charlie hebdoYork1 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.
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 John
sorry for the duplication
Are we learning anything from the California fiasco?
York1We don't because we don't want it. We have something we like better.
Who is "we"? Nebraska?
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
York1We 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.
OvermodOr, 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.
JPS1Or 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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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.
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.
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.
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).
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?"
GrampAt 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.?
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?
For most, by the time you drive to MCI you are already well on your way to OMA :)
CMStPnPI 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.
^^^ 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?
CMStPnPThe 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.
OvermodNote 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 OneWhat 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.
BaltACDThe 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?
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?
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.
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 )
BaltACDThe 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"?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.