The Express buses via the Turnpike on the Pitsburgh--Harrisburg route are about 2 hours faster if both meet their schedules. And cheaper than the train the last time I checked. The RR served larger intermediate areas of Greensburg, Johnstown, and Altoona have all gone through very hard times and the long term picture for them isn't promising. Lewistown used to thrive off the students from Penn State who took buses 30 miles to the Lewistown station but those days are long gone. Now the University helps subsidize direct bus service on Fridays and Sundays from State College to NYC (via I-80 so it only takes just over 4 hours), and to the Philly and DC areas--both of which have become much faster due to the final completion of all the scheduled major roadwork on US 22/322 between Lewistown and Harrisburg. (There's no question that not having the railroad run through State College is a big negative due to the size of the student population and that it is the only financially healthy and growing area of the state west of Harrisburg.)
I know an Amtrak supervisor and he's told me that they just don't see any market for a 2nd round trip between Pittsburgh and NYC (actually Harrisburg and Pittsburgh). If the Commonwealth of PA wants to subsidize it they will do it, but not otherwise. The chances of PA doing that are small right now because the estimated subsidy per passenger is substantial and the only real beneficiaies of the subsidy are the intermediate areas mentioned above plus the small towns of Latrobe and Tyrone.
The PA leg of the Keystone service works fairly well because of the population between Harrisburg and Philadelphia, its the fastest way between Harrisburg, Lancaster, etc. and downtown NYC, and its already electrified. But the population just isn't there west of Harrisburg.
As for the bus business, I'm friends with several of the College of Business Professors who specialize in transportation. They advise me that buses have various built in advantages for intermediate ground transportation. First, they are cheaper than RR passenger cars, second there is a resale market for them if in decent condition, third they can go anywhere there's decent highways so if one market doesn't pan out they can be switched to another route, fourth they don't really need stations built for them in the smaller towns, and fifth their labor costs are less. The USA hasn't directly subsizied commercial bus travel in the intermediate travel areas but the profs tell me that small subsidies, even in the form of tax breaks, could go a long way towards helping them serve this market. Of course, with the current high prices of fuel, it would only work for markets where the buses, like the airlines--especially the commuter ones, would run full or close to it.
Of course, buses just like Amtrak have been very hurt by the growth of the discount airlines and the effect they've had. Most of the curent US population has grown up with the airlines and is not interested in traveling longer distances on the ground when they can fly in a few hours and it isn't that much more expensive than the train or bus.
Samantha:
If you took my mention of you as an example as denigrating you or even your ideas, I apologize. It was not intended to single you out, and I did not invite or ask you to "bow out". I merely expressed curiosity about why you post here since every post that I have seen expresses the sentiment that rail is dead and we should move on. Basically, I don't understand why someone who feels that way follows the thread.
Others in here are offering suggestions on how to fix the things that are wrong with the current rail system.
To relate it to the original question, MY feeling is that the money infusion should be used to bring ONE high density route up to modern standards. Others in here feel that it would be better to improve the entire system with a more modest upgrade. Your suggestion seems to be that it's all wasted, because everyone wants to fly or drive.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
Alphas,
I have wondered why service has been downgraded to a single train. This had been a good market.
The current schedule serves more as an accommodation for the Capitol than for meeting more specific market needs.
I can only wonder whether ridership would pick up with a non-electric powered, Acela tilt train that might might provide a 4-hour schedule between Pittsburgh and Harrisburgh, and an under six-hour schedule between Philadelphia and Pittsburgh for same-day business. I know studies have been made; but I've never seen the results or the alternatives, such as tilt equipment, being considered.
Off hand, I say just buy the trains - they last three times longer than buses which should mitigate the difference in purchase cost (notwithstanding the current administrations's policy and regulation). The equipment can go into the NEC pool if improved service doesn't pan out.
I am bullish on improved rail sevice between Pittsburgh and New York and think that a third train from Cleveland could work.
While Amtrak's fleet is growing older, it still has some remaining service life.
No route improvements are needed. Just buying equipment is a no-lose situation. This is something low-risk that Amtrak could do with the extra money.
Phoebe Vet wrote: I merely expressed curiosity about why you post here since every post that I have seen expresses the sentiment that rail is dead and we should move on. Basically, I don't understand why someone who feels that way follows the thread.
I merely expressed curiosity about why you post here since every post that I have seen expresses the sentiment that rail is dead and we should move on. Basically, I don't understand why someone who feels that way follows the thread.
I did not realize that agreement with the orthodox view on passenger trains, if there is one, was a requirement to participate in these forums.
I have repeatedly stated in numerous posts that rail is an appropriate option for relatively short, high density corridors. Boston to New York to Washington, LA to San Diego, Chicago to Milwaukee, etc. are good examples where rail is a viable alternative to relieve highway and air traffic congestion. There are other possibilities.
I only favor rail if it can cover its variable costs in the short run and all costs in the long run. Otherwise, it is a welfare program. By the same token, all forms of transportation should be self supporting. See my post on transport subsidies.
For the fiscal year ended 2007, only five corridor routes were able to cover their variable operating costs (NEC, Illini, Illinois Zephyr, Washington to Newport News, and Pere Marquette). As a group, however, after application of the fixed costs, they lost approximately $495 million. A big chunk of this loss was the depreciation and interest associated with the NEC. Nevertheless, the net loss for the other state and corridor trains was $127.6 million.
Those who propose an expansion of passenger trains without showing a clear need for them, or how they would pay for them, other than with government handouts, don't strike me as builders. They strike me as consumers of government (taxpayer) monies.
Many of the posts seem to see only one side of the accounting equation (revenues) and miss the other side (costs). NARP, amongst others, talks about increases in revenues and riders, but it never talks about the millions of dollars that are lost each year because the revenues don't cover the costs
I was associated with a capital intensive industry for decades. We never started a project unless we had good numbers to show that there was a market for the output and had a workable program to finance it. None of our projects were financed with government money.
I take three or four Amtrak trips a year. This year, to date, I have taken the Sunset Limited from El Paso to Austin, the Pacific Surfliner (2) from LA to San Diego, the San Joaquin from Bakersfield to San Francisco, and the Capital Corridor from San Francisco to Sacramento. I have commented favorably on my trips in several postings.
VPayne,
I've considered the freight opportunity with intercity rail passenger service improvements in conjunction with the Chicago - Saint Louis corridor, now largely in the hands of the Union Pacific Railroad. It wasn't always so. The GM&O was acquired by the IC and faced downgrading. Eventually it was spun off to regionals before being picked up by the SP which, in turn, was acquired by the UP. For the period under a regional carrier, the questions beyond maintaining service were how could it be improved and how could it be financed.
I believed then a possible solution for financing construction of truly high speed passenger lines would be high speed intermodal where congruent with major freight "lanes." This would be more applicable outside the East and West Coast regions where the cost of dislocation would be a larger issue than topography. Population wouldn't support the intense frequencies that preclude capacity for freight abroad. Chicago - Saint Louis, Chicago - Twin Cities, and Chicago - Detroit proposals never considered more than hourly service.
Maybe pessimism comes with age and the fact that the national economy that was stuck in neutral is sliding backward. The US is conducting a costly war and growing world oil consumption is driving up the price. Financing for so ambitious a project as building very high speed rail lines is not foreseeable.
Limited resources limit solutions. I too think that existing rail infrastructure will provide the basis for future improvement opportunities. The reality is that few existing lines have alignments and stretches with no public or private crossings that would enable speeds greater than 110 miles per hour. In many cases, exploiting even this capability will depend on tilt technology. Easing curvature with re-alignment is costly; and extensive rebuilding may reach well beyond the additional revenue and social benefits from more riders.
Let's get out of the box on what high-speed freight can get by with.
The first thing that has to be discarded is the notion that an inexpensive 3-piece freight truck can be used. This gives you the proverbial feet of clay. This design becomes increasingly iffy over 70mph, and only less so with stability devices.
Wheels need to be inspected for wear more frequently and re-profiled or replaced more often. TALGO has a nifty system where whole trains can be run through a wheel shop.
Lateral motion control and long-travel springs are essential as much to soften impacts on the track structure, and resulting degradation of surface and line, as for a softer ride for the cargo. Passenger car trucks are designed with these features for high speeds. The same features are needed for freight trucks. Radial steering and tilt suspension can be applied as well. Passenger-like trucks can be put under inter-modal cars or highway trailers.
An 80,000 pound container or trailer is too much for a single axle, but okay for two axles.
Electronic braking can be applied as well.
The more difficult problem at higher speeds is air drag. This impacts the need for power and fuel consumption. Well cars leave a substantial air turbulence gap between containers. Multiple container sizes will not match every well or spine car. One solution may be a light weight, adjustable fiberglass or fabric cowling across the gap between containers. One seeming advantage of the RoadRailer concept is the close coupling of trailer and container-on-spine units.
Long-time Trains readers will remember John Kneiling touted the Tru-Train with fixed consists of cars and power modules. The idea of cab-power-car sets may have an application here. There is some similarity to gen-set locomotives.
HarveyK400,
To operate a 4 hour Pittsburgh to Harrisburg passenger train, even with tilt technology, would require much upgrading of the existing route including its signal systems. Its been reduced to only 2 tracks for most of the distance and there is heavy (and slow) freight volume over the mountains. No way can that amount of spending be justified for a couple of round-trip passenger trains. Note: I previously forgot to mention that one of the reasons for the success of the PA Keystone service is there is practically no freight on the line east of Harrisburg so no interference with the passenger service.
alphas wrote: HarveyK400,To operate a 4 hour Pittsburgh to Harrisburg passenger train, even with tilt technology, would require much upgrading of the existing route including its signal systems. Its been reduced to only 2 tracks for most of the distance and there is heavy (and slow) freight volume over the mountains. No way can that amount of spending be justified for a couple of round-trip passenger trains. Note: I previously forgot to mention that one of the reasons for the success of the PA Keystone service is there is practically no freight on the line east of Harrisburg so no interference with the passenger service.
I think you are being overly pessimistic. Four hours or so sounds feasible to me w/o much investment in signals or ROW. The RR is essentially 3 tracks west of Altoona (3 from Altoona to Conpit Jct, then 2 on the mainline plus the Conemaugh). If you crank the supereleveation up to 6" (from 4") and use tilt equipment, you could get over the road in decent shape. If you wanted to spring for some clas 5 track, there are some nice stretches where you could get to 90 mph. The whole line is cab sigalled - so no issue there.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
I doubt any North American railroad now has curve superelevation over three inches. This stems from FRA rules.
Trains had a rare technical article on this subject back maybe in the 1990's. I remember the Union Pacific's engineering officer saying in an interview that, ideally, they keep superelevation under two inches and allowing speed up to one-and-one-half inches over balance. The railroads' main concerns were overtuning high center-of-gravity cars and draw-stringing trains. With the increased car weight allowance of 286,000 pounds, the transfer of weight to one wheel may otherwise exceed the strength of the steel in the wheel and rail causing deformation. This is most often exhibited as plastic flow of metal, mushrooming, on the rail head beyond the field side.
Conventional passenger trains may be granted an FRA waiver from the over-balance limit of three inches, five inches in the case of the New York - Boston part of the Northeast Corridor. The same UP official said they allowed trains with all passenger cars equipped with outside bolster springs up to four-and-a-half inches over curve balance speed. These limits are more for comfort than from the risks of overturning and derailing or rail damage.
The Cascade TALGOs are limited to seven inches because of the locomotive. TALGOs are designed for nine-ten inches over-balance. The Accelas are designed for a higher over-balance, but are limited (6"?) by the clearance envelope with the adjacent track.
I quickly looked over the Google Maps aerial photos Pittsburgh - Philadelphia. Relatively few short stretches of curvature (or is curve the proper terminology? I lose track.) are less than two degrees which is good for 80 mph. Substantial sections have broader, but numerous curves that would allow some sustained 90mph running. While 110mph running may be attainable, it doesn't seem to be sufficient to justify the fuel consumption to accelerate for such short distances. Time permitting and without track charts, I'll do an air photo survey to estimate trip time.
HarveyK:
What you are calling "over balance" is also called "cant deficiency" by some in the industry.
I thought that as much as 6 inches of superelevation (cant -- raising of the outside rail above the inside rail) was allowed, but I believe you that freight railroads want to keep this to 2 inches, mainly to prevent stringlining and unusual wear patterns in freight service -- don't know if excess height cars are in any danger of tipping over even at 6 inches.
OK, I have a raft of questions. Do you know how much superelevation they have on the mainly-passenger NEC where stringlining of double-stack trains (under catenary no less!) is not an issue? The NEC limit, as you tell me, is 6 inches of cant deficiency -- is this split between 3 inches of cant compensation in the Acela tilt and 3 inches of drink cup slosh for the passengers? As I asked already, this 6 inches of cant deficiency is on top of how much superelevation?
I had heard that the passive pendulum suspension tilt on the Talgos allowed a max of 6 inches cant deficiency, split 3 in the suspension and 3 on the passengers. If they are allowed to run 7 inches, does it get split evenly 3.5 and 3.5, or do I have the proportioning on the Talgo suspension wrong? If they were to run Talgo at 10 inches, with a locomotive with low enough axle loadings to avoid the rail spreading problem with the F59 locomotive, would it be split 5 and 5? I heard that the Europeans allow as much as 6 inches of drink slosh (OK, 6 inches of uncompensated cant deficiency) while our FRA believes American train riders can only safely be exposed to 3 inches.
There is some reasoning why passive tilt (Talgo) is limited to much less tilt compensation than active tilt equipment. One is that active tilt can react much quicker -- if passive tilt were tuned that way, there may be a lot of pendulum sway entering and leaving curves. Another reason is that fully compensated cant deficiency could result in motion sickness, as you see the scenery bob up and down out the window, but you don't feel any side forces. I also thought that the amount of tilt compensation on Talgo was limited by their rather primitive arrangement of relying on the give in the air springs, placed on top of those "bed posts" connected to the roofline of one of the articulated cars. I also heard someplace that Talgo had some kind of airspring valving arrangement to port air from the inboard to the outboard spring and some kind of "semi-passive" control system to adjust the amount of tilt with those air valves -- urban legend or true fact?
I guess this is a long shot, but TurboTrain along with the late 1950's New Haven and NYC Train-X predecessor, has this torsion spring-compensated four-bar linkage roll center arrangement controlling the pendulum tilt -- the supports are well below the roofline, but the support arms, the crank and follower links of a four-bar linkage for those of you into that kind of thing, produce an effective roll center near the roof line. Does anyone know how much compensation was in TurboTrain?
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
HarveyK400 wrote: I doubt any North American railroad now has curve superelevation over three inches. This stems from FRA rules. Trains had a rare technical article on this subject back maybe in the 1990's. I remember the Union Pacific's engineering officer saying in an interview that, ideally, they keep superelevation under two inches and allowing speed up to one-and-one-half inches over balance. The railroads' main concerns were overtuning high center-of-gravity cars and draw-stringing trains. With the increased car weight allowance of 286,000 pounds, the transfer of weight to one wheel may otherwise exceed the strength of the steel in the wheel and rail causing deformation. This is most often exhibited as plastic flow of metal, mushrooming, on the rail head beyond the field side. Conventional passenger trains may be granted an FRA waiver from the over-balance limit of three inches, five inches in the case of the New York - Boston part of the Northeast Corridor. The same UP official said they allowed trains with all passenger cars equipped with outside bolster springs up to four-and-a-half inches over curve balance speed. These limits are more for comfort than from the risks of overturning and derailing or rail damage.The Cascade TALGOs are limited to seven inches because of the locomotive. TALGOs are designed for nine-ten inches over-balance. The Accelas are designed for a higher over-balance, but are limited (6"?) by the clearance envelope with the adjacent track.I quickly looked over the Google Maps aerial photos Pittsburgh - Philadelphia. Relatively few short stretches of curvature (or is curve the proper terminology? I lose track.) are less than two degrees which is good for 80 mph. Substantial sections have broader, but numerous curves that would allow some sustained 90mph running. While 110mph running may be attainable, it doesn't seem to be sufficient to justify the fuel consumption to accelerate for such short distances. Time permitting and without track charts, I'll do an air photo survey to estimate trip time.
NEC has 6" superelevation, too.
Harrisburg to Pittsburgh - You could do fairly well from Harrisburg to Huntingdon. Lots of slow stuff from Huntingdon to Tyrone, then a fast ride to Altoona. Slow up to Cresson, then a few decent stretched here and there to Pittsburgh. Agree that anything over 90 max is probably a waste.
Paul,
I'll try again - managed to almost complete a too-long reply when I inadvertantly zapped it. I need to make some corrections to my shooting from the hip as well.
Before the FRA and high center-of-gravity cars and loads, super-elevation of the curves was at the discretion of the railroad for the choice of speed and more revenue or of less revenue for lower cost, a sometimes desperate business. Risk management concerns have increased over the years as well.
Ideally, super-elevation should match train speed to minimize wear and degradation of surface and line. Compromises are needed with the expectation of trains stopping or with different service speeds such as for empty hoppers, intermodal, and passenger.
Accelerated degradation of track occurs with increased and asymetrical wheel loads from lateral forces added to the weight (the square root of the sum of the squares: I can't type in the mathematical notation). The shift of the load to either wheel often exceeded the strenght of the steel causing plastic flow, mushrooming, of metal and reducing rail head thickness. Even with advances in metalurgy and rail-making, the 286,000 pound car weight allowance pushes the limit.
The problem of over-balance is not so much from over-turning when static; but when moving. Changes in cross-elevation on curved track, already compromised by the super-elevation, can rock the car's center of gravity beyond either rail. This is why the cross-level deviation limits are more stringent for curved track.
The second factor in over-turning is wind, especially when gusty. This too can rock a car as well as push it beyond the point of stability, particulary where already compromised by super-elevation on curved track.
Engineering tables usually show the balance and 3 inch under-balance (cant deficiency) speeds for incremental curvature and super-elevation at least to 6 inches. This perpetuates the perception that such super-elevation may be more generally allowed.
When FRA rules first came out, super-elevation was not limited explicitly; but equivalent under- and over-compensation was limited to 3 inches unless a waiver petition was granted. Such is the case for the Northeast Corridor.
I recall that a waiver was granted to allow 5 inches cant deficiency on the former New Haven. Literature for the Amtrak universal cab signal equipment showed a 75 mph limit. More typical 2-degree curves with 3" super-elevation stay within the limit (4.78"). Quite a few 2.5-degree curves are present as well that would need 5" cant to keep the under-balance within 5" (4.84"). This is consistent with my memory of the extreme super-elevation on a trip east in the early 1970's.
I also remember the Trains article referred to in a subsequent posting where a Union Pacific engineering official mentioned that the railroad had allowed 4.5" cant deficiency for passenger cars with secondary outside bolster spring trucks. Presumably not too much coffee was sloshed.
In the Pennsylvania's heyday, GG-1s routinely hauled trains at 100-mph between New York and washington, DC. As with the Hiawathas closer to home, this only took 4" SE and 3" cant deficiency. FYI, the later Hiawathas had outside bolster springs.
I can attest to French National Railway practice in 1974. With the exception of all-reserved premium trains allowed 140-kilometers per hour (87-mph), passenger trains were limited to 120-kph (75-mph) on the Paris-Lyon-Marseilles. Seated on Le Lyonnaise, curves were as comfortable as in an auto; but standing or walking through a car was arduous, and involved leaning over the passengers in the aisle seats. Coffee didn't slosh; but it sure rose high on one side of the cup. The glass-smooth ride was reassuring as the train swept around curves on high bluffs overlooking a valley around Dijon - the mustard place. Here again, cars had outside bolster spring trucks.
Looking at the NEC with Google aerial photos recently, I wondered how 125-mph Metroliner speeds were possible with the frequent 1-degee curves. This would take 10.94" of compensation! While the original Metroliners did not have outside bolster springs, Amfleet does.
I recalled a track diagram of the NEC in Trains a few years back; and it seemed as if there were separate tracks for freight in places. It seems possible that 6" SE would permit these Metroliner speeds within 5" cant deficiency with a waiver; and separate tracks, where practical, were maintained for slower, non-premium, traffic. The 6" SE would allow 100-mph F40 and GG1-powered trains with only 1" cant deficiency.
Since the Colonial collision at Gunpow, freight trains are limited to 45-mph. Super-elevation of 1.5" for 45-mph freight trains results in a slight 0.08" over-balance; but allows 80-mph passenger and commuter trains with 2.98" cant deficiency. How would this correspond with current experience?
As I recall, despite tilt technology Acelas are limited to 5" cant deficiency due to clearance issues with close track spacing north of New York. While a more comfortable ride is provided, not much time savings was realized.
Acelas are designed for 7-degrees of cant deficiency, 6.94" for a guage of 4' 8-1/2". Super-elevation could be reduced to 4" on the NEC south of New York. 45-mph freight trains can run only 2.58" over-compensated on the same tracks. Track rationalization and maintenance savings may be possible. Other passenger trains can run as fast as 100-mph with a comfortable 3" cant deficiency.
TALGOs are designed for 9-degrees, 8.95-inches, of cant deficiency. The Cascades are limited by the ~263,000# F59s to 7" cant deficiency. With the weight shift, it's no wonder guage widening is a problem. A ~290,000# Genesis P42 would cause even more of a problem, and this is supposed to be the locomotive for the future?
With respect to active and passive tilt, I think you have some of it upside down. Passive tilting is virtually instantaneous and is smoothed by the momentum of the vehicle; but as you accurately point out it needs damping to minimize swinging. Active tilting is delayed in checking that the lateral force registered is not a transient tracking irregularity. This is minimized in systems (X-2000) where the forces measured in the car ahead are used more instantaneously with respect to entering and leaving curves. I have read little regarding the Fiat Pendolino system.
The TALGO support posts have been around for some time; but this does not deserve being called primative. There is elegance in its simplicity. My question is whether these posts impose undesirable unsprung mass. The accommodation of 9-degrees of cant deficiency is comparable to the X-2000 and greater than the Acela.
The TALGO suspension valving allows the air bellows to compensate for load; but prevent air from crossing between bellows to defeat the pendulum effect.
I admire the genius in the Train X/Xplorer roll linkage. As you know, this was adopted for the TurboTrain and died for reasons unrelated to the suspension.
alphas wrote: I know an Amtrak supervisor and he's told me that they just don't see any market for a 2nd round trip between Pittsburgh and NYC (actually Harrisburg and Pittsburgh). If the Commonwealth of PA wants to subsidize it they will do it, but not otherwise.
I know an Amtrak supervisor and he's told me that they just don't see any market for a 2nd round trip between Pittsburgh and NYC (actually Harrisburg and Pittsburgh). If the Commonwealth of PA wants to subsidize it they will do it, but not otherwise.
This sounds like the self-fulfilling prophesy to me. They don't see the demand because the schedule isn't that convenient, and so they say the demand isn't there.
There was a terrific example of this kind of thinking in the early 1990s in the Norfolk, VA area. They set up a bunch of "park and ride" busses, and then bitched because no one used them. But the problem was that their schedule was out of kilter. I lived out by the Greenbriar Mall, and had a wide variety of busses in the morning. But the last bus to Greenbriar left the Navy Base at 4:00 in the afternoon, and I generally couldn't plan on making that bus. So I would have had to take a bus to the Indian River Road stop and then taxi???! back to my car... NOT smart. But again, it was based on the perceived demand. To seduce people out of their cars, you have to give them a convenient alternative.
When I take the train from my home in CT to visit my family in State College, I am limited to about 2 trains which get me to NYC / Philly in time to catch the Pennsylvanian. I for one would take the train more often if I had a second train later in the day. They also need to get the railroad into State College. There USED to be trains that ran into State College in the days of the Pennsy. In fact, the bus station used to be in the old railroad station. Granted, they'd have to do some work on grade crossings, but where there used to be rails, there can be rails again. Part of Amtrak's problem is that their rails / trains miss some big population centers.
Connecticut Valley Railroad A Branch of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford
"If you think you can do a thing or think you can't do a thing, you're right." -- Henry Ford
With respect to active and passive tilt, I think you have some of it upside down. Passive tilting is virtually instantaneous and is smoothed by the momentum of the vehicle; but as you accurately point out it needs damping to minimize swinging. Active tilting is delayed in checking that the lateral force registered is not a transient tracking irregularity. This is minimized in systems (X-2000) where the forces measured in the car ahead are used more instantaneously with respect to entering and leaving curves. I have read little regarding the Fiat Pendolino system.The TALGO support posts have been around for some time; but this does not deserve being called primative. There is elegance in its simplicity. My question is whether these posts impose undesirable unsprung mass. The accommodation of 9-degrees of cant deficiency is comparable to the X-2000 and greater than the Acela.The TALGO suspension valving allows the air bellows to compensate for load; but prevent air from crossing between bellows to defeat the pendulum effect. I admire the genius in the Train X/Xplorer roll linkage. As you know, this was adopted for the TurboTrain and died for reasons unrelated to the suspension.
I didn't mean to denigrate the Talgo setup. Sometimes a minimalist engineering approach is better -- simpler, cheaper, more reliable.
As to why TurboTrain died, I concur that it had less to do with the suspension than other factors. Aviation Week, of all places, had an article on Amtrak's selection of TurboTrain 2, and it hinted broadly that Amtrak went with the French Turbo Liner, a more conventional powere car and coaches arrangement, over Sikorsky's TurboTrain 2 proposal because of the history behind TurboTrain 1. It will be interesting to see what Jason Shron's book says about the operational history of TurboTrain 1 -- I have seen blurbs where he claims that it had very high availability towards the end of its service life, but one has to admit it started out as a carbarn queen -- the explanation I had seen is that over the course of time, railroad mechanics managed to override many of the "trips" and "resets" and other "protection" mechanisms on the helicopter-derived gas turbine engines so they would not keep shutting down.
The main change in the proposed TurboTrain 2 was replacing a bunch of smaller turbines in each Power Dome Car with one bigger turbine. Another change was adding a Voith torque converter transmission to the power train. TurboTrain 1 was direct drive off the PT-6 free turbine stages, and the story I heard was that initial acceleration was tired dog slow. The Av Week article mentioned something about beefing up some suspension parts, however, as a result of the TurboTrain 1 experience.
If Talgo gets to be a big player in a North American train revival, again, it may have little to do with the unorthodox suspension and more to do with that Patentes Talgo SA is hungry for the business and may out-compete or out-market Siemens Semmering-Pauker-Graz.
On the subject of passive vs active tilt, apart from TurboTrain and Talgo, everyone else (Swedish X2000, Bombardier, Fiat or whoever does Pendolino, even the Hitachi tilt train) has gone with conventional two-axle trucks and active tilt. My engineering inclination (pun intended) is to go with passive systems when possible on account of their simplicity and low maintenance costs, but I was always under the impression that the push towards active tilt had to do with it providing a higher level of compensation of cant deficiency. There is this picture on the Web of a Pendolino trainset snaking through a crossover, with the tilt angle reversing for different parts of the consist on different curves. Don't know if TurboTrain could even do that because apart from some compliance in the articulated connection, that articulated connection maintains the same roll angle between neighboring cars.
Another question is whether the passive systems are tied to low center of gravity setups like TurboTrain and Talgo. Hitachi has a patented semi-passive tilt using rollers augmented by air pistons, which also has a roll center well above the center of gravity, and they do this on a conventional-trucked 3.5' gauge train -- the Australians rolled one over on one of their 3.5' gauge lines in an accident where a train driver exceeded the speed limit on a curve by a lot.
The thing with the passive tilt is that while it reacts automatically and instantaneously, there is always the rotational inertia of the train car, with potential problems of being late to tilt or oscillating in tilt. TurboTrain 1 didn't have any special dampers, but Talgo has dampers on multiple movement axes, and I wonder if this is a cost or maintenance concern, and TurboTrain 2 was supposed to get dampers to suppress the wobble when negotiating crossovers and other trackwork. I was always under the impression that the passive systems provided less correction of cant deficiency, although even the active systems may not provide full correction on account of loading-gauge issues with Acela or the vomit factor on Pendolino or LRC. I thought I saw on the Talgo Web site that Talgo provided up to 3" of compensation and that any cant deficiency beyond that was felt by the passengers.
As to the air spring valving, if you did port the air springs on a conventional car together, you would exagerate the outward lean on curves. But Talgo has the air springs way up high, and any arrangment to port air between pairs of air bags on each side would indeed allow a higher level of tilt compensation -- that is the whole point of the Talgo "bed post" suspension that deflection of the springs from rounding a curve causes inward lean. I would not be surprised given the many iterations and versions of Talgo that Patentes Talgo has a semi-active tilt where they can control the degree of compensation for cant deficiency by controlling port valves on the air springs, but I don't have anything authoritative that they do this.
I found the remark about rounding a curve on a French train interesting. While we complain that the FRA is a bunch of fuss budgets, it is interesting to hear that rounding a curve at 6" of cant deficiency while presenting minimal problems to seated passengers, makes for a thrilling experience of passengers walking in the aisles.
The other thought I had on this subject is that if we are indeed to run passenger trains as "guests" on primarily freight railroads, we may have to live with 2" of superelevation, but the percent benefit of a tilt train becomes even larger.
Suppose we are allowed 7" of cant deficiency in some mix of tilt and a sportier ride. Suppose a conventional train is limited to 3" of cant deficiency on account of outward lean on the springs, FRA, etc, etc. On a 2" superelevation, you are comparing a total of 9" vs 5", and since the centrifugal force is v^2/r, the speed advantage of the tilt train is sqrt(9/5) or about 34 percent faster. If you had 6" of superelevation, the speed advantage becomes sqrt(13/9) or only 20 percent faster. The less superelevation you are allowed, the bigger the relative advantage of tilt becomes.
Again, why are we fussing with tilt, why don't we just straighten curves or build TGV style rail lines? It is a question of traffic. Until you get to insane train frequency from a North American perspective, you would be spending multiples of the costs of train cars on these right of way improvements, and I don't see Talgo as having any significant cost premium over competitors.
Separate articles years ago stated that the Xplorer and TurboTrain (both Amtrak and CN) suspensions were beefed up and winterized. Didn't TurboTrain learn from the Xplorer? I was in France in 1974 and saw RTG Turbos going by at 125mph. Ironically, the train I rode through the hills of Central France from Bordeaux to Lyon was assigned a Turbo despite speed being limited to around 40mph. The topography was similar to Northwestern Illinois. I would recommend the trip if you have time and it's still available. (There were only a dozen or so passengers departing Bordeaux on a Sunday morning, and maybe fifty by Lyon). Getting to Bordeaux from Paris was along the (Paris-Ouest?) line where test trains first broke the 200mph mark. Choosing the French RTG Turbo totally ignored the need for tilt suspension needed for the Chicago - Detroit corridor, and persisted with a troublesome and unfamiliar traction technology. As I recall, a diesel-hydraulic version was built. The Chicago - St.Louis corridor wasn't ready for 125mph trains then or even in the near future now. I have photos taken on the inaugural run showing the crowds that turned out to see the train. The technology was improved upon to be nearly as fuel-efficient as diesel in re-equipping the New York trains which now have been withdrawn. So much of what is offered depends on who owns what patents. As for two-axle trucks with active tilt, the TurboTrain power car had a two-axle truck with passive tilt elastomeric torsion springs, air springs, and linkage. The X-2000 active tilting did not operate under 40mph; I don't know about the others. Because single axles and trucks support the adjacent car, dampers are used between articulated cars to connect/transmit the tilt or sway action. TGVs use dampers between cars that are credited with providing high ride stability. The Hitachi and Fiat systems seem to be similar. I've seem simplified diagrams of how they work and wondered how the rollers stayed in the right place given all the jolts they would take. A US high-speed freight truck (Symington-Gould?) and steam locomotive pilot trucks also had roller systems for tilting without hydraulic pistons or swing hangers and for centering.
When new equipment is needed, tilt suspension is a relatively small add-on. Where comparatively few passenger trains are run, easing curves for a few hundred miles gets pretty expensive.
I agree with roughness being an issue on poorer maintained track with jointed rail, especially at slower speeds. Frankly, I'm surprised that track in Spain and France would make a difference. I rode TALGOs on a demonstration from Chicago to Dwight, and a Cascade from Seattle to Portland. At speed they seemed as smooth as anything I have ridden here and abroad.
The single-axle cars are steered around curves which improves tracking at higher speeds, perhaps academic in the US, and reduces wheel wear. Of course this can be accomplished with more complicated radial trucks.
A single axel is simpler; but this entails a shorter car body for flexibility for sharp curves as much as for keeping down weight. A shorter body needing less bending strength mitigates the proportion of weight for the car ends and articulation . There are lots of trade-offs.
This business of conventional vs guided-axle may be a whole subject by itself, or it may be a distraction because at the rate funding is going, we are getting trains with no axles.
I talked at a party with a fellow who used to work for an automotive supplier for engine parts for one of the big auto companies and then switched jobs to work with a company making truck parts.
His take was that there is a reasonably rapid pace of innovation in the car-building biz -- you pop the hood of a Toyota Corolla and it has a fuel injection system and intake runners and exhaust headers that would have seemed exotic on a Corvette of the 1950s. A large part of that is the volume. The reason they can go to common rail Diesel fuel injection on pickup trucks is that they have enough volume to squeeze suppliers to get the costs down that it is affordable, in some measure, to consumers. He was saying that the truck making company was much less high-paced high-pressure and there was a lot of building them like they always built them because the volumes and hence amount of engineering development dollars was less. He guessed that railroads were even more so in going with the tried and true because the volumes were even smaller. His conclusion was the smaller the unit volumes, the slower paced the changes.
You would think that aviation is this big exception -- composite structures, single-crystal turbine blades, glass cockpits. But if you look at general aviation aircraft, the fuel systems were of lawn mower vintage, with hand priming pumps and manual control of fuel mixture and "carb heat." Part of this is going with tried and true because of the liability beseting the GA plane maker, but part of this is the low volume effect. Automotive piston engines are light years ahead of aviation piston engines in sophistication.
Maybe guided axles are a tech that will take 100 years to adopt. Maybe guided axles are no good on account of ride quality and Talgo is the only outfit barking up that tree, or maybe the Talgo design needs further refinement. Never rode on Train-X, Talgo old or new, but I rode on TurboTrain and I thought it was just fine, although I rode up in the Power Dome Car of course, which rode on a two-axle truck. There are people who say European Talgo and Cascades Talgo rides just fine and others say they are definitely less smooth, and I can't tell if people are in the railroad mode that innovation is suspect or if there is something to Talgo being rougher riding.
But as I mentioned before, among the Japanese and the Europeans, people coming out with new tech in passenger railroading, Talgo is out in left field doing that guided-axle thing (OK, the Danish S-Tog and the French Lyrex train), and most of the stuff is two-axle trucks.
As to the tech those Europeans are doing, there is a lot of interest in active tilt, and some interested in steerable axles within conventional bogies, even bringing back the GG-I style "quill drive" to reduce unsprung mass on electric locomotives. Amtrak believes in journal pedestal trucks (the "standard" US passenger truck has the journals moving up and down within slots, and I think some kind of compliant wedges go in those slots to keep the journal boxes from wobbling and a-huntin-we-will-go at NEC speeds), the Europeans have long gone for radius-arm designs, where the journal is positioned relative to the truck frame and kept from wobbling with automotive-style control arms. Amtrak got that kind of tech on the Genesis, and they had that kind of truck on the phase-1 Superliners, which I believe they had issues with and went with a pedestal truck on Superliner-IIs.
I still think guided-axle is way cool from an engineering standpoint, and it is the way to get lighweight energy-saving trains, but when everyone else but Talgo wants weight saving through fewer axles, they tend to go with Jacobs Bogie -- the shared two axle truck between adjoining train cars.
CTVAlleyRR,
State College passenger train service is never coming back. First, it was served by the Bellefonte Central RR, not the Pennsy. Second, to get to State College, you had to go to Tyrone on the Pennsy main line and change to a Williamsport train running via Bellefonte, at which you changed to the Bellefonte Central which ran at the mind-numbing speed of 15 MPH for most of the trip to State College. You could also catch a Pennsy train that ran from Bellefonte to Sunbury which stopped in nearby Lemont and averaged maybe 20-25 mp. There is no way that passenger service would ever be resurected today.
If PA had decided to build high speed rail between Philly and Pittsburgh, one option was to run it through State College. But the cost of it all, the fact that the politicians wanted it to stop at every town with 20,000 or more population (so no high speed), and the decline of the Pittsburgh Area resulted in the High-speed Rail Commission telling the state it wasn't feasible. There were a lot of railroad supporters and experts on that commission. If it had a reasonable chance of working, the commission would have recommended it.
alphas wrote: CTVAlleyRR,State College passenger train service is never coming back. First, it was served by the Bellefonte Central RR, not the Pennsy. Second, to get to State College, you had to go to Tyrone on the Pennsy main line and change to a Williamsport train running via Bellefonte, at which you changed to the Bellefonte Central which ran at the mind-numbing speed of 15 MPH for most of the trip to State College. You could also catch a Pennsy train that ran from Bellefonte to Sunbury which stopped in nearby Lemont and averaged maybe 20-25 mp. There is no way that passenger service would ever be resurected today. If PA had decided to build high speed rail between Philly and Pittsburgh, one option was to run it through State College. But the cost of it all, the fact that the politicians wanted it to stop at every town with 20,000 or more population (so no high speed), and the decline of the Pittsburgh Area resulted in the High-speed Rail Commission telling the state it wasn't feasible. There were a lot of railroad supporters and experts on that commission. If it had a reasonable chance of working, the commission would have recommended it.
Sorry if my posting wasn't clear -- I never said that the Pennsy served State College, only that the service existed when the Pennsy was around. From age 2 to 25, I lived in Lemont and Boalsburg. I could see the Lemont depot from my bedroom window, and used run over every time I heard a train whistle so I could watch it go by. A lot more freights than passenger traffic -- hauling limestone from nearby Nidick's Quarry and delivering sand to the Corning factory and chemicals to and from Nice Chemical.
I'm sure grades in the State College area are a factor in any rail line in or out, but my point was simply that rails were there once, so you can't call the area "unreachable" by rail. The point about SC, however, is that it is arguably the most vibrant market between Philly and Pittsburgh, and the huge transient student population creates a large customer base to court with passenger transport. What I was objecting to was the "I'll run a train through Lewistown, Huntingdon, Tyrone, and Altoona and just shrug off State College because there isn't any railroad there" that is artificially limiting the demand.
CTValleyRR,
Other than Nedick's quarry (which no longer ships by rail), those businesses you mentioned were established well after passenger service ended on the Bellefonte to Sunbury branch which was just about 1950. Passenger service from Bellefonte into State College had ended earlier. It was just announced that the final northern end from Lewisburg to Mifflinburg was being abandoned by its shortline operator so it will soon be gone, leaving only the trackage from Bellefonte to Lemont, the last half mile or so not having any customers in many years. Unless something happens with the closed Corning plant, I can see it soon being abandoned beyond Pleasant Gap.
State College had one shot to receive modern passenger rail service. But when the PA High Speed Rail Commission decided, reluctantly, there was no way that would work then that was the end of it.
By the way, until recently Greyhound had about 6 or more daily buses each direction to/from Port Authority in NYC which stopped in Milesburg as their first rest stop (or last if headed to NYC) just off of I-80 . The trip was just over 4 hours if they stoped in Newark or just under 4 hours if they were non-stop. However, the University has now arranged for weekend bus trips from State College to various places including direct non-stop to NYC via I-99 & I-80 and I'm told some of the seating is open to the public.
alphas wrote: CTValleyRR,Other than Nedick's quarry (which no longer ships by rail), those businesses you mentioned were established well after passenger service ended on the Bellefonte to Sunbury branch which was just about 1950. Passenger service from Bellefonte into State College had ended earlier. It was just announced that the final northern end from Lewisburg to Mifflinburg was being abandoned by its shortline operator so it will soon be gone, leaving only the trackage from Bellefonte to Lemont, the last half mile or so not having any customers in many years. Unless something happens with the closed Corning plant, I can see it soon being abandoned beyond Pleasant Gap.State College had one shot to receive modern passenger rail service. But when the PA High Speed Rail Commission decided, reluctantly, there was no way that would work then that was the end of it. By the way, until recently Greyhound had about 6 or more daily buses each direction to/from Port Authority in NYC which stopped in Milesburg as their first rest stop (or last if headed to NYC) just off of I-80 . The trip was just over 4 hours if they stoped in Newark or just under 4 hours if they were non-stop. However, the University has now arranged for weekend bus trips from State College to various places including direct non-stop to NYC via I-99 & I-80 and I'm told some of the seating is open to the public.
Again, I guess I just can't communicate in plain English.
First of all, I'm not even sure the rails are there any more, so I'm not surprised that Nedick's (I'll defer to you on the spelling) doesn't ship by rail.... But when I was living in Lemont, from 1965 to 1978, there were freights chugging by, as well as the occasional passenger train, although, again, not necessarily regularly scheduled passenger service. The Bellefonte Historical RR owns the remaining tracks into Lemont, but they come in from the opposite side of town from the quarry. I don't think that my post implied that Corning and Nice pre-dated the end of passenger service; what I said was that as a boy, I saw freight trains, and those were their primary destinations.
However, my point isn't that State College needs passenger rail service or a way to get students (or football traffic, for that matter) in and out of town. They seem to manage rather well in their cars, and sometimes busses. It's a case of the railroad -- Amtrak or whoever -- ignoring an obvious market. Their mindset is -- like yours -- "State College can't get passenger rail service". My contention is that getting passengers to and from SC is exactly the kind of creative thinking that railroads need to be doing in order to attract yet more passengers. Successful businesses don't think, "Oh darn, there's a market I can't get to." They think, "There's a market, now how do I get to it?"
oltmannd asks a very interesting question. Like many other respondents, I will offer a reply that is often tangential, because the original question raises a host of interesting further ones. I will take three different perspectives.
#1. I am indeed the president of Amtrak. I work for the Government, and am hence a political animal, my agenda hedged by political constraints. I am the champion of my organisation, and am looking to cement its place in the funding hierarchy, preserve as much as I can of what I have, and seek to expand my reach elsewhere. I read with interest the Executive Summary of the Standing Committee Report on Rail Passenger Transportation. It advocates corridor investment totalling $60B over 20 years to give:
The report also enthuses about current long distance services. So, I might use it as a basis for my decision on where to spend $2B, in line with my objectives above. Unfortunately, I personally cannot make the call as to what. Being a foreigner, I have no grasp of how the US political system works, so I would get the call wrong.
Further, as I read the Executive Summary, it sounds like incremental building on the status quo, with infrequent slow speed (80-110mph) services, a lumping together of State plans, not a national agenda. I worry about the claim that one might employ ‘existing rights of way...which are currently underutilised'. Have these guys been on a train? All this and the advocacy of long distance services leads me to suspect that it is blinkered politics, not market need driving this agenda. So to get perspective 2, I ask an independent consultant to do a blue-sky exercise, starting by defining the secrets of success of passenger rail in Europe, funding questions apart. The objective is to identify US markets where it is possible for rail to take a large high volume share, being the frequent mode of choice for both business and leisure travel. Forget the stuff about serving every corner of the nation.
#2. So, I am now that independent consultant. In my country, the UK, economic and political, hence social life is dominated by one area, London, and its satellite communities. Most of the English and Welsh population live within 200 miles of London. There are four 125mph line speed routes linking London (population 8 Million) with the 10 major cities (population 0.5-2 Million). Depending on how many stops are made, end point average speeds are 60-70% of the line speed, 75-90mph. So transit times are rarely more than 2.5 hours. People up to 80 miles from London can use these lines for an hour's commute. Each major city has about thirty 500 seat trains daily to and from London, even Newcastle, about 270 miles away. The largest city in Scotland, Glasgow (population 1 million, 1.5 million if nearby Edinburgh is included) is however 400 miles away, and the best rail time of around 4.5 hours, is inadequate for business travellers. There are therefore only 8 through trains per day on the main line, and these usually take five hours, since they stop frequently to maximise leisure revenue. To get a significant business share in this market, you would need a transit time of no more than 3 hours, which would require a state of the art 200 mph high-speed link. The justification to build this would have to be inadequate capacity on lines to the northern English cities- the Glasgow/Edinburgh market is too small, and there's 200 miles of wasteland between northern England and central Scotland.
In France, Paris (population 11 million) is similarly dominant. However, the second largest conurbation, Lyon (6 million) is 270 miles away, and the third Marseille, a further 220 miles as is Montpellier. Bordeaux is 350 miles. To the north London is 350 miles (via Lille and Calais), and to the North West, Amsterdam and Cologne are about 400 miles via Brussels. No surprise then, that the French have built 180mph lines to connect Paris with these cities to capture both business and leisure travel. Paris-Lyon is two hours, (50 trains per day), to Bordeaux, three hours. A similar situation pertains in Germany.
Why do Europeans use these services? From my own experience, congestion to airports and new security measures mean air travel for 200-250 miles to London is not really time competitive for business travel. Car is still the preferred leisure option at this distance, even with gas at $10/gallon, if you can select when you travel. If not, road congestion is such as to make a 200 mile journey to London a 5 hour marathon. The future of our rail services was in doubt 20 years ago, when things weren't quite as bad. Nowadays, congestion, security, and to a degree the price of gas mean that rail travel demand is booming- my 100000 population city will have nine through services to London daily from next year. Prices are steep at peak times, though there are good deals off peak. The key to rail success is journey times below three hours and speed of access to large city centres: over here, the larger the city, the worse the congestion.
What then to do in the US? The top ten conurbations (New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas-Fort Worth, Philadelphia, Miami, Houston, Washington, Atlanta, Boston) have 4.5 Million residents or more. Going down the list to number 100 takes you down to 500,000, and covers 2/3rds of the US population. So European experience says, for cities within 200 miles of the top ten cities look for 125 mph routes, and at 400 miles for 200mph routes. Forget 79mph routes- they're only good enough for commutes of up to 60 miles- they'll never capture meaningful market share over longer distances. Pouring $B into 79 mph freight lines is money down a rathole for intercity travel. Indeed, forget freight railroads altogether-high-speed passenger and freight don't mix. Forget linking cities over 400miles apart- you'll never get premium business travel. Forget overnight coach travel-it's inhuman. If you follow this logic, then the only chance for high volume US passenger rail is to have a handful of 200mph high-speed lines, providing 120mph+ city centre to city centre averages- New York- Pittsburgh in just over two hours. An upgraded 125-150mph North East Corridor will suffice if you forego the Washington/Baltimore-Providence/Boston market, which always going to be marginal even with high speed.
So here's the plan (all routes pass through the major city airports whenever possible):
7000 miles of new track link more or less everywhere that has high volume potential- all the top 100 cities bar 6 in the 48 contiguous states. You have the majority of the US population interested- a national plan. You may now use your favourite cost/mile number to get the cost, but against a low volume $60B incremental programme, often tied to freight railroads that don't want you, perhaps not too bad. Private operators will buy trains and operate for profit. To keep senators in Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Louisiana, Oregon and Washington happy, you might need to add Chicago- Des Moines- Omaha, Kansas City- St Louis, Houston -Baton Rouge- New Orleans, and upgrade the Pacific Northwest line. The new lines don't link, and national pride may well dictate that some of them do e.g. Pittsburgh-Cleveland, Kansas City-Wichita-Oklahoma City, Charlotte-Columbus SC, Louisville-Nashville. Further, transit times of 5 hours for 600 mile leisure journeys will be acceptable for many, and these would open up more possibilities. You could then breakfast at 6.00am in New York, take lunch 8 hours later in Chicago, take the mid afternoon to Dallas, and arrive there in time for bed, though only the readers of this thread would be so daft.
This is railroading outside US experience. On the way to St Louis from Chicago, there are no 19th century freight crossings at Brighton Park, Corwith and Argo: you're flying alongside the Stevenson at 150mph, not a grade crossing of any kind in sight. You didn't leave from Union Station, because how could it handle two 500 train per hour arrivals and departures to each of Cincinnati, Louisville, Cleveland, Detroit and St Louis, along with other Illinois state and commuter services?- you maybe left from a rebuilt Grand Central. So, if any of this is feasible, high-speed routes to city centres and sites of downtown terminals must be preserved from building over right now.
Finally, forget absolutely everything else at national level. Give the ghost of the California Zephyr and its kin a quick and decent burial. They are irrelevant reminders of a past long gone. Get someone big enough to do the job. (Unfortunately, since I am Amtrak boss, even contemplating this might get me fired). Let states fill in other gaps.
Which if any of these new routes are viable? Well, the passenger markets between the cities concerned are surely known, and into these needs to be factored in the ‘congestion premium' at the major terminal cities, and future cost of automobile fuel of whatever kind. It is estimated that the US population will be 500 million by 2050, and surely even newer fast growing cities that are relatively uncongested will be struggling by then, if as here it is politically impossible to build major new road capacity into downtown areas. Who knows, even the rust belt cities (there seems to be no congestion in downtown Detroit) might start growing again? Is such Government expenditure justifiable?- ever? If so, is this expenditure better value than other transport options? or e.g. social priorities? You guys are great at debating this kind of stuff. If you conclude none are viable, and you're a railfan or Amtrak president, then, hey $60B over 20 years isn't that much- go back to plan 1- seems like it's going to happen anyway.
#3. I now feel very guilty for having killed off my favourite trains on the planet. So perspective 3 gives some idea of my personal agenda for $2B.
So that's it: do we encourage politicians do their incremental thing, even if the result isn't great? Do we support things that we are emotionally tied even if there is no rational justification? Or do we try and establish if there is a indeed significant, high volume rail component to the future intercity traffic mix, and do nothing if the answer is no? Hope this helps the debate.
Dreyfusshudson wrote: There are four 125mph line speed routes linking London (population 8 Million) with the 10 major cities (population 0.5-2 Million). Depending on how many stops are made, end point average speeds are 60-70% of the line speed, 75-90mph. So transit times are rarely more than 2.5 hours. People up to 80 miles from London can use these lines for an hour's commute. Each major city has about thirty 500 seat trains daily to and from London, even Newcastle, about 270 miles away. The largest city in Scotland, Glasgow (population 1 million, 1.5 million if nearby Edinburgh is included) is however 400 miles away, and the best rail time of around 4.5 hours, is inadequate for business travellers. There are therefore only 8 through trains per day on the main line, and these usually take five hours, since they stop frequently to maximise leisure revenue. To get a significant business share in this market, you would need a transit time of no more than 3 hours, which would require a state of the art 200 mph high-speed link. The justification to build this would have to be inadequate capacity on lines to the northern English cities- the Glasgow/Edinburgh market is too small, and there's 200 miles of wasteland between northern England and central Scotland.
I can only think of three 125mph routes in the UK and average speeds on the East Coast route are a little higher: London -York 100mph+ average speed, London -Edinburgh 4hours 15mins fastest, but nitpicking aside, a very interesting and well structured post.
It's clear that option 2 is the one that any government that is concerned about oil prices/supplies and global warming should follow. From a strategic point of view, a comprehensive electified high speed rail network would provide an insurance policy if oil supplies were disrupted and domestic air travel was grounded.
Dreyfusshudson
Your proposal for improving rail service in the U.S. is one of the more thoughtful ones that I have seen. It begs two points.
How will it be funded? U.S. debt stands at $9.4 trillion, which is approximately $90,000 for every American household. On top of this most taxpayers carry mortgage debt, consumer debt, credit card debt, state debt, and local debt. And this is before the unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When these are added to the debt burden, the total liability is an average of $440,000 per household, according to David Walker, Comptroller of the Currency. Given these numbers, urging a significant spend in public monies to fund an expansion of passenger rail, without a game plan to pay for it does not seem like a good way to go.
The Passenger Rail Working Group estimated that it would cost $252 billion to implement its vision for expanded passenger rail in the U.S. It did not propose a detailed plan for funding it.
According to Amtrak's president, it would cost $24 to $40 million per mile to build high speed rail in the United States. And this excludes real estate acquisition costs. Sixty billion would fund approximately 1,875 miles of high speed rail. Of course, if lower speeds were accepted, one would get considerably more miles of what I call rapid rail.
I live just north of Austin. I have been a Texan for more years than I care to remember. But I am familiar with the Lone Star state. Rail could be competitive between Fort Worth and San Antonio (centre to centre), as an example, but it would require a hefty investment in new right-of-way, equipment, and station facilities. Unfortunately, most Texans don't live downtown. In fact, most of them don't work downtown. And although the pattern is changing somewhat, most people will continue to live in the suburbs. Thus, if rail is to grab a significant portion of the corridor population, it would have to add suburban stops in Benbrook, Georgetown, Round Rock, San Marcos, and North San Antonio. These stops would likely lengthen the schedule considerably.
Samantha wrote: DreyfusshudsonYour proposal for improving rail service in the U.S. is one of the more thoughtful ones that I have seen. It begs two points.How will it be funded? U.S. debt stands at $9.4 trillion, which is approximately $90,000 for every American household. On top of this most taxpayers carry mortgage debt, consumer debt, credit card debt, state debt, and local debt. And this is before the unfunded liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. When these are added to the debt burden, the total liability is an average of $440,000 per household, according to David Walker, Comptroller of the Currency. Given these numbers, urging a significant spend in public monies to fund an expansion of passenger rail, without a game plan to pay for it does not seem like a good way to go. The Passenger Rail Working Group estimated that it would cost $252 billion to implement its vision for expanded passenger rail in the U.S. It did not propose a detailed plan for funding it. According to Amtrak's president, it would cost $24 to $40 million per mile to build high speed rail in the United States. And this excludes real estate acquisition costs. Sixty billion would fund approximately 1,875 miles of high speed rail. Of course, if lower speeds were accepted, one would get considerably more miles of what I call rapid rail. I live just north of Austin. I have been a Texan for more years than I care to remember. But I am familiar with the Lone Star state. Rail could be competitive between Fort Worth and San Antonio (centre to centre), as an example, but it would require a hefty investment in new right-of-way, equipment, and station facilities. Unfortunately, most Texans don't live downtown. In fact, most of them don't work downtown. And although the pattern is changing somewhat, most people will continue to live in the suburbs. Thus, if rail is to grab a significant portion of the corridor population, it would have to add suburban stops in Benbrook, Georgetown, Round Rock, San Marcos, and North San Antonio. These stops would likely lengthen the schedule considerably.
Samantha
Your attention to detail is commendable. However, if you are going to solve America's fundamental structural problems and overreliance on oil (25% of all world oil consumption per annum),you need to take to look at the 'big-picture' which is what the Chinese, the Spanish, the French are doing.
What are you going to do, if in 15 years time, there is not enough fuel for a domestic short-haul air service? What is your alternative? Is an electric rail service powered by nuclear and wind power part of the solution?
There's no question that the United States, despite its debt, can afford to rebuild its passenger rail network, the only problem seems to be a complete lack of vision and an ideological aversion to trains in Government.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.