Paul,
Many thanks!
Two computers ago I could do this stuff in Basic. Now it's a major hassle. I've started a couple times, got bogged down, and gave up. I hate being at the mercy of consultants and other "experts" fudging numbers to produce the client's desired outcome. Enough.
Actually, I'm proud that I was in the ballpark with a "WAG."
This may not be an Acela; but it seems to me to be a pretty reasonable level of performance. By comparison, I remember an account of how the Morning Hiawatha could accelerate to 100 mph in 7 miles and 7 minutes with two E6 locomotives and maybe 10 cars. At the time it seemed quick.
FWIW, I was on a delayed Hiawatha coming into Glenview hot. We were doing 79 at Lake Avenue when the engineer set the air and came to a stop in front of the station despite my misgivings. Metra trains going 70 mph nb routinely go into dynamic 1/2 mile from the Rogers Park station, blending air as speed falls under 35. I don't know what the cost is for braking hard; but it sure saves some time.
Interesting point about the amount of fuel to recover speed after a stop. Speed recoverery for curve restrictions is a bear too, which is another good reason for tilt equipment.
Your 410 ton articulated trainset with a 120 ton locomotive with a peak speed of 110 MPH covers a 20 mile segment between station stops (typical of the Swedish train on another thread as well as the Hiawatha Service) according to the schedule
To be more precise, it takes 3.8 minutes and 4.8 miles to reach 110 MPH, and the train averages 91.4 MPH station-to-station factoring in acceleration, a 7-minute cruise interval between mileposts 5 and 18, and about a 1 MPH per second braking rate. IThe train averages 85 MPH factoring in a 1-minute station stop. Or it averages 79.3 MPH with a 2-minute station stop. This of course is without any other speed restriction -- people should see that a high peak speed does not translate into anywhere near that average speed.
It takes 12 gallons of #2 Diesel merely to accelerate this train to the 110 MPH speed -- mind you, there is no electric regenerative braking unless you are invoking a hybrid locomotive. I hope you are boarding a minimum of 12 people, on average, at each of those stops at 20 mile intervals -- otherwise you are better off having each person driving pickup trucks another 20 miles to catch the train at a later stop.
If GM "killed the electric car", what am I doing standing next to an EV-1, a half a block from the WSOR tracks?
I agree that identifying mutual benefits and partnering with the Union Pacific is important in improving passenger service in Illinois and Missouri.
I am not sure whether the Chicago - Saint Louis and Saint Louis - Kansas City freight corridors are strongly linked or offer a clear alternative for the Los Angeles - Chicago Golden State Route. The UP Spine Line - Transcon Overland Route is 569 miles long by way of Nevada, IA compared to 567 miles by way of Saint Louis. The Golden State Route offers a detour for flooding and a relief for the Transcon; but terminals and connections at Chicago may be problematic. A third Los Angeles - Chicago route via Dallas, TX is another alternative.
Kansas City - Saint Louis is a significant traffic lane to the East and Southeast; and Saint Louis - Chicago is an important Lane from the Gulf Coast and Texas. Most of the latter's traffic goes by way of Gorham and Findlay that offers a more direct routing to the Northeast, avoids Saint Louis terminal congestion, and exposes less population to hazardous materials - important for the substantial chemical traffic from the Gulf Coast.
In the overall cost of high speed improvements, particularly for grade separation and relocation for curve easement, high-level platforms are a relatively small item. High-level platforms are totally incompatible with Amtrak Superliner or present and foreseeable future Metra equipment and need to be a separate boarding area. Proposals I've seen for combined high and low level platforms for proposed ADA rules would not seem to be workable. A high-level platform also needs a separate platform or guantlet track and signals that pose issues for the railroad and represent the greater cost component.
Grade separation and crossing elimination for 125 mph speed for about 150 miles of the Chicago - Saint Louis Corridor was estimated to cost around $350 twenty years ago as I recall. Once total grade separation is achieved for a segment of the route, speed can be increased from 110 mph to as much as 150 mph. If curve easement would be necessary for speeds above 110 mph in conjunction with grade separation, it seems logical that the opportunity for 150 mph for segments over about 16 miles long where a couple minutes can be saved needs to be explored. This would require 0.5-degree, 11,460-foot radius curves. One inch curve superelevation would result in a 0.125 inch over-balance at 50 mph and 0.715 inch underbalance at 70 mph for freight, and an acceptable 6.875 inch underbalance for tilting passenger trains.
Extended second and third main tracks may be needed that would significantly increase costs in upgrading the Kansas City - Saint Louis Corridor. High-speed trackage is of little value if passenger trains need to slow for taking a passing track between stops, much less stopping for meets. Conversely, railroads dislike and try to avoid problems putting freight trains on diverging routes and over facing-point turnouts; and this also applies to platform and gauntlet tracks.
The need for passing or second main tracks for the Kansas City - Saint Louis Corridor cannot be over-emphasized. If there is on average one freight train an hour, a five-hour intercity schedule would result in meeting ten opposing freights. Similarly, each passenger train on a two-hour frequency would meet five opposing passenger trains. Fifteen passing tracks, averaging one every 19 miles, would be needed for passenger service alone. Another 12-16 passing tracks would be needed for freight-freight meets, resulting in a need for passing tracks every 9-11 miles. At $10 million each, $310 million would be needed for passing tracks alone.
Coupling the need for passing tracks with the time lost for taking pssing tracks, the need for a second and third main between Kansas City and Saint Louis for 125-150 mph speeds becomes clearer. A second main track with 10 passing/third tracks may cost $1 billion.
I think investment in capacity and signal improvements and low-floor tilt equipment to achieve frequent service with speeds up to 110 mph is more attainable as an interim goal.
An articulated, low floor version of Acela may be possible. Articulation maximizes the proportion of accessible floor area relative to car length, in this case 57 or 61 feet between truck centers. The design problem is whether disk brake rotors of sufficient braking capacity can be mounted inside the truck frame or on the wheel with an inside truck frame with acceptable width for a lower gangway floor above the axles between articulated cars. Other possibilities are for eddy-current braking as used on the ICE trains with disk brakes and for eddy-current and tread brakes. Worst case would be a 3-step stair from an 18-inch high coach floor to the inter-car gangway. Best case would be to allow passage through the train on an electric chair or other mobility device.
A 57-foot articulated coach section would allow 42 seats, vestibule, and accessible toilet with a low floor. Another 8 seats for a total of 50 seats are possible raised above the trucks at one end, and electrical and mechanical equipment and luggage racks at the other. Seating would be 2+2 with 2 single flip seats opposite the accessible toilet. The 1.14-feet length per seat excluding end units is slightly more effective than the 1.25-feet per seat for the Horizon coaches and for the Talgos. A 61-foot coach section would offer a total of 58 seats, or 1.05 feet per seat.
With weight proportional to length for an Acela-based car, a 57-ft articulated section would weigh 43.6 tones and a 69-ft end unit would weigh 52.8 tons. A 9-section articulated unit would weigh 410.8 tons for a 537-ft unit with 450 seats for an all-coach version. A single 4,300 hp diesel might accelerate such such a train with a push-mode cab coach to 110 mph in about six miles and four minutes.
I very much dislike the idea of rotating, or alternating, intermediate stops at small communities in rural areas. The same time-based demand for travel exists for all such communities to significant markets. Either it's worth having these stops to contribute to an overall increase in use or it isn't. One advantage of a train is that it can make relatively quick stops along the service corridor and be on its way.
An on-board train attendent for clean-ups and management of trash is an interesting idea.
One idea may be to promote bringing on food, frozen dinners and restaurant take-out, for self-service microwaving on board. Alcohol I'm not sure about how to control it; but it's already happening on a small scale and, in some cases, becomes disruptive and dangerous.
I agree with the above comments. What is proposed is worse than Socialsim, it is truly Fascism. When passenger railroading becomes profitable, the railroads themselves will offer to do what you suggest. Until then, Amtrak probably represents the best way to subsidize the service most economically.
One place that might work now is Kansas City - St. Louis - Chicago. Suppose the UP were to analyze the real costs of making this a 125 mph high-speed passenger corridor with enough capacity for 70 mph freight operations as well. With congestion in St. Louis eliminated. Then figure out what investment would make it UP's advantage to have such a corridor, allowing the UP to become freight competitive with BNSF from Chicago to the Southwest without needing trackage rights on the BNSF through Galesburg. Then propose to Kansas, Missiouri, and Illinois, to share in the total costs of the project. Then provide a real up-to-date UP corridor passenger service, hourly between Chicago and St. Louis, and every other going on to Kansas City. I think such a passenger service would more than cover operating expenses, just as Acela does. On-board coach cleaner, quick turnaround, decent meals efficiently served, high-platform stations, a modern service, probably diesel double-ended trains. Intermediate stops would be rotated among the hourly and two-hourly trains, much as they are for the Acela sercie, so Springfield and Joliet and Independence, etc. would also benefit.
In a free country founded on individual liberty, why would you want to "Force" the shareholders of the private railroads to do anything that wasn't in their own best interest? It would be literally making them slaves.
If it's in the "Public Interest", then "The Public" has to pay for it through their taxes. Anything else is slavery.
Amtrak has never made money, no Commuter Railroad has made money in the last 40 years.
Most large railroads no longer compete with eash other, they form a network. Short of this country turning to Socialism, how do you FORCE a privite stock company to take on a loosing operation. All they could do is cut non-profit service and raise fares to cover costs on the rest of the routes. In 1971 the Railroads were going bankrupt running passenger service that few wanted.
Would you want the Airlines to be Forced to build the Airports. How about banning the Bus Company from the Interstate Highways forcing them to build there own "Busways".
Don U. TCA 73-5735
Is there any way to force the burden of running passenger trains on private railroads, just like the burden was lifted away back in 1971? This would create a competitive market and lower ticket prices as well as create a cheap, feasable alternative to high gas prices and sucky air travel. Also, this system and nuissance we have called "amcrap" would sort itself out.
I know the private rr's would not like to do this but eventually the demand for a passenger rail system will start to outstrip Amtrak and passenger railroading might even become a profitable business.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.