Penny wise and pound foolish.
How effective do you think the Interstate Highway System would be if they had just widened the existing roads?
Under President Eisenhower, they took a clean piece of paper and planned new routes. They eliminated low overpasses, steep hills, intersections, and sharp curves. The Feds paid for 90% of the construction and the states agreed to maintain them once they were built.
I think it's sad that we in this country are deciding whether or not we can afford to save 15 minutes on a three hour trip by going from 79 to 110 MPH, while the rest of the world's trains are upgrading to 250.
If we ever figure out that oil is a finite resource and find other ways to generate electricity, trains won't need to use any fossil fuel at all. None of the other transportation media, passenger or freight, have the ability to run total electric.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
I'd start with 90 mph -- low option -- and advertise like crazy.
Would love to see HST's on Chgo - Detroit or Chgo - St. Louis. Twin Cities may be a bit too far away but would certainly be a beautiful trip.
79 mph gets you 60 mph avg. 90 mph gets you 70 mph avg. 110 max gets you 72 mph.
I took Econ 101 and Econ 102 at Northwestern University, and if there was only one thing I remember 30 years later, it is the law of diminishing marginal returns.
That 79 MPG gets you 60 MPH average is really good -- I think the Hiawatha is exceptional in being able to do that. The 90 MPH at 70 MPH avg seems fair, if it didn't cost so much, but the 110 MPH to get 72 MPH avg is purely a question of bragging rights.
60 MPH average is a "Hiawatha" that takes 1 Hr 16 Min, 70 MPH is 1 Hr 14 Min, 72 MPH is 1 Hr 12 min. I try to tell people that the Hiawatha length of 80-100 miles is the "sweet spot" of corridor rail, and here those big bucks would save 4 minutes.
The other thing, what is the Hiawatha right now, 1 Hr 35 Min? I ran some simulations of 110 MPH operation, assuming the same terminal slow zones and reasonable HP/ton, and I came up with 1 Hr 15 Min -- the Wis DOT guy said their study said 1 Hr 10 Min. We got people here who want to make "Chicago Milwaukee in 1 Hr, Chicago Madison in 2 Hrs" a talking point, but if they want to be accurate, it is more like "Chicago Milwaukee in 1:15, Chicago Madison in 2:30", which is not the same thing.
I still would push for the 4 trains/day if I could -- it is more efficient with the equipment as it needs 4 train sets plus one spare instead of 2 train sets plus one spare.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Well, the 2-train 79 MPH service wins hands down. The operating expenses and ridership all seem proportional, but the boost to 90 MPH and then the boost to 110 MPH, hoo boy does that suck up all of the capital.
Well, the 2-train 79 MPH service wins hands down. The operating expenses and ridership all seem proportional, but the boost to 90 MPH and then the boost to 110 MPH, hoo boy does that suck up all of the capital.
Paul, it is unfortunate that you are not the Governor of Ohio or Texas. I'd like to see a basic Heartland Flyer type train put in place between Cleveland and Cincinnati, as well as Houston and DFW. Run them for a couple of years to see if passengers show up, and then increase spending if they do.
Paul Milenkovic wrote: Well, the 2-train 79 MPH service wins hands down. The operating expenses and ridership all seem proportional, but the boost to 90 MPH and then the boost to 110 MPH, hoo boy does that suck up all of the capital.Apart from the glamor of the 110 MPH train, here are the things going for the 79 MPH. It takes so much less capital improvement that I can take my pot of money and spread it around, serving more routes, communities and more people and getting a bigger political base to support future expenditures. The second thing is that the real business may be in closer city pairs within that 350 mile corridor, so the shaving of a few minutes for a 50-90 mile trip may be of minor consequence. The higher speeds of 90 or 110 MPH may give bragging rights, but depending on whether I have Acela-style HP/ton and what the terminal speed limits and other slow zones, that higher peak speed may only confer bragging rights and not much in the way of quicker trip times. Finally, (you knew this was coming), the 90 or 110 MPH may pay a big fuel consumption penalty unless you have a highly streamlined train, and in the era of 4 dollar gasoline, bragging rights on fuel usage may be an important public policy issue to pin down continued funding for operation of the trains.But here is the thing. You compare 2-train 79 MPH against 4 and 6-train 90 and 110 MPH, and I don't have a clear picture of what is restricting 79 MPH ops to 2-trains per day. Would increasing the number of trains per day require a much higher capital budget for more sidings, crossovers, or double tracking on account of the freight train traffic? Is 2 trains at 79 MPH what the freight railroad would consider without major upgrades to the line, and that either higher frequency or higher speed starts to cost the big bucks?Given a choice of things my priorities are 1) getting the frequency up because more trains per day allows for flexibility that is at the heart of mode choices, 2) solve the freight-train interference problem by spending enough on crossovers, sidings, double tracking, or whatever could be negotiated with the freight railroad to keep Mussolini-style time keeping (the one redeeming quality to the Italian dictator is supposedly that he made the trains run on time), 3) look to the slow zones rather than the peak speed as the real source of improvements in schedules -- slow zones really kill whatever improvement you get from faster running, 4) only after considering all of the above to consider beyond-79 MPH running.A lot of the non-NEC corridor situation is 79 MPH operation with iffy schedule keeping. The California folks sunk a lot of capital into their 79 MPH operation to have a good relation with host railroads with regard to schedule keeping, and the Surfliner is no barn burner with 40 MPH average speed, while the Illinois people took the cheap route of dumping their new service on the freight railroad and the NARP approach that it is the freight railroads fault that the trains don't run on time and think of how much popular the service would be if it weren't for those freight railroad meanies.Frequency and adherence to schedule -- forget about speed, I wonder if many of the non-NEC corridors have a workable operation on those basics?So I might go with the 79 MPH but with higher frequency and with whatever level of capital spending made peace with the host railroad so I could stick to schedule. Where does that place me on that chart?
Apart from the glamor of the 110 MPH train, here are the things going for the 79 MPH. It takes so much less capital improvement that I can take my pot of money and spread it around, serving more routes, communities and more people and getting a bigger political base to support future expenditures. The second thing is that the real business may be in closer city pairs within that 350 mile corridor, so the shaving of a few minutes for a 50-90 mile trip may be of minor consequence. The higher speeds of 90 or 110 MPH may give bragging rights, but depending on whether I have Acela-style HP/ton and what the terminal speed limits and other slow zones, that higher peak speed may only confer bragging rights and not much in the way of quicker trip times. Finally, (you knew this was coming), the 90 or 110 MPH may pay a big fuel consumption penalty unless you have a highly streamlined train, and in the era of 4 dollar gasoline, bragging rights on fuel usage may be an important public policy issue to pin down continued funding for operation of the trains.
But here is the thing. You compare 2-train 79 MPH against 4 and 6-train 90 and 110 MPH, and I don't have a clear picture of what is restricting 79 MPH ops to 2-trains per day. Would increasing the number of trains per day require a much higher capital budget for more sidings, crossovers, or double tracking on account of the freight train traffic? Is 2 trains at 79 MPH what the freight railroad would consider without major upgrades to the line, and that either higher frequency or higher speed starts to cost the big bucks?
Given a choice of things my priorities are 1) getting the frequency up because more trains per day allows for flexibility that is at the heart of mode choices, 2) solve the freight-train interference problem by spending enough on crossovers, sidings, double tracking, or whatever could be negotiated with the freight railroad to keep Mussolini-style time keeping (the one redeeming quality to the Italian dictator is supposedly that he made the trains run on time), 3) look to the slow zones rather than the peak speed as the real source of improvements in schedules -- slow zones really kill whatever improvement you get from faster running, 4) only after considering all of the above to consider beyond-79 MPH running.
A lot of the non-NEC corridor situation is 79 MPH operation with iffy schedule keeping. The California folks sunk a lot of capital into their 79 MPH operation to have a good relation with host railroads with regard to schedule keeping, and the Surfliner is no barn burner with 40 MPH average speed, while the Illinois people took the cheap route of dumping their new service on the freight railroad and the NARP approach that it is the freight railroads fault that the trains don't run on time and think of how much popular the service would be if it weren't for those freight railroad meanies.
Frequency and adherence to schedule -- forget about speed, I wonder if many of the non-NEC corridors have a workable operation on those basics?
So I might go with the 79 MPH but with higher frequency and with whatever level of capital spending made peace with the host railroad so I could stick to schedule. Where does that place me on that chart?
The study actually worked out a speed/frequency matrix
There is diminishing returns w.r.t. increased frequency, but there is leverage of assets. I guess the balance of the two rests in the specific details. i.e. can you add an extra RT with existing equipment or do you need another set?
In this case, the 2 RT uses 3 train sets, the 4 RT - five and the 6 RT - seven.
Track capacity improvements also increased as the number of RTs increased. At 79 mph, the track & signal cost is $56M, at 90, $180M and at 110, $277M.
The 79 mph max was just sprucing up the existing route. Adding back some double track in spots and upgrading road Xings. 90 mph includes 28 miles of curve easment. 110 includes 75 more miles of curve easment. All scenarios involve tilt equipment. 79 mph gets you 60 mph avg. 90 mph gets you 70 mph avg. 110 max gets you 72 mph.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
You are the prez of Amtrak and, for the next 5 years, Congress has found an extra $2B for you to spend on expansion. (total of $10B over 5 years)
Keeping in mind, you'll have to "bank" some of the capital in order to cover on-going operating expenses.
Here are the typical costs for doing a new, 350 mile corridor on existing ROW in a rather "average" part of the eastern USA. How much of which would you choose to build? Why?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.