Just What is HSR?

[KCSfan]

I agree with the replies you all have posted in response to my original message. My point was to attempt to define HSR in terms of something that was realistic and doable in the near term in the USA. The Asian and European concept of HSR is, IMHO, not going to be implemented any time soon in North America and in the meantime we should be thinking about and planning for more modest objective speeds that we have a reasonable chance of attaining. Given Amtrak's current 52 mph Snail Rail average speed I think Phase I of our HSR planning ought to be to get up to an average train speed on the order of 75 mph.

Mark 

[Phoebe Vet]

Countries with trains that go faster than 180 MPH:

Belgium

China

France

Germany

Italy

Japan

South Korea

Spain

Tiwan

United Kingdom

Countries with Maglev:

China

Germany

Japan

 

[Chafford1]

al-in-chgo

Defining HSR is like the Supreme Court Justice who said he couldn't define pornography, but knew it when he saw it. 

I'm guessing the Acela is toward the low end of the spectrum for modern HST's when compared to what the systems of many other countries now offer, esp. France, Germany and of course Japan.

I'm just sayin', not looking for a fight.  -  al

 

The European Union defines High Speed Rail as 250km/h (155mph) for new lines and 200km/h (124mph) for upgraded existing lines. There's a general consensus that true high speed rail is 300km/h (186mph) or faster.

[henry6]

HSR...High Speed Rail...is just a sexy, glamorous, obscure, hype or buzzword used to ignite feelings of euphoria at the thought of moving on land as fast as you can in in jet plane.  Reality, expectations, application, and understanding of the term is not needed as long as you are a politician or other in need of attention ($$$ and/or votes).  There is a lot of talk of HSR without explanation of implimentation, application, or expectations.

[tomikawaTT]

HSR in the United States, today and for the forseeable future, can be defined as wishful thinking.

To see what HSR should be, check out the Japanese high speed rail network - dedicated right of way, totally grade separated, not even using the same track gauge as the low speed system it sometimes parallels.  Then run a quick number crunch on what it would cost to build anything similar in the US.  The only thing comparable would be the defense budget!

Chuck

[al-in-chgo]

Defining HSR is like the Supreme Court Justice who said he couldn't define pornography, but knew it when he saw it. 

I'm guessing the Acela is toward the low end of the spectrum for modern HST's when compared to what the systems of many other countries now offer, esp. France, Germany and of course Japan.

I'm just sayin', not looking for a fight.  -  al

 

[blue streak 1]

 

KCSfan

Mark

Sorry but increasing max speed 20 MPH will not raise average speeds 20 MPH. One of out math gurus want to explain?

[KCSfan]

Among passenger rail advocates HSR is today's buzz word, but just what does it mean? First of all I would suggest two things by way of definition: 1) it be defined in terms of average speed not top speed, and 2) it be subdivided into into several ranges of speed.

To start with let's look at the average speed of Amtrak trains today. I've chosen 5 Amtrak corridor and 5 long distance routes (purposedly excluding the NEC) which I think are reasonably representative of Amtrak service. The chosen routes are Chi-Milw (Hiawatha), NY-Albany (Empire) FtW-Ok City (Heartland), Chi-Battle Crk (Michigan), Okld-Sacramento (Capitol), NY-Miami (Silver), NY- Chi (Lakeshore), Chi-NO (C of NO), Chi-LA (SW Chief) and Seattle-LA (Starlight). The average speed of these 10 routes is a blazing 52 mph. I'd call this Snail Rail (SR) but since it's where we are today it can be used as a baseline for definining high speed rail. Any average speeds relatively higher than SR, even if not high speed by Asian or European standards, are at least higher speed rail.

I'd suggest the following incremental ranges of average speed for purposes of discussion: 60-80 mph -Nominal Speed Rail (NSR), 80 -100 mph - Medium Speed Rail (MSR),100 - 120 mph - High Speed Rail (HSR), and 120+ mph - Ultra High Speed Rail (UHSR).

To attain SR speeds, trains today run at up to 80 mph (79 actually) which suggests to me the following: NSR would require top speeds of up to 100 mph, MSR up to 120 mph, HSR up to 140 mph and UHSR at least 160 mph. On many routes today we already have operational problems arising from the conflict of mixing 80 mph passenger trains with 60 mph or less freights. As we move to each incrementally higher speed range those problems, and the cost of solving them, probably increase exponentially!

Additionally, the multiplicity of level grade crossings in the US as compared to Europe and Asia, presents major safety issues as train speeds increase. Minimally this means four quadrant crossing gates or other positive barriers and ideally total grade separations.

I really have no idea what the relative costs would be to achieve the higher speeds but it seems to me that $8 billion spent on existing routes over freight railroad trackage could buy a lot of NSR 60-80 mph average train speeds which would at least make the trains nearly comparable to auto speeds and, IMHO, boost ridership significantly. This, to me at least, seems the way to go to get the biggest bang for our tax $.

However those $8 billion would be but a drop in the bucket of what it would take to achieve even MSR 80-100 mph average speeds. The latter would require numerous grade separations, both crossing and train control signalling changes, multi-tracking with frequent crossovers, curve reductions, etc. Of course the same $8 billion might buy a single demonstration project of UHSR with its 160+ mph top speeds on dedicated new ROW. Again IMHO, this would be a poor way to spend the money since it would only lead to a clamor for extensions of this service all over the country which is not economically feasible now or in the near future.

We all have our opinions so I expect I'll get some agreement on this but probably even more disagreements.

Mark