fleet of Budd built HSR trains.   Unfortunately, the 1950’s private railroads missed-out on one of the best building scams in history. 

[Overmod]

The closest the United States ever got to actual HSR during the period in question was some possibly-apocryphal high speed on grossly inadequate track with grossly inadequate equipment, probably peaking in the immediate postwar years up to the imposition of the ICC order post-Naperville that reimposed the ATS/ATC limits of the Esch Act strictly.   Even 125mph was a wild dream, only achieved in brief fits and starts if at all.

Orders of magnitude more capital required to do the actual thing than any American private railroad would consider putting into its infrastructure under contemporary taxing and regulation.  (Or, probably, otherwise).  The idea of medium-speed (100mph running, as with the Hiawathas) was most of what 'serious' passenger operations would get to.

It's an interesting question as to what would happen if the government had 're-nationalized' the railroads in WWII, with some sort of extended compensation based probably on tax relief and deductions on freight operations, and probably establishment of something like Kneiling's 'iron ocean' for private operations.  A further likely precondition would be a 'strategic defense railroad' scheme to match the Interstate program, possibly funded by the same fuel tax system that established the Highway Trust Fund.

Of course it wouold have been expensively built out to the wrong standards, and then expensively rebuilt with concrete ties and then again when the concrete ties of that era 'failed to thrive'.  And equipped extensively with the wrong type of catenary in electrified sections, although I may be too pessimistic.  I doubt any practicable scheme the government could arrange, even in the absence of Cold War defense spending to get out of the wqke of the Depression, could have improved 'enough' passenger railroading around the country to replace the airplane and large personal automobile as travel alternatives ... as fast as it would have been practical to run Pullman trains fast.  Note the relative failure of passive tilt to thrive here, over the years, and the basic impossibility of making an active-tilt system with standards-compliant buff and draft standards.  So no 'adaptive reuse' of ridiculously-curved-for-HSR rights of way above what even ridiculous (and freight-unfriendly) supedrelevation could allow.  And I haven't even started on the grade-crossing problems, few of which could be solved in that era shy of full grade separation.

It may help the sense of indignation, if only a bit, to reflect on how inadequate even the Interstate construction budgets would have been in preserving the level of passenger service prevailing even as late as the middle Fifties.  (And to note that the airport at Cut Bank, that swallowed so much money that could have gone directly for railroad improvements, is closed and gone for lack of traffic...)

Yes, it would have been grand to see a fleet of Budd HSR trains.  Exactly what these would have been with '50s technology, though, is not exactly a pleasant thing to contemplate.  What runs very nicely at 100mph is in many ways grossly inadequate for 125mph; solutions wildly successful for 125mph (e.g. the British developments leading up to the HST) are grossly inadequate for 150mph, and the step from there to even entry-level HSR at metric-converted 186mph is at least as steep.  Note that a severe issue is the damage inadequate truck systems pose to any contemporary track structure that needs to remain freight compatible.

I think what you'd get by no later than the 1960s would be a colossal boondoggle, now of entitled vs. disenfranchised communities looking at what might reach toward billions of dollars of essentially lost money for maintenance and equipment designed to be even worse overripe technical tomatoes than Metroliners -- just begging for political 'reassignment' to things with greater clout with voters or organizing blocs. 

[JOHN PRIVARA]

Re: I think what you'd get by no later than the 1960s would be a colossal boondoggle/

Actually,  that's exactly what you DO want.  The US isn’t anything like Switzerland (or even France or Germany), it’s Italy (or Greece).   The best the country can do is a self-perpetuating money-pit exactly like the Interstates or the Defense Industry or Airports or Farm Welfare or Student Loans, but it would be OUR train scam.   In government, the scam is everything (actually, it's the ONLY thing, so if you aren't scammin' you ain't gettin' any loot).   

 

I would suspect if the railroads were nationalized in the 1920's, the resulting railroad bureaucracy (aka loot racking machine) would have been able to keep its share of the post WW2 loot when the free-money era started.

 

Re:  could have improved 'enough' passenger railroading around the country to replace the airplane and large personal automobile as travel alternatives

 

There's no need to "replace".   There are lots of cars and airplanes in Europe (and Japan), there just happens to be trains too.  Since the 1920’s railroad bureaucracies in Europe were fighting for their share of the loot.   That caused freeways and airport to develop slower.   (I'm not sure how the Europeans managed to keep the highway engineers from decimating their cities and destroying the peasant’s hovels, tho.  Maybe just the lack of loot prevented the destruction of the cities by forcing the highway engineer to by-pass the cities.   Just having congesting in cities aids trains.)

 

Oh well, now were stuck with Amtrak and train-foamers defending it like they are entitled to welfare because "everybody else gets a subsidy too".  

 

[Savage Tunnel]

York1

This discussion has really gone off the deep end, and for that I'm sorry.  I posted my comments about why I thought HSR in our country was not something to be pursued.  You guys obviously disagree.  That's fine.

 

 

And GMO foods, farm size, and hick farmers poisoning the air, land, and water really have nothing to do with it.

 

York1

This discussion has really gone off the deep end, and for that I'm sorry.  I posted my comments about why I thought HSR in our country was not something to be pursued.  You guys obviously disagree.  That's fine.

And GMO foods, farm size, and hick farmers poisoning the air, land, and water really have nothing to do with it.

 

You triggered the individuals on here that keep their Saul Alinsky playbook handy for every bloody controversial subject. 

[Overmod]

JOHN PRIVARA

I'm not sure how the Europeans managed to keep the highway engineers from decimating their cities and destroying the peasant’s hovels, tho.

I'm tempted to say that various Europeans, and the Eighth Air Force mentioned in another thread here, did a far better job of pre-decimating cities and destroying far more than hovels -- we had an amusing argument a few months ago on whether this assisted development of high-speed rail in cities so 'affected' (the conclusion being it did not).

One of the significant decisions that I think precluded American-style automobile development in many European countries is the intentional high price of motor fuel.  This skewed vehicle development toward smaller and lower-powered cars, already something of an early postwar priority, and kept operating cost for the used-car market relatively high.  Without a wide base of individual car owners who want cheap high-speed access 'anywhere they want to go' including presumably their work or any urban travel, there's relatively little ability for someone like a European Bob Moses to go crazy with the concrete linguini. 

To my knowledge, the Europeans did not develop the 'insolent chariots' model of buying new cars every year as a social convention, although I certainly think quite a few people tried.

Ultimately, though, I think the difference comes down to density and social patterns: it was easier for 'social-democratic' governments to maintain mass-transit systems and not complex roads accomplishing the same purpose.  In order to prioritize such a thing in the United States almost inconceivable amounts of money would have been required even had the necessary infrastructure (largely interurbans) been preserved as a basis, and it is difficult to imagine how the far more inconceivable amount necessary to modernize all these miles periodically would be.  In the meantime even the advantages of buses instead of 'traction' on all the routes that proved more economical (and convenient!) to operate that way are no longer financially sufficient in most communities, and they operate requiring what are essentially supply-balancing-demand subsidy allocation.

But the great argument here is about HSR, and there I think the argument has repeatedly been established that sufficient traffic over very long distances, combined with rational-expectations increased construction costs and various kinds of institutionalized NIMBYism, make it even more impossible at any era of American history than widespread electrification -- which at greater American scale would have been a dramatic prioritized project for a 'nationalized' railroad service in the first place.

On the other hand, we need to consider a world in which the economics of long-distance aircraft no longer apply, either.  I happen to agree with the argument that Cold War military developments highly subsidized development of turbine passenger aircraft, but this would surely be even more pronounced and direct in a prospective world in which government 'priority' in a large network of expensive high-speed railroads was assumed.

You'd also have to eliminate all the Holiday Inns, service stations, and other businesses that developed around the personal automobile as a means of travel.  The closest many people come to understanding this is traveling on some of the later Interstates, for example I-49 south of Shreveport in the first years after its opening, where you might go many miles without finding any convenient services.  Demand-driven development filled these things in, starting with motor courts, 'roadfood' and the like, and all this could be factored into the cumulative synergistic value of having a car that could access free good roads.  Much of this, too, appears to have been far less present in Europe -- I really don't know the extent to which the 'Drei an der Tankstelle' image in film actually translated into social practice in the prewar years, and I think there will be practical analyses of the extent to which it was tried in various areas and time periods 'across the pond' from the general time of the Wirtschaftswunder on.

[Erik_Mag]

Keep in mind that Europe had to import most of its oil, and thus European governments had an incentive to limit the use of oil though high taxes. The US was self-sufficient in oil up to the mid-1950's.

[Shadow the Cats owner]

Europe except for coal and wood has been shafted for easy access to fuel pretty much its entire exsistance.  Except for the Romanian oil fields there really isn't any oil in continential Europe.  Even the German's were making artifical oil in WW2 to feed their war machine.  Here in the USA we could survive today without OPEC and importing oil with our current production that has been discovered in the last decade and with modern technology.  Let alone our natural gas production that we actually have enough to export to Europe.  Then throw in coal reserves in the Powder River that are enough at current use to last 4 centuries plus other reserves across the nation and you can see why we are the Energy powerhouse in the World.  Also another reason why there is no HSR in this nation is very simple the trains in Europe for the most part are government owned and operated with some exceptions.  Here in the USA they are private companies aka run by corparations that got out of having passenger trains almost 50 years ago for a reason they lost money.  Even in the best times hauling mail for the US Government the passenger train long haul as fast as we ran them was a break even proposition.  

[Backshop]

Even if the US railroads/government had built "HSR" in 1950, it would have been obsolete/obsolescent by now.  Population patterns have changed drastically since then.  In 1950, only 28 of the largest 100 cities were west of the Mississippi River. Now, you only have to get to #48 to get 28 west of the Big Miss.  Phoenix in 1950 was number 98, two below New Bedford, MA, now it's #5.  How times have changed...

[Gramp]

"It's about time".  "It's about growth".

Received this from Texas Central yesterday:

https://www.texascentral.com/ridership/?utm_source=Master+List&utm_campaign=009b5b72da-WeeklyEmail_2018_1_5_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_e3e1b03971-009b5b72da-146842247

 

[Overmod]

Gramp

Received this from Texas Central yesterday:

Before commenting, another important reference is New">https://www.lek.com/insights/ei/high-speed-rail-profitability]New Routes to Profitabiliity in High-Speed Rail

Be careful to note a couple of things:

1) Exactly how many people who are traveling will be willing to spend the amount for a HSR trip to save 'an hour' alone?

2) blending 'probably' and 'definitely' in a percentage assessment of passengers is a bit like the weaselry in blended synthetic oil composition -- it could be 50% synthetic or 1% in the blend; do you trust a pitchman to tell the marks the actual number if it interferes with the pitch?

I do think it needs to be built without depending on faith 'they will come' once it has been.  I also understand why its promoters will be leaving no stone unturned when it comes to effective propaganda to get it built.  However, rational discussion probably hinges in part on working the seeds of truth out of the overripe pulp of press releases...

[Overmod]

Gramp

Received this from Texas Central yesterday:

Before commenting, another important reference is New Routes to Profitabiliity in High-Speed Rail - https://www.lek.com/insights/ei/high-speed-rail-profitability (Kalmbach is playing with the code again and embedded URL tags aren't working)

Be careful to note a couple of things:

1) Exactly how many people who are traveling will be willing to spend the amount for a HSR trip to save 'an hour' alone?

2) blending 'probably' and 'definitely' in a percentage assessment of passengers is a bit like the weaselry in blended synthetic oil composition -- it could be 50% synthetic or 1% in the blend; do you trust a pitchman to tell the marks the actual number if it interferes with the pitch?

I do think it needs to be built without depending on faith 'they will come' once it has been.  I also understand why its promoters will be leaving no stone unturned when it comes to effective propaganda to get it built.  However, rational discussion probably hinges in part on working the seeds of manipulation out of the already-overripe pulp of press releases...

[charlie hebdo]

Shadow the Cats owner

Europe except for coal and wood has been shafted for easy access to fuel pretty much its entire exsistance.  Except for the Romanian oil fields there really isn't any oil in continential Europe.  Even the German's were making artifical oil in WW2 to feed their war machine.  Here in the USA we could survive today without OPEC and importing oil with our current production that has been discovered in the last decade and with modern technology.  Let alone our natural gas production that we actually have enough to export to Europe.  Then throw in coal reserves in the Powder River that are enough at current use to last 4 centuries plus other reserves across the nation and you can see why we are the Energy powerhouse in the World.  Also another reason why there is no HSR in this nation is very simple the trains in Europe for the most part are government owned and operated with some exceptions.  Here in the USA they are private companies aka run by corparations that got out of having passenger trains almost 50 years ago for a reason they lost money.  Even in the best times hauling mail for the US Government the passenger train long haul as fast as we ran them was a break even proposition.  

 

The Germans have enough respect for actual science to move away from coal, even though they have huge reserves. If you are a AGCC denier, then you are part of the problem. 

[Overmod]

charlie hebdo

 

Shadow the Cats owner

Europe except for coal and wood has been shafted for easy access to fuel pretty much its entire existence...  

The Germans have enough respect for actual science to move away from coal, even though they have huge reserves. If you are a AGCC denier, then you are part of the problem.

With respect, you have completely missed her point.

If you look at why compound locomotives succeeded in France while they were largely ignored, or failed, here, and then why electrification was pushed so dramatically (and manipulatively) there to Chapelon's detriment, you will see evidence of the relative 'fuel starvation' in European practice.  Here in the United States in the time from the late '40s through the mid-'60s that we were discussing, fuel was cheap and available and hence the alternatives of large private-car operation and transport-aircraft operation were preferred to what was increasingly tired old Pullman sloggery and then money-losing mandated service.  In those days the academic concern, if expressed, had to do with prospective global cooling more than AGW; in fact, I remember one of the first 'warming' discussions started with a perfectly sanguine assessment (it was, in fact, the thing that first convinced me of the possibility of AGW in the first place, in the early '70s) that if fuel burning continued to increase at the rate typical of the 1960s, by 2050 or so the peak summer temperatures in the American midwest would be in the 140-degree-F range and as a consequence the bulk of North American grain production would shift to the Canadian Shield ... OK, ADM, get your checkbook out for seemingly-worthless muskeg ASAP...)

The Germans also have enough disregard for actual engineering to shut down their nuclear efforts for little better than political mountebankery reasons, despite the fact that their neighbor France makes the trick work reliably even with fehlern like Chooz B in the history.  It will be interesting to see whether or not the Germans understand that current approaches to 'renewable solar' have a (rather short!) fixed working lifespan before expensive servicing or replacement.  (Of course I'm all in favor of renewables if that's the way governments want to allocate both their expenditures and incentives, more power to them pun intended, but not with thorium-cycle levels of flackery and directed ignorance of key issues.)

But let's keep this on the historical level as the original discussion was framed.

[Flintlock76]

Several years back I asked former frequent poster Juniatha why the Germans converted some of their steam locomotives to oil-firing when Germany had such reserves of coal.  Her answer was German coal is good, but it's not great, oil firing produced greater BTU's and more efficiency in the locomotive.  Interesting.

As far as German technical expertise and know-how is concerned even they don't get it right all the time.  They pursued hydrogen as a fuel a while back and then gave it up with a shock when they saw how much it cost to produce it. 

And as Overmod said, don't forget the German political stew that's constantly bubbling.  Throw that into the mix and energy policy's certainly going to be effected in an effort to keep everyone happy.  An impossibility as far as I'm concerned. 

[Overmod]

Flintlock76

As far as German technical expertise and know-how is concerned even they don't get it right all the time.  They pursued hydrogen as a fuel a while back and then gave it up with a shock when they saw how much it cost to produce it. 

Ahem ... cough, cough, Coradia iLINT...

[Flintlock76]

Overmod

I should have specified, I was referring to hydrogen as an automobile fuel, as in pulling up to the "gas" pump and saying "Fill 'er up Fritz!"  

That was a bust as far as I know.  I wasn't referring to fuel cells.

 

 

Flintlock76

As far as German technical expertise and know-how is concerned even they don't get it right all the time.  They pursued hydrogen as a fuel a while back and then gave it up with a shock when they saw how much it cost to produce it. 

 

 

Ahem ... cough, cough, Coradia iLINT...

 

[Flintlock76]

What the hell happened to my post with a quote?  It's not supposed to be a sea of blue!

Clambake strikes again!  I don't like clambakes anyway, when I'm in the mood for shellfish give me mussels in marinara!

[Overmod]

Flintlock76

I should have specified, I was referring to hydrogen as an automobile fuel, as in pulling up to the "gas" pump and saying "Fill 'er up Fritz!"   That was a bust as far as I know.  I wasn't referring to fuel cells.

You could figure out most of the potential for hydrogen carrier fuel in ordinary automobiles by BMW converting a 12-cylinder 7-series as the poster child.  Even with trained minions operating the cryogenics, it wouldn't be long before the inevitable invisible-flame surprise.

What BMW did famously establish (and it has implications for companies like Tesla going forward) is that the 'first best use' of a fuel cell on an automobile is to supply the "parasitic loads" -- all of them -- on an advanced motor vehicle, especially one with a large amount of critical 'vehetronics' that are electrically controlled or driven. Cryohydrogen has an advantage in that no complex reformer is required to fuel the requisite-size (about 5kW as I recall in the prototype) unit, and the vehicle can be happily inhabited with all systems running even in a closed garage or adjacent to NIMBY neighbors.  Then (as with the SPV2000) all the power of a conventional hybrid drivetrain can be directed to the road wheels at any time needed, with the formal combustion engine actually shut down (subject to being kept prewarmed) as much of the time as possible -- this adds dramatically to most real-world measures of fuel consumption and hence grams of emission.

Of course this still doesn't justify pretending to make hydrogen the main-engine fuel.  Unless the current secret agenda to make particulates from GDI engines as nastily regulated as the counterparts from DI diesel engines ... and I am concerned that science will actually establish precisely the basis for it ... succeeds in making liquid fuels that are cost-effective to distribute in the current supply chain.  

[Overmod]

Flintlock76

I should have specified, I was referring to hydrogen as an automobile fuel, as in pulling up to the "gas" pump and saying "Fill 'er up Fritz!"   That was a bust as far as I know.  I wasn't referring to fuel cells.

You could figure out most of the potential for hydrogen carrier fuel in ordinary automobiles by BMW converting a 12-cylinder 7-series as the poster child.  Even with trained minions operating the cryogenics, it wouldn't be long before the inevitable invisible-flame surprise.

What BMW did famously establish (and it has implications for companies like Tesla going forward) is that the 'first best use' of a fuel cell on an automobile is to supply the "parasitic loads" -- all of them -- on an advanced motor vehicle, especially one with a large amount of critical 'vehetronics' that are electrically controlled or driven. Cryohydrogen has an advantage in that no complex reformer is required to fuel the requisite-size (about 5kW as I recall in the prototype) unit, and the vehicle can be happily inhabited with all systems running even in a closed garage or adjacent to NIMBY neighbors.  Then (as with the SPV2000) all the power of a conventional hybrid drivetrain can be directed to the road wheels at any time needed, with the formal combustion engine actually shut down (subject to being kept prewarmed) as much of the time as possible -- this adds dramatically to most real-world measures of fuel consumption and hence grams of emission.

Of course this still doesn't justify pretending to make hydrogen the main-engine fuel.  Unless the current secret agenda to make particulates from GDI engines as nastily regulated as the counterparts from DI diesel engines ... and I am concerned that science will actually establish precisely the basis for it ... succeeds in effectively demonizing any liquid fuels that are cost-effective to distribute in the current supply chain.  

[Erik_Mag]

charlie hebdo

The Germans have enough respect for actual science to move away from coal, even though they have huge reserves. If you are a AGCC denier, then you are part of the problem. 

While there isn't much true scientific debate about the interactions of CO2 and LWIR (long wave infra-red), there is subbstantial uncertainty (and thus debate) about how much warming will be caused by a given increase in atmospheric CO2. A straight gray body analysis suggests ~1C for a doubling in CO2, while 4.5C projection assumes a series of feedbacks that are open to debate.

Other aspect of CO2 induced warming is that it will show up more as an increase in minimum temperatures as opposed to increases in maximum temperatures. The radiative forcing from CO2 is small compared to radiant energy from the sun, but is more significant at night.

As a final comment, Mars has about 25X the CO2 for a given surface area than the earth does now and is a pretty cold place (albeit further from the sun). If CO2 was a potent a greenhouse gas as some think it is (most important greenhouse gas on earth is water vapor). FWIW, I know Venus is hot, but it has oceans worth of CO2 in its atmosphere.

[Paul Milenkovic]

What people are forgetting is how automobile-centric Western Europe is.

Last time I looked into the breakdown of intercity travel, Amtrak was at .1 percent of total intercity passenger miles, motorcoach buses at 1 percent (a large portion of that may be charters and not scheduled Greyhound or Megabus), airlines at 10 percent, with the remaining nearly 90 percent being personal cars and light-duty trucks.

In Western Europe, the breakdown was 20 percent public modes with a full 80 percent private autos.  The 20 percent public/common carrier slice was divided nearly equally between trains, airlines, motorcoach buses and yes, boats of various kinds.  For the people saying motorcoach buses are no substitute for a train, the Europeans patronize each of these modes at a multiple of motorcoach service in the US and a high multiple of Amtrak.  For people saying airline transport is wasteful or unpleasant, it is a large, growing segment in Europe.

As to the subsidies, yes the US funding level of Amtrak is just crumbs.  The Europeans, however, spend public money on the scale of the US Federal Highway Trust fund to support trains, yes, a 50 times greater level of service than Amtrak but also for about 50 times the money, still only supporting a 5 percent slice of their intercity passenger mile demand.

As to the recurrent arguments "if we just had the will, we could have European-style high speed trains", the State of California, which by itself would be one of the world's top economies were it an independent country, has had the political will to build an HSR. 

Its prospects don't look very bright right now, not for reasons having anything to do with the advantages or disadvantages of a train, as such, but for reasons having to do with having turned our nation's backs to the Edmund G "Pat" Brown or Robert Moses steamroller approach to large projects.  We value people's rights more than we value having an HSR -- this is what Thomas Friedman's famous admiration of China was all about.  China is an authoritarian country (Friedman was admiring the Chinese for this) where things can still get steamrolled, and they have many miles of HSR.

[charlie hebdo]

The usage by the public of rail in Western Europe, population 365.8 million, (France, Germany, Belgium, Netherlands, Italy, Austria, Denmark, Switzerland and the UK) in 2017 was 434.6 billion passenger kilometers. The US was 10.6 billion passenger kilometers for a population of 327 million.

In terms of total ridership, in those counties above plus Portugal and little Luxemburg, the number is 8305 million. The US was 527.78 million.

The modal share (excluding tram and metros) for railway transport of people ranges: 

Swiss 17.2%

Austria 11.5%

Denmark 10.1 %

UK 9.6%

France 9.5%

Germany 9.0%

Netherlands 8.8%

Belgium 8.0%

Italy 6.1%

Spain 5.6%

Portugal 4.1%

Luxemburg 4.6%

US 0.3%

So in most of Western Europe, the share is higher than the 5% Paul stated.

 

One more stat, passenger kilometers per capita:

Swiss 2431

France 1298

Austria 1245

Belgium 1009

UK 981

Germany 959

Netherlands 940

Italy 780

Spain 460

US 80

So the question is this: would the share of people using passenger rail in the US be higher if the services were there?  I would suggest they would. Yes, it would cost a lot of money and require major structural changes. But so do roads and airports. To do nothing will simply be another example of the failure here to keep infrastructure up to date. Failure to do this will not have a positive impact on our economic strength as a nation.

[GERALD L MCFARLANE JR]

Convicted One

 

diningcar

with all of the diverse discussion I notice no one wishes to talk about California's  very current, complex and expensive situation

  

We kinda did that already a few months ago over in the "Passenger" section.

Nobody could come up with a reasonable answer to the question "if somebody wishes to earn $15/hr working at McDonalds in San Fran,  while living on the cheap in a quonset hut out in the middle of the high desert,  why do they deserve a subsidized commute to boot?" 

 

Actually that is an easy one to answer...because you can't live in San Francisco on $15/hr when your rent is easily $2000/month for a tiny studio apartment...if you can even find a place to rent.  Let alone trying to find a place to buy to live in, and yes, even all those tech types like to eat McDonald's every once in a while...otherwise there wouldn't be any in The City.

As for someones earlier comment about $77 Billion for 200 miles, that $77 Billion would've covered the entire line from Los Angeles to San Francisco, not just the Central Valley portion, and at one time it did include the cost of train sets, but apparently they removed that from the estimates at some point in the past.  So far the biggest cost besides all the studies and consultants has been land acquisition, and that's because this state refuses to have a law on the books allowing eminant domain for public work projects(that doesn't pay out at commercial rates, but the bare minimum required for purchase).

As for those that don't want to compare us to Japan or Europe and say they don't want to be like China...I have news for you, we are exactly like China, with a few exceptions(besides Govt.) and one of those is the willingness to spend money on public works projects...besides the fact that shortly they will have more influence around the world than that of the United States...think about that for a moment.