Today President Obama Finally Announced his plan to build a respectable High-speed Passenger rail system in America. The first step is to construct Regional Routes and go from there. Are these the first steps to being able to dewaf other countries rail systems and become #1 in Railroading? Comments?
I'm not sure we necessarily have to have the very fastest passenger trains in the world, but if they are true HSR, that will be a huge improvement, of course.
OTOH the drive may be there to be the fastest (AND SAFEST) in the world for the sake of bragging rights and or patriotism. Neither way will be cheap. - a.s.
I don't think constructing regional routes is a good first step toward true high speed rail. My concern is unless there is a strong committment toward true high speed rail it will never happen. True high speed rail demands a visionary approach not something that is cobbled together.
True high speed rail requires dedicated tracks without interferences such as slower moving freight trains, moveable span bridges, or sharp curves. But more important, high speed trains must be capable of accelerating rapidly from stops that are few and far between, and their overall average speed from their initial point of origin to their final destination should be no less than 135 mph.
We have the example of highly industrialized Germany, which had neither the wallet nor the space to put up brand-new track and signals as the French did with their TGV's. When I was last in Germany in 1980, the InterCity expresses had just started running from their normal cruise of about 80 mph to about 110 mph in brief bursts, which were announced on the loud speaker so that all the passengers could appreciate it (and not freak out.)
Gradually the old experimental top speed of about 180 kph (110-ish) became the norm and then the IC's started running in brief bursts at around 140 mph (200 kph). And so on. The point is that incremental improvement can work. Straighten some curves, extend some sidings, electrify, upgrade the track, and repeat when passenger traffic picks up. Impossible? I've basically described the NEC from New Haven to Boston for about the past 25 years. - a.s.
RudyRockvilleMD I don't think constructing regional routes is a good first step toward true high speed rail. My concern is unless there is a strong committment toward true high speed rail it will never happen. True high speed rail demands a visionary approach not something that is cobbled together. True high speed rail requires dedicated tracks without interferences such as slower moving freight trains, moveable span bridges, or sharp curves. But more important, high speed trains must be capable of accelerating rapidly from stops that are few and far between, and their overall average speed from their initial point of origin to their final destination should be no less than 135 mph.
Well from what I understand the Regional Routes are just the first phase of the plan for High Speed in the Country. Once those are developed then they plan to expand to routes that cross the country, from what I understand. I agree that High-speed trains need their own right-of-ways and it sounded like it would be a mixture of both. The fact the Acela now has to share it's route with slower trains is a real disadvantage. Obama wants to have the same High-speed train service has other countries have developed.
http://www.sehsr.org/default.html
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
RudyRockvilleMD I don't think constructing regional routes is a good first step toward true high speed rail. My concern is unless there is a strong committment toward true high speed rail it will never happen. True high speed rail demands a visionary approach not something that is cobbled together.
But what really has to happen is a strong committment to rail passenger service overall. High Speed rail will succeed only if the subsidiary structure of of "regular" rail is available to feed and support it while giving the public a true system of service (service = quality, quantity and frequency, cost effectiveness).
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
First of all a politician will announce many ideas strictly for the positive press and that is as far as they go. Next, eight billion won't get them out of Chicago let alone to any of the destinations. Then there is the fact that the times proposed are all within ten to twenty minutes of drive times (according the the Chicago Tribune 4/16) and will dump you downtiown and nowhere near the suburbs where most businesses are today.Then there is the absolute fact that us taxpayers are fed up with federal spending and don't have any more money to give them. More pork for his Chicago friends. Who is going to pursue eight billion when he is giving away trillions?
I see someone wants to return to fiscal restraint of the last three Republican administrations...lol.
Sooooooo Who wants to organize the pool guessing when this thread will get locked?
Ummm, I don't like to gamble. Except maybe the greyhounds in Kenosha.
FWIW I don't like it when some of the "deficits don't matter" brigade from just a few years ago instantly become deficit hawks and get all sanctimonious about budget restraint. I wouldn't welcome marriage advice from Zsa Zsa Gabor, either.
PV, please PM or e-mail me if this thead does get locked.
Al-in-Chicago: You are right as it seems that the incremental approach is a money wise approach. Those lines cans be used for medium speeds if the US goes on to HSR. There is a political and with some citizens a mind set in this country that there will not be a large % of intercity travel by HSR. I believe that the example of BOS - NYC is still doubted and also LAX's Metrolink. I remember being out there and almost everyone said Metrolink would never work. Now its all about lack of parking and continued expansion. I cannot tell you how few politicians I've talked to say that US residents will never use HSR in any appreciable numbers. They just seem to close off their brain when I mention those two locations and others (Chicago, NY, SFO, SEA, even Dallas) as commuter rail examples. They have a very difficult time with the California HSR vote and say all sorts of irrational things. Once AMTRAK can get the 231 miles BOS - NYC down to three hours by getting new acelas that are narrow enough to use tilt from NH - New Rochelle and the NYC - Wash 226 miles down to two hours then we can really see how many people will ride the HSR. For those two routes each mile reduction of the total route will save 25 seconds. Every slow section that is removed will save 2-3 minutes.
I do feel that April 16's announcement was the biggest non event. What did we learn new???? .
In the past week, I rode the Crescent between Charlotte and DC twice, the Regional between DC & Baltimore once, and the Acela between Baltimore and DC once. The Acela was the only one of the four that was not functionally sold out. It was pretty full, but it did have a few empty seats. On the other three Amtrak crew kept telling people they were not entitled to two seats as gaggles of people kept walking up and down the aisles looking for empty seats after every stop.
Sure looked to me like meaningful numbers of people like to travel by train.
Phoebe VetIn the past week, I rode the Crescent between Charlotte and DC twice, the Regional between DC & Baltimore once, and the Acela between Baltimore and DC once. The Acela was the only one of the four that was not functionally sold out. It was pretty full, but it did have a few empty seats. On the other three
Phoebe Vet: It constantly appears that the Cresent is always sold out Charlottelville - WASH. Until the new WASH - Lynchburg train is started I believe that my idea of rotating the Carolinian equipment onto the Cresent for CLT - WASH may have merrit. Of course AMTRAK has to wait for some Amfleet I's to be overhauled.
The Acela Express's schedule between Boston and New York is as fast as it can go with the present route. Newer thinner Acela Express trains will not result in appreciably faster schedules between Boston and New York. The route's total curvature between Boston and New York amounts to 12 circles, and the the route crosses several navigable waterways on bridges with moveable spans that must be opened at the demand of boat traffic, and at times that are not always scheduled or predictable. So it is necessary to factor in slow downs that are due to the sharp curves and the delays caused by the openings of the moveable span bridges.
For starters, what is needed is an entirely new route between New Haven and at least the Rhode Island state line that will do away with the sharp curves and the need for moveable span bridges. eventually an entire new line could be built between New York and Boston possible reducing the travel time between these cities to between 2 or 2 1/2 hours.
blue streak 1 Phoebe VetIn the past week, I rode the Crescent between Charlotte and DC twice, the Regional between DC & Baltimore once, and the Acela between Baltimore and DC once. The Acela was the only one of the four that was not functionally sold out. It was pretty full, but it did have a few empty seats. On the other three Phoebe Vet: It constantly appears that the Cresent is always sold out Charlottelville - WASH. Until the new WASH - Lynchburg train is started I believe that my idea of rotating the Carolinian equipment onto the Cresent for CLT - WASH may have merrit. Of course AMTRAK has to wait for some Amfleet I's to be overhauled.
The Crescent probably sells out periodically between Charlottesville and Washington, but according to Amtrak's numbers it is not very often. For the first five months of FY09 the train, which saw a one per cent increase in the number of riders over the same period in FY08, had an average load factor of 46.6 per cent. This compares to an average load factor of 51.0 per cent during FY08. This is well below functionally sold out. The train lost 46.2 per cent more money per passenger mile during the first five months of FY09 than it did in FY08, although part of the increase was due to a change in Amtrak's accounting.
During the same period the Acela's saw an 11.5 decrease in the number of riders and a 10.4 per cent decrease in revenues. The average load factor declined from 61.9 per cent to 57.9 per cent, and the contribution per passenger mile declined 58.4 per cent, although the Acela's more than covered their operating expenses. The regional trains experienced a ridership decrease of 7.4 per cent that drove a reduction in revenues of 6.2 per cent. The contribution per passenger mile slipped into the red after having been in the black during FY08. Amtrak attributes the decline in ridership to the slumping economy and the significant drop in the price of gasoline as well as jet fuel.
No. Someone wants to return to foscal responsibility, term limits and and the founding fathers idea of public service. Margaret Thatcher had it right. She said, "there is no amount of good that can;t be done with someone else's money. Until you run out of it".
ndbprr I see someone wants to return to fiscal restraint of the last three Republican administrations...lol. No. Someone wants to return to foscal responsibility, term limits and and the founding fathers idea of public service. Margaret Thatcher had it right. She said, "there is no amount of good that can;t be done with someone else's money. Until you run out of it".
High speed systems are, in fact, cobbled together with elements of existing lines, whether extensions to the original New Tokaido Trunk Line or the French TGV, German ICE, and most recently Spanish AVE. Impediments to high speed service were avoided where possible; but costs could weigh against improvements to avoid some existing restrictions, especially approaching major urban centers.
I would agree to a point that dedicated lines were needed to avoid the interference of slower freight and local passenger services; but the other side of the problem is that there was no room for high speed trains on the existing lines with the traffic that was being handled. Conversely, Acelas are at no disadvantage sharing tracks with slower trains because the volume of traffic is quite low, notwithstanding the impediment of pervasive curve restrictions. Without other trains sharing the cost of maintaining the infrastructure, I doubt the Acelas would be profitable bearing the full cost of the NEC.
First, the politician (=dirty rotten?) that spoke is going beyond words with money.
True, $8 billion would not get improvements very far from Chicago; but this is stimulus money to get things moving until a plan is refined and a comprehensive program is implemented.
One of the problems perpetuated with describing corridors as to and from major urban centers is that the intermediate city and suburban stations get overlooked. Service to these stations is crucial to success in consolidating travel from along the corridor on a train rather than run separate buses for each station pair. An Illinois survey a few years back showed a quarter of State-supported train passengers had suburban destinations or origins which was quite good, considering.
This taxpayer is fed up too; but I didn't hear as much outcry about the high cost of a war that destroyed a nation to funnel pork to Halliburton in no-bid contracts as there was for the stimulus package with the rail component to build something useful.
As for Chicago, Rep Emanuel was a carpet-bagger from the Clinton Administration; and Ray La Hood was a Republican from Downstate Illinois. Pres Obama came to Chicago for a job where he met his wife, a Chicago girl; and ran as an independent for State Representative. Valerie Jarrett is the only one with ties to Mayor Daley that might be suspect; but she has proven to be capable and clean. Vice-Pres Biden, an advocate for Amtrak, is from Delaware and Speaker Pelosi is from California; so there is some strong pressure for disbursement around the country.
HarveyK400 First, the politician (=dirty rotten?) that spoke is going beyond words with money. True, $8 billion would not get improvements very far from Chicago; but this is stimulus money to get things moving until a plan is refined and a comprehensive program is implemented. One of the problems perpetuated with describing corridors as to and from major urban centers is that the intermediate city and suburban stations get overlooked. Service to these stations is crucial to success in consolidating travel from along the corridor on a train rather than run separate buses for each station pair. An Illinois survey a few years back showed a quarter of State-supported train passengers had suburban destinations or origins which was quite good, considering. This taxpayer is fed up too; but I didn't hear as much outcry about the high cost of a war that destroyed a nation to funnel pork to Halliburton in no-bid contracts as there was for the stimulus package with the rail component to build something useful. As for Chicago, Rep Emanuel was a carpet-bagger from the Clinton Administration; and Ray La Hood was a Republican from Downstate Illinois. Pres Obama came to Chicago for a job where he met his wife, a Chicago girl; and ran as an independent for State Representative. Valerie Jarrett is the only one with ties to Mayor Daley that might be suspect; but she has proven to be capable and clean. Vice-Pres Biden, an advocate for Amtrak, is from Delaware and Speaker Pelosi is from California; so there is some strong pressure for disbursement around the country.
Harvey, is it fair to interpret what you are saying as the $8 billion being only a start on federal funding for a HSR system? If so, how much will the entire system cost?
It's fair to discuss what it will cost. It's also fair to discuss what the ongoing operational cost will be. Who is going to subsidize the operation of HSR as long as it continues to operate?
Whatever someone's views on fiscal responsibility of the federal government's fiscal responsibility over the last many years (I personally believe both parties have failed the citizens spectacularly) we have an obligation to think about how our kids are going to pay the interest on the debt we are handing over to them. Just because deficit spending and waste has become the pattern in our nation, that's no excuse to advocate for it to continue in the future. That's not change.
Visit look4trains.com
htgguy Harvey, is it fair to interpret what you are saying as the $8 billion being only a start on federal funding for a HSR system? If so, how much will the entire system cost? It's fair to discuss what it will cost. It's also fair to discuss what the ongoing operational cost will be. Who is going to subsidize the operation of HSR as long as it continues to operate? Whatever someone's views on fiscal responsibility of the federal government's fiscal responsibility over the last many years (I personally believe both parties have failed the citizens spectacularly) we have an obligation to think about how our kids are going to pay the interest on the debt we are handing over to them. Just because deficit spending and waste has become the pattern in our nation, that's no excuse to advocate for it to continue in the future. That's not change.
According the Obama's speech, etc, the $8B is a start. It's supposed to buy upgrades to a half dozen or so corridors to allow big chunks of 90-110 mph running. When, how, if there are futher upgrades to true HSR along these routes and what other routes might be funded and what the costs may be are anyone's guess right now, but I'd bet a lot depends on how well the $8B is spent.
As for operating subisdies, there have been some studies that suggest that upgraded corridors could/should/would cover their operating costs and then some. In fact, there have been some inklings that private companies may be "for profit" operators. Amtrak is not the pre-ordained operator. It wouldn't surprise me to see the improved services cover their operating costs, in general. The devil will definitely be in the details!
I suspect that what evolves out of this whole process will be an uniquely American version of passenger rail transportation. Not European HSR (TGV, ICE, AVE, etc.) and not Amtrak/VIA style routes overlaid on frt RRs, but some hybrid, with bits and pieces of everything.
(BTW, the deficit is not really being driven by discretionary spending. The federal budget is about 20% of GDP. Discretionary spending is other than military is about 3%. Check it out http://perotcharts.com/challenges/)
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
blue streak 1Phoebe VetIn the past week, I rode the Crescent between Charlotte and DC twice, the Regional between DC & Baltimore once, and the Acela between Baltimore and DC once. The Acela was the only one of the four that was not functionally sold out. It was pretty full, but it did have a few empty seats. On the other three Phoebe Vet: It constantly appears that the Cresent is always sold out Charlottelville - WASH. Until the new WASH - Lynchburg train is started I believe that my idea of rotating the Carolinian equipment onto the Cresent for CLT - WASH may have merrit. Of course AMTRAK has to wait for some Amfleet I's to be overhauled.I hope you aren't suggesting alternating the Carolinian as a way to get service to Lynchburg. With sufficient demand from the NEC to western Virginia, a train following the Crescent in both directions may work once equipment comes available. I urge using new tilting Acela cars, and it will take two sets due to the possible tight but unreliable turnaround at New York.The greater market and priority may be to put on a late morning departure from Charlotte arriving New York 12 hours later after #80 taking the Crescent route. Similarly, a late morning departure from New York could arrive in Charlotte before midnight. This too would be a candidate for Acela cars. A morning train out of Washington, DC to Atlanta seems feasible with early afternoon service at Raleigh and early evening service at Charlotte. An early morning return out of Atlanta would go back to Washington, DC. Given the low-level platforms, TALGO equipment would be another equipment possibility for existing and additional services from Washington, DC, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta and south.
I hope you aren't suggesting alternating the Carolinian as a way to get service to Lynchburg. With sufficient demand from the NEC to western Virginia, a train following the Crescent in both directions may work once equipment comes available. I urge using new tilting Acela cars, and it will take two sets due to the possible tight but unreliable turnaround at New York.
The greater market and priority may be to put on a late morning departure from Charlotte arriving New York 12 hours later after #80 taking the Crescent route. Similarly, a late morning departure from New York could arrive in Charlotte before midnight. This too would be a candidate for Acela cars.
A morning train out of Washington, DC to Atlanta seems feasible with early afternoon service at Raleigh and early evening service at Charlotte. An early morning return out of Atlanta would go back to Washington, DC. Given the low-level platforms, TALGO equipment would be another equipment possibility for existing and additional services from Washington, DC, Raleigh, Charlotte, Atlanta and south.
The Chicago Tribune published a chart of "time savings" for all the midwest destinations from Chicago. I tried to find it on the Trib web site and couldn't but the important FACT here is the best projected time savings over driving was the trip to St. Louis where the total savings was twenty minutes. I've tried keeping up with the current train on the drive to Springfield and you have to drive 85 -90 to do it. This is slower than the current service. All other destinations were ten minutes or LESS! This is not high speed rail, cost effective or of any value. It is pork and should not be allowed to proceed if that is all that can be gained (or lost) from it.
Harvey:
There is no way that the Carolinian will ever follow the route the Crescent does. The Carolinian is supported by funding from NC, and the route of the Crescent does not go through Raleigh, the state capitol. Notice that the two trains that NC funds do. In addition, the Carolinian serves several cities in NC that no other train does, and is the only train that goes from Charlotte and Raleigh to Richmond.
This is from a CHicago Tribuine article:
"Chris Lippincott, spokesman for the Texas Department of Transportation, said his office was excited about advancing plans to build high-speed lines from San Antonio to Dallas and then up to Little Rock and Tulsa. But he added that the "nation's rail needs will exceed a single injection of money," citing estimates that just staying even with current level of congestion in his state will cost $313 billion over the next 20 years.Some say the investment is too small, Obama acknowledged. "But this is just a first step. We know this is going to be a long-term project," he said."
So if Texas alone is $313 Billion and let's assume that the average state cost is $20 billion fifty states would cost a minimum of one trillion dollars. Now if the cost is more like $100 billion per state that jumps the cost to five trillion dollars at today's costs. All the pigs better get to the trough fast to get on board this one. What's another five trillion in debt (or more likely far more)?
I think your logical conclusions are based on bad facts/assumptions in the first part of your "IF" statement.
ndbprr This is slower than the current service.
I don't think so..... check your facts again.
ndbprr I've tried keeping up with the current train on the drive to Springfield and you have to drive 85 -90 to do it
The max speed now is 79 mph. Are you saying you paced the train at 85-90?
ndbprrThis is not high speed rail, cost effective or of any value
Nobody, expect some goofy news folk, are claiming HSR. Most of what I've read, even by some goofy news folk, has been very clear that the $8B is for 90-110 mph max speeds. How do you know it's not cost effective? If the best estimates show good cost/benefit ratios compared to alternatives, then how is this bad?
None of the $8B precludes any future investment in higher speeds, in fact, it actually tills the ground for it. If you can get door to door trip times that are competitive with driving and get the freqency of operation up, then you can start working on upgrading the slower sections with true, high speed ROW.
Will this work? Probably - provided you pick the best candidates. An example: Phila to Harrisburg was upgraded from 80 mph max to 110 mph max. Trip times were reduced from 2:00 to 1:40. Frequency was already pretty decent on this route, but it was enhanced. Ridership increased by ~25% in two years.
ndbprr So if Texas alone is $313 Billion ...
So if Texas alone is $313 Billion ...
Sounds like this is what the highway investment needed for Texas to keep up. Sure that wasn't what he meant?
What is new is President Obama's anti-airline rhetoric:
""Imagine boarding a train in the center of a city," Obama urged Americans in the speech. "No racing to an airport and across the terminal, no delays, no sitting on the tarmac, no lost luggage, no taking off your shoes. Imagine whisking through towns at speeds over 100 mph, walking only a few steps to public transportation, and ending up just blocks from your destination. Imagine what a great project that would be to rebuild America."
Finally, we have a leader who recognizes the aesthetic and cultural importance of convenient, safe, comfortable, fast, and DIGNIFIED transportation.
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
I have no idea why it could possibly cost $313 billion for HSR between Dallas-Fort Worth and San Antonio unless Halliburton gets a no-bid contract from the Governor. By comparison, California is estimating just $40 billion for a 700 mile long HSR, 220 mph network. The Southeast Corridor may be a tad more between Washington and Jacksonville for the 220 mph corridor alternative. There aren't that many other full HSR corridors close to implementation. Illinois and Wisconsin are looking at improvements for 90-110 mph services that would take only half a billion each. So maybe the the first phase may be around $100 billion - just a guess.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.