HIGH-SPEED RAIL SERVICE

[Anonymous]

Germany, France, Japan and other countries with high speed rail are smaller than many of our states. The distances and time factors make air travel impractical for many trips. In the US, we make those trips in the car because there is no viable alternative.

Start with the short corridors, keeping in mind that not everyone wants to go from one end to the other. It should be more convenient to board a high speed train than to get to an airport. A 2 hour schedule from Detroit to Chicago means little if one can only board in Detroit or Chicago. To be successful, the corridors must not only serve the core of major cities but must also provide convenient, hassle free access to the airline system for long distance travelers. This does not mean get off the train, haul your bags to the airline check-in counter and wait. Once the airlines see high speed rail as a feeder rather than a competitor progress will ensue.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by DTrainguy

Germany, France, Japan and other countries with high speed rail are smaller than many of our states. The distances and time factors make air travel impractical for many trips. In the US, we make those trips in the car because there is no viable alternative.

Start with the short corridors, keeping in mind that not everyone wants to go from one end to the other. It should be more convenient to board a high speed train than to get to an airport. A 2 hour schedule from Detroit to Chicago means little if one can only board in Detroit or Chicago. To be successful, the corridors must not only serve the core of major cities but must also provide convenient, hassle free access to the airline system for long distance travelers. This does not mean get off the train, haul your bags to the airline check-in counter and wait. Once the airlines see high speed rail as a feeder rather than a competitor progress will ensue.

Good points, I never thought about it that way.

The costs involved in spanning this much bigger country really drive up the cost per terminus served, expotentially. Making each "link" between cities served more costly to build, more costly to operate,and a further "stretch" to break even than in ANYof the currently existing systems

[Supermicha]

I think the ideas are good. the problem is, for distances over 400 kilometers, the plane is faster. in germany we had raillines with good conditions also 50 years ago, so they were only modernized. in the usa, you need to build ne hs lines. and that is expensive. and would somebody ride the trains? how long would atrain from dc to frisco nee with 300 kilometers per hour? and how long does a plane need?

Micha

[rrnut282]

Forget the fuel tax to fund the HSR network, as it is self-defeating. By using a 2cent fuel tax to fund it, as more people stop driving to ride the train, less money would be available to fund expansion of HSR. Until the US government weens itself of the gas tax and institutes a rational tax reform, any chance at a sustainable funding mechanism is very slim.

[Anonymous]

Signalling systems that only allow 79 mph top speeds and grade-level crossings are the major impediments to h.s. rail service in U.S.
The NYC proved in 1966 that the standard rail technology of that day could handle it, example being the New York Central main line that runs between Butler, Indiana, and Air Line Junction (west of Toledo), Ohio—the longest multiple track railroad line in the U.S.—68.49 miles. At that time, the line consisted almost entirely of standard, 39-foot sections of 26-year-old bolted 127-lb/yard Dudley Modified rail (with one short four-mile portion of continuously welded rail). The M-497 jet-powered RDC-3 got up to over 190 mph but was under orders to go through the timing point around 180 mph so the U.S. rail speed record stands at 183.85 mph instead of 190+ mph.
Most TGV and Japanese service is on roadbed that doesn't have grade-level crossings. True, not all. But, the most developed lines have no crossings.
The h.s. tests last summer in southern Illinois showed that h.s. service is possible, but that the signalling systems have to be in-cab and highway crossings have to be eliminated to make such service a practical reality.
Fixing the signals and getting rid of the grade-level crossings will cost far less that making dedicated high-speed corridors from scratch--and we can have such service available in shorter time.
I would think that it would be in everybody's interest to get rid of the grade-level crossings anyway. If we did, there'd be no need for Operation Lifesaver programs. I bet the reduction in insurance rates would cover some of the costs of the revisions needed.

[Anonymous]

I do support HIGH SPEED RAIL I got an idea GERORGE EL STUPIDO BUSH GIVE ALL the $87 Billion Dollars for IRAQ to HIGH SPEED RAIL from Chicago to St.Louis, Los Angeles via San Luis Obisbo to San Francisco, Chicago to MInneapolis, Dallas to Houston, Los Angeles to Phoenix, Chicago to Detorit, Cleveland to CInciattai via Columbas and Chicago to Cincattai

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

I do support HIGH SPEED RAIL I got an idea GERORGE EL STUPIDO BUSH GIVE ALL the $87 Billion Dollars for IRAQ to HIGH SPEED RAIL from Chicago to St.Louis, Los Angeles via San Luis Obisbo to San Francisco, Chicago to MInneapolis, Dallas to Houston, Los Angeles to Phoenix, Chicago to Detorit, Cleveland to CInciattai via Columbas and Chicago to Cincattai

I second that motion![8D][:D][:)][8D][:D][:)][8D]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by TheAntiGates

And REALLY, who wants to go coast to coast in 16 hours, if you can fly there in 4? I might do it once, just to say I did, after that it would seem Like 12 hours down the drain, and I suspect this would be a popular perspective, time being all valuable to most people, so after the novelty wears off, the public gets stuck with a high maintenance item that nobody uses? Seems like I've seen this scenario unfold once before, and private industry depended on a public bailout then, the only thing that's changed is we don't know who they are (yet, if ever) this time.

GATES, my good man--so good to see ya. I see you're in rare form as usual! [:D]

Actually, travelling coast to coast would be cool--very cool. Although I must agree with you that it's not a trip that everyone would want to take on a 'have-to' basis, it would be intriguing for perhaps more folks than we realize. As one writer indicated, not every one would be traveling the entire stretch each trip. Personally, I would appreciate such an option--if for no other reason than I dislike planes. Surely I can't be the only one? HSR, nationwide, is a 'doable' thing. All that remains is commitment--from public and private sources, as well as Americans showing a willingness to support such a massive undertaking via our tax dollars. Heck, I'll even toss in an extra $50 here and there![8D]

[daveklepper]

Again, isn't all this billion to be spent on Fuelcell-Hydrogen research and development from Government funds both (1) extremely wasteful since hybrid technology can do the job faster cheaper and more efficiently, and (2) a direct subsidy to automotive interest that everyone would yelling ouch about if were directed to private railroads? Wouldn't the Billion over the five years proposed by the Government ( some handed to you know who already) do a lot for Amtrak and give us some practical, OK just 125 mph, corridors outside the northeast? If there were every hour departures for the 2-1/2 hour trip Chicago - St Louis and St. Louis - Kansas City, wouldn't people ride the train instead of flying? And freight service would get better because of the better track, also? Dave

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by daveklepper

Again, isn't all this billion to be spent on Fuelcell-Hydrogen research and development from Government funds both (1) extremely wasteful since hybrid technology can do the job faster cheaper and more efficiently, and (2) a direct subsidy to automotive interest that everyone would yelling ouch about if were directed to private railroads? Wouldn't the Billion over the five years proposed by the Government ( some handed to you know who already) do a lot for Amtrak and give us some practical, OK just 125 mph, corridors outside the northeast? If there were every hour departures for the 2-1/2 hour trip Chicago - St Louis and St. Louis - Kansas City, wouldn't people ride the train instead of flying? And freight service would get better because of the better track, also? Dave

You know Dave, even if HSR service criss-crossing the country is a pipe dream, I agee with you that we ought to at least have more high-speed rail corridors. The NE benefits from ACELA service; why can't we have Amtrak owned and operated corridors between Chicago and St. Louis, as well as Chgo-Milwaukee-Minneapolis? What about HSR between running between Oakland, CA up to Seattle? There are many 'hotspots' that could be targeted for high speed rail. The route that the California Zephyr follows, or the Empire Builder for that matter, will probably always be considered 'cruise routes'. Fair enough; many people who take those trains are in no particular rush and also enjoy the incredible views as you travel closer to the mountain ranges. But having to deal with the hassle of security checks...and the waiting...and actual take-off of airplanes from airports for a relatively short journey is a major inconvenience. High speed trains for these routes would be highly effective and, I believe, supported by riders.

[brilondon]

QUOTE: Originally posted by SuperChiefFan

QUOTE: Originally posted by Doggy

I do support HIGH SPEED RAIL I got an idea GERORGE EL STUPIDO BUSH GIVE ALL the $87 Billion Dollars for IRAQ to HIGH SPEED RAIL from Chicago to St.Louis, Los Angeles via San Luis Obisbo to San Francisco, Chicago to MInneapolis, Dallas to Houston, Los Angeles to Phoenix, Chicago to Detorit, Cleveland to CInciattai via Columbas and Chicago to Cincattai

I second that motion![8D][:D][:)][8D][:D][:)][8D]

Motion carried most likly by a huge majority if not unanamously