You want High Speed? Go back to 1935.

[Jack_S]

Increasing speed rapidly runs you into the law of diminishing returns. Over a 500 mile trip an increase of 10 MPH from 50 MPH gains you 1 hour 40 minutes. An increase of 10 MPH from 100 MPH gains you 28 minutes. The higher your "base" speed the smaller the benefit of any increase.

Frictional drag increases in direct linear proportion to speed. Double your speed, double that drag. But aerodynamic drag increases in direct proportion to the CUBE of speed. Double your speed and your aerodynamic drag is 8 times greater.

When both these factors are considered it is obvious that there is a limited benefit to extremely high speeds.

Jack

[Anonymous]

Futuremodal, I suggest IMHO that rail weights impact a much smaller surface and against a equal hard surface.

Trucking has a large degree of impact on weights. However air ride suspesions, load distribution technology and other things like "Tires" helps to soften literally the impact on the pavement.

Welded rail has helped alot on today's heavy trains. And changes to Asphalt and different ways of building concrete than the old style 10 foot plate. Or jointed rail held together by bolts.

High speed rail use concrete ties with some sort of dampers to absorb the forces and they apparently "Fly" just as easily as that laden freight train that lumbers along.

Curves, Acceleration and braking at the wheel level changes the "weight" on the rail greatly. We see this also in cars and trucks. If you attempt to change the velocity or direction of a moving weight or mass too quickly, you will fail to maintain control. A skid, jacknife or derailment results.

Examine the blacktop pavement on heavily traveled roads at intersections. If you see many many truckers stopping at a particular light the pavement literally gets "Pulled" like a bed sheet out of smooth. It becomes wrinkly and very rough to ride on. You can also see this when truckers pull away uphill from a light where the forces applied to the wheel "shoves" the material out of smooth.

Airport runways are so strong in some cases many feet thick built on layers of subroadbed and robust enough to accept a 747-400 at 140 mph coming or going at 500 ton.

I have seen rail that literally tears to ribbons that leaves metal shards strong enough to cut your feet off thru the leather boots. THAT rail you dont want to have high speed. Also rail that has ties sunk so far into the dirt that all you see is half buried rail heads are not exactly conductive to speeds.

Hence my position in ripping up the current track and rebuilding the NEC stands. heck I suspect MAGLEV might become accepted technology while slowtrack uhh.. Amtrack ambles along at 125mph 10 years from now.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rr_guy

Ummmm... try telling an auto manufacturer his/her commodity is "low value."

Ummmm....coal, grain, lumber, e.g. low profit margin stuff make up the vast majority of tonnage moving by rail, hence the 25 mph 15,000 ton system we have today. Higher margin products move by truck or airfreight for the most part. We can't do much about the airfreight time advantage, but we could easily take the brass from the long haul truckers with HSR. And, as has been stated before low value stuff CAN move on a faster system, but time sensitive stuff CANNOT move on a slower system. Going faster makes the service comprehensively inclusive, but going slower makes the service comprehensively exclusive, and what's being excluded is the high value stuff.

[Anonymous]

rr_guy:

1. Isn't it more tangible that ever increasing axle loadings will have a greater impact on track wear and tear more so than the speed differential between 80 and 120 (at typical passenger train axle loadings)? Remember, the second greatest cause of accidents on railroads (after human error) is physical track failure. Since we are still stuck with the FRA's 79 mph max, we can only conclude that this increase in track failure is due to the heavier axle loadings. The laws of physics are fairly consistent, and what impacts highway wear and tear (heavier weights per axle, not vehicle speed) can be applied to railroads as well. To put it another way, for the same piece of rail, the potential for failure of that piece of rail is greater with ever increasing axle loadings rather than ever increasing speeds, e.g. wouldn't 71,500 lbs per axle at 80 mph cause more wear and tear than 55,000 lbs per axle at 120 mph?

2. The pipeline analogy - it's apt, yet one is hard pressed to explain why a heavy laden train HAS to run slower than a hot TOFC. Don't 129,000 lb grain trucks and 80,000 lb produce trucks run at the same speeds on the Interstate? 'Cept on those Rocky Mountain grades. There is no technological reason why coal trains, grain trains, TOFC's, and passenger trains can't run at the same speeds on the rails.

Finally, for the record - 120 mph in a 1949 Olds, possibly faster, but the odometer needle was buried.

[Anonymous]

drephpe's analysis is probably the best I've ever seen on this topic,but a couple of thoughts: First, even if the airlines paid for the aiport, controllers, etc., the capital outlay for going fast on the surface (i.e. tracks) will be higher than that of going through the air (2 miles of concrete and free air vs. hundreds of miles of relatively fragile track at over $1m/mile plus). Second, rail carriers are at their best when they run consistent, reliable service. Customers hate not being able to plan (don't you love it when the phone guy shows up early or late?). As for passenger trains in this country? The analogy, to me, are cruise ships. Nice to ride, but not really transportation in the modern sense (other than high density commuter districts). Or do people take a ship to Europe to ride excursion trains there?

Also, the difference, in terms of maintenance, between 80mph and 120mph is staggering, as the equations are not linear, first in terms of the energy required to run the equipment (squares as speed doubles) and, secondly, the infrastructure required to control said energy. Again, I'll refer you to dr's analysis.

Finally, the constraint on a railroad is the fact that it is pipeline. The slowest train(s) on a busy subdivision dictates the overall speed of that line, in one of two ways. Either everything moves at the same speed, which is consistent and easy on dispatchers, crew, etc. Or trains have to go into the hole, make meets, etc., etc., which results in the same average speed - on train covering the sub in 2-3 hours, while the low-priority train takes forever. Trying to overlay a high-speed network on the existing infrastructure is going to be a tough sell. And buying right-of-way in today's environment runs into problems with the NIMBY crowd or suddenly discovering the most valuable real-estate on the planet ("You want to buy a 200 foot wide strip of my land? Hmmm.....").

As for value of cargo - don't ever tell a utility that their train of coal isn't high value. Don't think in terms of 115-130 cars of coal. Think of one giant car, ala John Knieling's thoughts in the '70's. Also, when it comes to camcorders, TV's, etc., etc., etc., don't think boxcars (although they sometimes go that way) - think containers, as someone else on this site alluded.

Finally, just to brag - 210 knots in a Lancair is my record for a vehicle under my control.

[Paul Milenkovic]

The current 79 MPH Hiawatha Service (WisDOT, Illinois DOT, Amtrak) does Chicago-Milwaukee in 1 hr 32 min (92 minutes) with 3 intermediate stops. The slowest-running part is 18 minutes to cover 8 miles into Milwaukee downtown. The Midwest Regional High Speed Rail Initiative is talking about 1 hr running time using 110 MPH (peak speed) trains, but I am thinking that this will buy a 15 minute reduction to 1 hr 15 minutes, which jibes with old-time Hiawatha schedules.

The slow-speed running in an out of Chicago and Milwaukee is what slows you down, and I am also wondering what could be done by investing in high-speed turnouts and crossovers in place of buying all new trains to do the 110 MPH along with the positive train control required.

[daveklepper]

If I remember correctly, the Hiawatha non-stop time around 1952 was 85 minutes with diesel power, and the North Shore as posted earlier slightly under two hours. The standard North Shore trains were only a few minutes more than the Electroliners, and that because of an additional stop or two, not really faster running speeds. When conventional equipment was substituted for an Electroliner run, they still usually made the schedule, and I did once time a conventional North Shore train by the mileposts as mile in 40 seconds, 90 mph., slight downgrade, tailwind, all motor car consist.

[eastside]

In the '30s the scheduled time between Chicago and Milwaukee for the CMStP&P Hiawathas was 75 min. (68 mph). The C&NW had the same timing for its 400s. These were the fastest scheduled worked runs in the US. CMStP&P's Kuhler Atlantics could reach 105 mph in spurts with a load of 420 tons, and the sucessor 4-6-4 E's could hit 120 mph with twelve cars. The CMStP&P's engineers felt a schedule of 60 minutes could be attained, but because of a gentlemen's agreement with the C&NW, which could not match such speeds on their route, the CMStP&P never implemented such a fast schedule. I got this from a book by O. S. Nock.

[daveklepper]

Anyone for a change in track structure?

I've been trying to interest people (not trying very hard and certainly not so far succesfully)

The idea is this: A recent Acoustical Society paper indicate that elaborate tests have shown the rail actually flexes up and down between ties. That continuously supported rail will last longer and run quieter. Won't develop corrigations as easily.

The idea is the regular welded rail is held off the bottom of an inverted "U" or "pi" by a layer of very consistent high-durometer artifical rubber, with flange space between the rail and both sides of the U or pi. The sides of the U or pi act as double continuous guard rails. The base of U or pi, probably a pi, is great enough so the continuous area equals that of the ties, which are eliminated, with the upside down pi sitting directly on the ballast, and stainless steel or some other steel that has insignificant expansion and contraction with temperture changes screwed to the inside sides of the inverted pi acting as gauge rods every meter or two meters or so. The idea is a permanent track structure with far reduced maintenance and greater safety. The initial construction would probably cost a lot of money, but if mass produced it might end up being competitive. Nobody has gotten back to me on this, but I still think it is a good idea.

If it won't work, why?

[Anonymous]

I believed it took the Amtrack E60's about 4 miles to gain 100 mph.

[tree68]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

The differences between 100 and 120 mph really only is about a 4 miles every hour. Typical acceleration and braking on trainsets usually eat that right up.

In defense of HI2003 - While the difference between 100 mph and 120 mph is indeed 20 mph, throwing in starts and stops and the additional time needed for each means the difference in average speeds for a given trip at each speed won't be 20 mph. I don't know where HI2003 got the 4 mph number, but it's probably not far off the mark for at least some runs. Of course, the number of stops, and the length of the sustained maximum speed makes a difference, too.

[Anonymous]

The highest I have gone was close to 180 in a friend's modified car. The technology required to push a pontiac that fast was pretty high. Actually just excessive camshaft timing, strong stall converter, HUGE displacement etc... At one-eighty on a normal two lane road that has no other traffic is very fast indeed.

On today's roads 180 mph is too fast. You need to take the high speed and build it isolated from everything in the world except stations and necessary support. No one denies the technology exists Europe and Japan has done this for years.

I recall the NYC railroad mounted a Jet engine on a RDC and ran at 180 mph for a period. I dont think they wanted to do it again after that run.

Yes it is expensive. Nothing that has real value is cheap.

I second the fact that cars are "Cheap" my three cars are worth collectively less than 5,000 but feature the cruise control, air conditioning, space and other features that are "Needed" and they do the job fairly well at the speeds we run em at.

If I wanted to spend 300,000 for a specialized car that can run at very high speeds then I will have no place to run it safely. The USA would need to build highways based on the German Autobahn model and technology before I can travel regular at 150+

If I traveled to europe and rented a fast (Safe) car and ran 150+ in Germany I will have no problems at those speeds. The problem is not me being able to drive at speed. But rather the amount of "Demand" expressed by how many people are trying to get down that same highway.

Eventually things must slow down because there are too many people using the same highway.

Applied to trains, high speed rail:

http://www.newtrains.org/pages/354051/
http://www.sehsr.org/
http://www.floridahighspeedrail.org/
http://www.hsgta.com/

These are just a few sites on google that exist for highspeed rail. One is Europe, two is southern USA and the last one is a tech center where the designs happen.

America can solve the high speed rail provided they come up with the infrastructure, money and manpower to get the job done. One way or another we will have high speed rail in the future.

The Union Pacific already blasts thru my town at 80 mph with 120 car double stacks rocking and swaying across the crossing.. another 40 or more mph probably wont bother us provided we can keep the kids, livestock and errant cars off the track when they come thru.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

Anyone know what the best Chicago-Milwaukee scheduled times were (HIawatha, Electroliner, etc) back in the 1930's?

I read here http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy941205.html that the fastest time was 1:40. Over 90 miles that would be 54 mph avg.

When I worked the Turbo Trains the time was 1.32.
The Liners didn't start running on the North Shore until 1941. Best time was 1.58 including the "L", and street running in Milwaukee.
Mitch

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

Anyone know what the best Chicago-Milwaukee scheduled times were (HIawatha, Electroliner, etc) back in the 1930's?

I have an August 1946 Official Railway Guide that shows a fastest time of 75 minutes nonstop on the Milwaukee Road. I believe that this timing was maintained for several years.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Paul Milenkovic

Anyone know what the best Chicago-Milwaukee scheduled times were (HIawatha, Electroliner, etc) back in the 1930's?

I read here http://www.lib.niu.edu/ipo/ihy941205.html that the fastest time was 1:40. Over 90 miles that would be 54 mph avg.

[Junctionfan]

I don't see much need to go back to 1935 for high-speed. How much coal would they go through just to got up to 80mph never mind 100mph? Wouldn't increased speeds mean increased coal, water and sand refill stops?

[oltmannd]

I agree completely with drephpe and would add that the incremental approach would allow benefits to flow to the frt RRs in the form of added capacity and improved service - getting us more bang for our buck.

[oltmannd]

QUOTE: Originally posted by rr_guy

Ummmm... try telling an auto manufacturer his/her commodity is "low value."

Compare the value of a car on a $/lb or $/cu ft basis with a digital camera or an MP3 player or even a first class letter and see which is "high value". You might be surprised.

Certainly a finished vehicle is higher value than coal, but maybe not as much as one might think.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Overmod

QUOTE:
In the Acela thread I advocated true high speed in excess of 200+

Do you have any earthly idea of what is involved,and what it costs, to build and maintain trackwork for "200+" mph speeds -- whether or not running FRA-compliant trains on it -- as opposed to 120mph or even 150mph standards?

mudchicken will have some words with you, I think...

MC doesn't happen to be around, so I will.

The problem with high speed, in a most global sense, is that track construction and maintenance costs go up disproportionally (virtually exponentially) for speeds above about 110 mph. With maintenance this is a BIG, BIG issue, and not just to retain ride quality, although that's a big part of it. In layman's terms, think about how much better the track has to be for just a safe ride at 50 mph vs. 25 mph. The train can tolerate lots of differences in gauge, alignment and cross level at the lower speed. Now, double the speed again to 100 mph. Again, the track has to get a lot better--more than doubly better because the forces are going up geometrically, not linearly. Avoiding the math, above about 110, the amount of work to keep it that way starts to skyrocket--you need very frequent alignment and surfacing, cross level becomes a serious issue, and cant deficiency (the amount of bank in the curve) also becomes a major issue. It's no secret that the Shinkansen system puts thousands of track workers on the line every night. The old CB&Q racetrack segments used track crews devoted to just shimming the rails. In simple terms, the reason the NEC deteriorates so fast is the amount of slamming on it that the frequent high speed trains do. Now compare this to the LAX-SAN coast line segments that handle a modest number of effectively 90 mph consists, but require disproportionally less maintenance to keep the ride quality high. Same with the old ATSF racetrack.

Further, simple physics dictates that 150-200 mph services must be endpoint-oriented--you just can't accelerate and decelerate fast enough to get the intermediate stops, which in most markets constitute rail's greatest market potential (less competition, among other things). As an example, this exact issue constituted one of the fallacies of the ill-fated TX high speed rail initiative. In addition to producing a system that by nature competed 100% head to head with Southwest Airlines and nothing else, and assumed ALL airline passengers between the endpoints--INCLUDING THROUGH PASSENGERS WHO WERE ALREADY ON THE PLANE COMING FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE!!--were going to get off the plane and jump on the train, it also bypassed all of the intermediate markets with marginal or no air service, where 90-100 mph speeds compete overwhelmingly favorably against the car (which is where most of the corridor travel in the US is, anyway, even in the NEC--don't believe me, just go out and take a look at I95). The same is true for the (thankfully) dead LA-San Diego bullet train proposal (nimbys notwithstanding).

The net result is that you dump billions into plant and equipment to save 10-15 minutes on a 200-250 mile run over 90-110 mph track speeds, and at the expense of the intermediate markets where rail has a genuine lock over air and a fighting chance against the car. This is exactly what Amtrak has done for the past 34 years. (Just ask California how "enthusiastic" and "helpful" Amtrak was in the development of their successful, but slower, incrementally-developed regional operations). This is why many technical types, particularly in the hinterlands where they don't look with blinders on, see Acela and other similar high cost/low return projects (remember the Boston Metroliners?? nobody else does, either, because nobody rode them) as massive boondoggles. 200mph is just more cash down the toilet.

Probably the most succinct admission of the true cost of high speed came from, of all people, an Amtrak spokesman who admitted to the press a couple of weeks ago that the Metroliners go just as fast as the Acela, but cost a lot less to operate.

Now, that said, IF the US had arbitrarily adopted a national policy consistent with Europe's (whose systems were funded primarily by US taxpayer dollars, by the way) and was willing to pay the political and fiscal price for HSR infrastructure and equipment (most European countries are far more socailistic in transportation policy than the US) AND had kept the price of gas artifically inflated several times over our current price to guarantee market penetration, AND had even more heavily subsidized the airlines, AND had nationalized the railroads and treated them as public utilities to achieve social goals rather than as profit centers, THEN AND ONLY THEN could we rationally have developed these exotic technologies. We made exactly these kinds of political decisions regarding highways and airline policy, by the way.

It's ironic to note that the original HSR equipment was all based on existing US technology from the 1930's.

Want to compete against Southwest Airlines? Start another airline. They don't pay for the air they use, they don't float the note for the airports they fly into, or pay the salaries of the controllers who tell them where to go.

Want to build a successful rail passenger system? Absent a quantum leap in national policy, set your sights on market share you can obtain and maintain at a reasonable cost. Blowing by all your markets where there is no competition but the car doesn't get you there, even though it may look sexy at 150-200 mph.

[Anonymous]

Ummmm... try telling an auto manufacturer his/her commodity is "low value."

[Anonymous]

You also had a greater degree of superelevation in curves back then, when freight cars were grossed at 220k and max heights were well under 20'. As axle loadings and car capacity (via heightening) increased, superelevation had to be reduced, which resulted in lower speed limits around those curves. Add to that an increased emphasis on safety, elimination of double track in favor of single track with frequent sidings, lug happy diesels replacing high drivered steam, and the concept of warehousing while in transit as opposed to warehousing in an actual warehouse, and what you end up with is mile plus long trains of 15,000 tons of mostly low value commodities moving at a 25 mph average speed e.g. not quite compatible with time sensitive movements.

[Paul Milenkovic]

Anyone know what the best Chicago-Milwaukee scheduled times were (HIawatha, Electroliner, etc) back in the 1930's?

[CopCarSS]

QUOTE: and even a few mph above 120 starts to produce remarkably severe effects on things like guiding and suspension. (Ask the Pennsylvania T1 people!)

Overmod, while I trust everything you say, I thought the biggest problems with tha T1's was that they had a nasty habit of breaking the drivers loose above 120 mph. I thought there were some issues with the poppet valves used, too.

Really, all one has to do is think about driving their car, too, and the demands put on it as speed increases. Your points can be well made with automotive technology. Almost every car made today can make 80 mph (the H1 Hummer being the only possible exception that I can think of). By the century mark, the list is getting narrower. 120+ is still pretty elite territory. 150+ takes some real moxy (the highest I've made in the cruiser is 147).

Braking is most certainly a critical part of high speed travel, too, as you mentioned. Think about driving your car. How far does it take to stop from 20 mph? Not very far. How long does it take to stop from 100 mph? 5 times as long? I think not.

There's an awful lot that goes into making things move fast. And there's a lot of potential energy built up when it happens, too. The destructive force of a train moving at 120 mph? I'd really hate to think of the mess that would be.

Chris
Denver, CO

[Overmod]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar
The differences between 100 and 120 mph really only is about a 4 miles every hour.

Is this what PC reporters would refer to as "numerically challenged"?

The difference between 100 and 104mph is "4 miles every hour". I'm not exactly sure what form of dimensional analysis might even suggest a different crunching of the numbers... You might say that going 120 only gives you 20 more miles in each hour than going 100 -- but by the same token, for the 900-odd miles that, say, the Weed electric railroad from New York to Chicago would have run, that additional 20mph gives you a nominal 7-and-a-half hour trip instead of a 9-hour trip...

The point that folks often miss, though, is that the energy required for those "few" extra mph is not increasing in direct proportion. There are all kinds of steam locomotives that could run quite happily at 80mph. Dramatically fewer could reach 90mph economically. Almost none that weren't specially purpose-built will get above that 120mph figure (based on effective steam power alone) -- and even a few mph above 120 starts to produce remarkably severe effects on things like guiding and suspension. (Ask the Pennsylvania T1 people!)

The same is also true in the reverse direction, for braking. This was the origin of the big push for automatic train control in the years around the First World War, when passenger trains (especially, IIRC, on the New Haven) began to get into all kinds of trouble trying to stop from 80-odd mph with increasing consist weights.

QUOTE:
In the Acela thread I advocated true high speed in excess of 200+

Do you have any earthly idea of what is involved,and what it costs, to build and maintain trackwork for "200+" mph speeds -- whether or not running FRA-compliant trains on it -- as opposed to 120mph or even 150mph standards?

mudchicken will have some words with you, I think...

[gabe]

QUOTE: Originally posted by HighIron2003ar

Well, I dont know about the rest of you but I hear stories of steam runs at near 100 mph and able to do it because the hogger knows every inch of that rail and his engine. Add in some guts and glory with a iron hand on the bar mixed with a deaf ear to those who would be cowards that train got down the track very well indeed in the war years.

The differences between 100 and 120 mph really only is about a 4 miles every hour. Typical acceleration and braking on trainsets usually eat that right up.

In the Acela thread I advocated true high speed in excess of 200+

I found a record where the Illinois terminal had a collision with two of its interurbans that was so severe it actually killed 20-40 people. I know where the collission occurred and it is as flat and as open as you could imagine.

I think the Illinois Terminal fits your stereo type of your typical under-capitalized interurban. However, the only conclusion I can draw from this accident, is they had to at least go fairly fast not to have stopped in time.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

Well, I dont know about the rest of you but I hear stories of steam runs at near 100 mph and able to do it because the hogger knows every inch of that rail and his engine. Add in some guts and glory with a iron hand on the bar mixed with a deaf ear to those who would be cowards that train got down the track very well indeed in the war years.

The differences between 100 and 120 mph really only is about a 4 miles every hour. Typical acceleration and braking on trainsets usually eat that right up.

In the Acela thread I advocated true high speed in excess of 200+

[CSSHEGEWISCH]

I'm not sure that 80 MPH was average for steam. 100 MPH was a big deal but really wasn't as common as some of us would like to believe. Interurbans are similar, the really fast ones like North Shore Line, South Shore Line, Cincinnati & Lake Erie and a few others were the exceptions. The engineering standards on most interurbans were pretty low since most were undercapitalized and fast operation was just not possible.

[daveklepper]

It is really too bad the commuter subsidization didn't start earlier in time to save the North Shore. What would we give to be able to sit in that railfan seat at 85 mph going up the Skokie line from Demster Street to North Chicago Junction today!

I am also glad I rode a nonstop Hiawatha from Milwaukee to Chicago and remember the five minute power change at New Haven.

Then there was the Summer Sunday Only Sea Beach Express from 59th Street and 4th Avenue to Coney Island non stop and the 3rd Avenue El nonstop from 42nd to 106th Street -without the speed control signals that slow down so many express runs on the New York subway today. 45 mph on an el structure between buildings seems equal to 100 in the prarie.

I never rode the C&LE or the Indiana Railroad, but I did get something of a taste of that kind of operation on Lehigh Valley Transit's Allentown - Philadelphia "Liberty Bell" line.

[gabe]

Ironically, the NYT had an article to a similar affect concerning British steam and their current opperations today.

Gabe

[Anonymous]

When 80 mph was a avarage speed for steam, Express trains hit a hundred on regular basis and Interurbans really flew like bullets across the prarrie.
Acela! Smela!