Randal O'Toole indeed. Dontcha know he works for Cato, which is a RIGHT WING think tank and they and he HATE TRAINS. OK, I have gone on record with that, so the usual suspects around here don't have to repeat it.
Metra carries something like 300,000 passenger daily, which means that 150,000 people use it to access jobs in the Chicago Downtown. Their rush hour peak lasts about 2 hours, so say they carry 75,000 people/hour. A freeway lane may be good for 2000 cars/hr, so lets say on average 2500 people/hr. So the Metra network replaces 30 freeway lanes in each direction. I know the Kennedy Expressway has reversible lanes, but they are not duplicated elsewhere, so the Metra network is replacing 60 freeway lanes or perhaps 8-10 major freeways into the Chicago Downtown.
I ran this analysis by Randal O'Toole because he claims that many transit lines barely replace a single freeway lane with their ridership, but his analysis conflates 24-hour freeway capacity with peak-hour freeway capacity. Mr. O'Toole was gracious enough to respond to my e-mail.
His response was that it might be good that Metra supports 150,000 people in the suburbs having jobs in the Downtown, but during some time period around the 1990's, the Chicago Metropolitan area added 600,000 jobs in the suburbs not served by Metra. There are several notions in those statistics. One is that if Metra suddenly went POOF! that those 150,000 people could probably find work closer to where they lived. Another is that a city downtown require commuter rail or a transit system may be an anachronism. Yet another is that automobiles and roads, over a distibuted network of mainly arterial streets and highways and to a lesser extent limited-access tollways and freeways, are handling the growth in employment that is multiples of the total number of people served by the commuter rail network required for density in the city core.
So in one sense, Mr. O'Toole would not graciously own up to the somewhat misleading comparisons he makes between the ridership of transit systems and the 24-hour capacity of certain roads. On the other hand, I don't see transit or train advocates owning up to the fact that even the most optimistic projects for train networks and train ridership would barely put a dent in the enormous number of passenger miles that are handled in one form or another by cars.
I guess my question for many of the people around here, are there a variety of problems out there, oil dependence, global warming, paving over land, social isolation, etc to which trains are a particularly good solution, or are trains intrinsically meritorious and that if trains make even minor contributions to solving these social problems, we need to have them.
There are two factors that have moved me from foamer enthusiasm for passenger trains to a kind of guarded skepticism. One is that the energy efficiency just isn't there -- the best discussion of that is on David Lawyer's Web site, and David Lawyer does not work for the Cato Institute. David Lawyer is a self-described environmentalist who set out to evaluate trains as a solution to the energy crisis instead of a passenger train advocate who set out to show people that trains are energy efficient.
The second factor, believe it or not, is the airline travel experience. Yes, trains may not have the same weather delays, and trains may not ever get the level of social regimentation as the airline travel experience, and yes, trains may have increased leg room offset by having to occupy the seats for longer periods of time for the same distance. But if trains become a mass market, someone has to convince me that train travel operated on an economic basis won't be yet another kind of bus as air travel has become.
The one question to which I have not seen a proper response from anyone around here disagreeing with my perspective on this is the fuel economy one. That present-day Amtrak offers a minor fuel economy improvement, on average, over driving just doesn't cut it. Where is the large fuel savings from trains going to come from? What are fuel-efficient trains going to look like, from the standpoint of weight per seat, aerodynamics, propulsion? What is the seating density and situation with regard to non-revenue seating (dining, lounge, crew dorms) going to look like on fuel-efficient trains? What kind of load factors are required to make trains fuel efficient, and would those load factors impose inconvenience on travellers (always full trains with long boarding times, short space for luggage, required to take a train at a less convenient time or to book reservations weeks in advance).
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 am not going to quote in order to keep my reply down in size. I do agree with some of what you quote Sam, however, I also disagree with some of the premises that Mr. O'Toole appears to base his points on, and by inference you appear to concur.
The CATO Institute is a consisently, some would say relentlessly, libertarian think tank. "Let the market take care of it" is practically a home creed If the government is wasting money to build or improve passenger rail, how on earth are private enterpreneurs to try in this cash-poor era? Perhaps that's the point: the USA is such an exceptional society with its rugged individualism that we citizens have "chosen" to have a RR system most of whose technology is not beyond the mid-1950s. Hah!
The Interstate Highway program was a great idea for its time. Back when it was being debated (actually the bill passed in several sections but roughly 1960), the primary aim was to make driving safer, and that it has done. The secondary reason was to speed up truck travel, and that it has done. What finally got the thing passed, though, was a putative military use: hauling tactical atomic cannons quickly between cities. As far as I know, that never happened, but the military aspect helped "sell" the program to a reluctant public. Some people condemned the gas tax as intrusive and inflationary, and resented the fact that under the program, the Federal gov't bankrolled about 90 percent of construction costs. After all, the Northeast and Midwest had already evolved a system of toll roads; why should the other states get off with ten percent of the building bill?
Some unfortunate and unforeseen consequences of the "Interstating" of America include the inevitable cheesy "strip" that streches from the town center to its Interstate interchange, and the ruination of hitherto viable urban neighborhoods by the encroachment of urban Interstates in the 1960's. (Robert Caro's THE POWER BROKER has a whole chapter about Robert Moses' ruination of a neighborhood in the Bronx.). Even worse, as I think most of us would acknowledge, other unforeseen consequences include these superhighways' being so successful they've become victims of that success with constant overcrowding and rush-hour "parking lots"
It was known at the time of planning that the new superhighways would not physically endure super-long-term; in fact, their subsurface is only about half of what Hitler had his planners use for the German autobahns starting in the 1930's. Highway engineers argued -- unsuccessfully -- that we should have no less but politically there was basically one reason -- money -- that the things were in some ways deliberately underdesigned and now the busiest routes have to be stripped down and re-blacktopped every few years.
Saddest of all for people on these sites, but true: apparently no one estimated accurately how the public's growing fondness for driving medium- to long-distances in private cars over the new highways would decimate rail passenger traffic that was already hurting by the desertion of the business traveler to airplanes. No one would have guessed how much the public would take to Interstate driving, but as we know after the businessmen deserted the rails, so did most of hte public. (Notice that enhanced speed for the privately owned car wasn't stressed among the most important reasons to go Interstate. The irony now is, of course, that the roads have become so durn overcrowded that it almost impossible to set a reasonable driving schedule between major cities or with a big city in between. (Should we allow one hour for Metro Nashville? Or two, like last year. And Atlanta has become unspeakable.) I've you've driven on an Interstate Highway route ending in a zero or a five, you know that even in the country the road can be so crowded as to resemble an urban rush hour of 20 - 30 years ago. But often with hills.
The libertarian think-tanker's analysis had some merit, but it can hardly be called even-handed. For intstance, why aren't rail-passsenger locomotives going to become clearner and thriftier with fuel -- he says that won't happen but it will happen to the private car. And government planning is always wrong -- obviously, I think it's a mixed bag. But we have to try, don't we? His carping is Unfair!
Never mind that, but as happened with the Interstates these new passenger-rail projects will probably turn out a mix of failed planning, woefully pessimtic planning, overly optimistic planning , home runs, and completely unforeseen consequences. Why do we need them?
Because.All.Other.Means.of.DomesticTravel.Are.Too.Crowded.To.Add.Capacity.
Can Atlanta add more ring roads? (No.) Can Houston and SoCal alleviate their crowded Interstates with more privately-build toll roads? For a while, but even they will fill up. Rail is about all that's left, and I for one think that the standard of living in this country has not yet declined to a point where we should put up with a warmed-over, Fifties technology and extremely skeletal service that is Amtrak anywhere west of the Appalachians. In this sense, if we're planning to do nothing, we're planning for failure.
beaulieu I am not going to quote in order to keep my reply down in size. I do agree with some of what you quote Sam, however, I also disagree with some of the premises that Mr. O'Toole appears to base his points on, and by inference you appear to concur. I think Mr. O'Toole bases his points on assumptions that are no longer valid, the most important of which is cheap oil that will allow us to go on like we have been.
I think Mr. O'Toole bases his points on assumptions that are no longer valid, the most important of which is cheap oil that will allow us to go on like we have been.
I read through your response quickly and then went to another site. When I returned to read it again, most of it had been deleted. Did you delete it or has some else deleted most of it?
Paul, SNCF's TGV Dayse with 186 mph. capability weighs 0.7 tonnes per seat. If you would be satisfied with 110 mph. max speed I would think that you could either get down to 0.6 tonnes per seat or expand the seat pitch (leg room).
The car of the future that will meet the announced CAFE standards will be much smaller, more expensive, and have less power.
If we are going to have a viable rail PASSENGER transportation system in this country, it cannot share tracks with the freight railroads because it will be unviable if it has to meet collision standards that make no sense except for the fact you might hit a freight train head-on.
Wait until cars that meet the new CAFE standards begin to hit fully loaded semi-trucks. At least on the rails a collision avoidance system is practical, we are nowhere near to a similar system for the highways, especially where the individual is responsible for the maintenance .
Sam1beaulieu I am not going to quote in order to keep my reply down in size. I do agree with some of what you quote Sam, however, I also disagree with some of the premises that Mr. O'Toole appears to base his points on, and by inference you appear to concur. I think Mr. O'Toole bases his points on assumptions that are no longer valid, the most important of which is cheap oil that will allow us to go on like we have been. I read through your response quickly and then went to another site. When I returned to read it again, most of it had been deleted. Did you delete it or has some else deleted most of it?
Sam, sorry I took so long to post it and then I read Paul's post, and I was not satisfied with what I written.
beaulieu I think Mr. O'Toole bases his points on assumptions that are no longer valid, the most important of which is cheap oil that will allow us to go on like we have been.
And how are we in the advocacy community any different in our thinking about cheap oil, when we support high rates of subsidy to save maybe 20 percent on oil usage per passenger mile? How are we any different than Mr. O'Toole when our most ambitious plans would replace auto travel at the single-digit level and result in net oil savings that are a fraction of a percent of total usage?
For intstance, why aren't rail-passsenger locomotives going to become clearner and thriftier with fuel -- he says that won't happen but it will happen to the private car.
Since the initial 1970's oil shocks, cars have increased in fuel economy although perhaps not as much when oil got cheap in the 1990's. Airlines have had steady increase in fuel economy -- partly through improved airplane designed, improved engines, largely because of packing passengers into the airplane. Trains have had hardly any change worth noting -- fuel usage has moved up and down, but there is no discernable improvement over time.
I suppose people are going to turn around and say that we "underinvested in trains." But Amtrak has been around since the 1970's and has received billions in subsidies over the years, but little has changed in their fuel economy when it had been a priority for everyone else.
I am one who is in favor of rail passenger service but not as enthusiastic about HSR being the panacea for all passenger rail transportation problems; I think it is highly over stated or hyped. However, that being said, what a good HSR system will do is alliow the rest of the passenger system be utilized with connecting and lesser intermediate services. Thus the "less elite" also can have more and better services.
The facts lie in the statistics and statistics can lie when improperly applied.
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.
Sam1 wrote:
"Studies in Japan and France have shown that high speed rail is not about serving the common citizen. Instead it is used largely by foreign tourists and in-country elites."
Please provide a primary source for this statement.
I found contradictory examples after a brief Google search. "Four years after the Paris/Lyon TGV route opened, rail passenger trips increased 90 percent for personal travel and 180 percent for business travel. Both increases came at the expense of air and automobile travel." Also: "British Airways reported a loss of 30 to 40 percent of its passengers on its competing one hour London to Paris flight" (after inauguration of Eurostar). From
"Make no little plans; they have no magic to stir men's blood." Daniel Burnham
Paul Milenkovic And how are we in the advocacy community any different in our thinking about cheap oil, when we support high rates of subsidy to save maybe 20 percent on oil usage per passenger mile? How are we any different than Mr. O'Toole when our most ambitious plans would replace auto travel at the single-digit level and result in net oil savings that are a fraction of a percent of total usage?
Paul these people are more in line with my thinking.
Securing America's Future Energy
As for "foreigners," let's not forget that our cheap dollar makes things cheap for them. It may indeed be worth the extra money to them to ride a train (Acela) which is almost the equal of the bullet trains, the TGV, and the German InterCity network." Saves time and cleaner equipment, etc.
The whole idea that "we can't afford high-speed rail" is out-of -context in this world today...
Facebook Gets $200 Million Backing From Digital Sky
By Joseph Galante
"May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., the world’s largest social-networking service, received an investment from Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies that values the company at $10 billion, more than Starbucks Inc. or Safeway Inc.
Digital Sky will buy $200 million in preferred stock, gaining a 1.96 percent stake in the company, Palo Alto, California-based Facebook said today in a statement..."
I posted excerpts from Mr. O'Toole's column because they represent a contrarian point of view, and I believe that they are worthy of a rational discussion.
I have never been to France or Spain. If you want Mr. O'Toole to support any of the assertions that he made in his column, you are free to contact him. I understand that he has responded to e-mails and letters from interested parties.
I have ridden the Acela on several occasions. Most of the people that I met on the trains were business people traveling on expense account. Moreover, I have looked closely at the fares for the Acela and have compared them to the regional fares, as well as those for competing buses and airlines. The differences are particularly dramatic between Philadelphia and New York, for example. They are less so between Washington and New York. The fare structure, coupled with my experience, plus the accommodations on the Acela (first and business class only), tell me that the Acela service is intended primarily for persons traveling on an expense account or higher income patrons. To further buttress this argument, most of the discounts that are available on other Amtrak trains are not available on the Acela.
The fact that rail travel experienced an upsurge in personal and business train travel following the introduction of TGV service tells us nothing about the incomes or class of the riders. In fact, it does not tell us whether they rode the TGV or a non-TGV service. Who are these personal users? Who are the business users? What criteria were used to define the categories? Did the personal rail users ride on the TGV or a non-TGV service? Did the business travelers use the TGV or a non-TGV service?
It is interesting to note that business travel increased 180 per cent whilst personal travel increased 90 per cent. It is possible that the business travelers went on the TGV, whilst personal travelers went on non-TGV services. What was the base? What per cent of intercity travel in France was by train prior to the introduction of the TGV service. What was the per cent after introduction of the TGV? What is the per cent today?
Just to keep the record straight, I favor moderate speed passenger trains in high density corridors where the cost of expanding the highways and airways is prohibitive. I supported the implementation of commuter rail between Fort Worth and Dallas, although the subsidy required to operate it is very high. I also support the Austin commuter rail service and will be a regular rider when they get it going. I support the development of train service from Austin to San Antonio if it can be done for a reasonable cost.
I have not bought into the argument for TGV style high speed rail. It is a very costly alternative that will be used by a small percentage of the population.
Re: "The fact that rail travel experienced an upsurge in personal and business train travel following the introduction of TGV service tells us nothing about the incomes or class of the riders."
What are you saying? As early as the early Eighties SNCF had a program called "la democratisation de Vitesse" (the democratization of Speed) during which luxury, first-class-only trains, were opened up to second-class seating and riders as well. When TGV was new it was extra-fare, first class only. This became over time a public issue when the "new" wore off the technological miracle of super-fast passenger trains and the French gov't (or at least SNCF, which is government-owned) realized there was a tension between offering a brand-new, high-tech service in which there was room only for the elite (1st class passengers); and the mass democracy of the public on the other hand, that wanted its democratizaztion of speed on TGV and thought it only fair, as fellow members of the taxpaying public, to be included in the new trains.
SNCF may not have inquired about the income or class background of its TGV riders when they bought their tickets, but it did bow to public will and start offering second-class seating on the TGV a few years ago. Upshot? The original TGV route now has double-decker trains which carry many more people -- in first and second class both. I must remark that I never heard of any French people whining about how there wasn't enough money, or that equipping the world's fastest trains as bi-levs was so technologically improbable as to be impossible, or that French technology just didn't run that way, or that the French people didn't really like trains all that much. I realize it makes a big difference that France, while large, is not huge and Continental (it's about the size of Texas actually), and that private rates of car-ownership are much lower than here in the USA (and Canada). The country has an excellent system of superhighways, too, some of which started out as toll roads (again, the elite) but trickled down to all car-drivers when the roads were paid for and became free of charge to use.
So, yes, SNCF and Amtrak can draw some pretty good inferences about who is riding their trains by keeping credit-card data, especially when correlated with surveys. They'll know if somone's VISA was American or Japanese or German or French. And FWIW Japan National Railways offered its original bullet train (1964) with both first- and second-class seating and to my knowledge has never offered any daylight high-speed trains without both kinds of seating. - a.s.
al-in-chgo Re: "The fact that rail travel experienced an upsurge in personal and business train travel following the introduction of TGV service tells us nothing about the incomes or class of the riders." What are you saying? As early as the early Eighties SNCF had a program called "la democratisation de Vitesse" (the democratization of Speed) during which luxury, first-class-only trains, were opened up to second-class seating and riders as well. When TGV was new it was extra-fare, first class only. This became over time a public issue when the "new" wore off the technological miracle of super-fast passenger trains and the French gov't (or at least SNCF, which is government-owned) realized there was a tension between offering a brand-new, high-tech service in which there was room only for the elite (1st class passengers); and the mass democracy of the public on the other hand, that wanted its democratizaztion of speed on TGV and thought it only fair, as fellow members of the taxpaying public, to be included in the new trains. SNCF may not have inquired about the income or class background of its TGV riders when they bought their tickets, but it did bow to public will and start offering second-class seating on the TGV a few years ago. Upshot? The original TGV route now has double-decker trains which carry many more people -- in first and second class both. I must remark that I never heard of any French people whining about how there wasn't enough money, or that equipping the world's fastest trains as bi-levs was so technologically improbable as to be impossible, or that French technology just didn't run that way, or that the French people didn't really like trains all that much. I realize it makes a big difference that France, while large, is not huge and Continental (it's about the size of Texas actually), and that private rates of car-ownership are much lower than here in the USA (and Canada). The country has an excellent system of superhighways, too, some of which started out as toll roads (again, the elite) but trickled down to all car-drivers when the roads were paid for and became free of charge to use. So, yes, SNCF and Amtrak can draw some pretty good inferences about who is riding their trains by keeping credit-card data, especially when correlated with surveys. They'll know if somone's VISA was American or Japanese or German or French. And FWIW Japan National Railways offered its original bullet train (1964) with both first- and second-class seating and to my knowledge has never offered any daylight high-speed trains without both kinds of seating. - a.s.
The post that I referred to did not tell me anything about the class of people who ride the TGV. It did not tell me who makes up the personal class; it did not tell me who makes up the business class; it did not tell me how much they pay; it did not give me any hard data. Neither did O'Toole. You can take his comment for what it is worth. I do, however, from fare data and experience have a pretty good idea of who rides the Acela, which at the end of the day is the most important insight for me.
Is second class service on the TGV akin to business class on Acela? How much does it cost? Who uses it? You have not provided any hard data about the fare structure.
I am pleased that the French are happy with their TGV, although I don't know what percentage of the population uses it, which would be a better indication of their happiness. Having reviewed the SNCF financial reports, I know that the system requires a very large subsidy from the French Government. You can find the numbers in the annual financial report, although they are a tad difficult to dig out.
I don't care whether the French are happy with the TGV or the Japanese are happy with their bullet trains. I am interested in what is the best solution for the United States, which by the way staged a little revolution a couple of hundred plus years ago to distance itself from the Europeans.
I am concerned with what will work best for the U.S. And how to pay for it.
Re: "You have not provided any hard data about the fare structure."
Nor can I, not will I. My evidence, which was enough to persuade me, was based on a TV report, a longish (45-minute) MySpace video, and similar mention; and reason.
What is your idea of "hard evidence"? Physically bound printouts from the cost accounting or marketing departments at SNCF? They wouldn't send them to me and probably wouldn't to the average French citizen. If you actually have hardcopy French statistics, shouldn't you be the one to share them with us? With actual numbers, I mean? And policy and operating decisions?
The examples from other countries are to show a couple of things: (1) by reason of analogy, what has worked there might work here; and (2) no major industrialized country that has set at least a basic HSR network as a priority has failed to achieve that. Deficits of funding and technology can be made up for if the political will and social support are there.
I personally don't think we have the room (all those suburbs) or the dough to plan and execute a full system of 200 mph trains with no crossings or slow orders anywhere beyond the stations (even the French run the TGV at lower speeds on more conventional track, and there's a lot of it). I do think that we might want to follow something similar to the German model, which was a program of steady upgrades and rising average speeds of their IC trains, but very little brand-new track in new places. Over the past thirty-five years their best trains have gone from a GG-1 top cruising speed (ca. 85 mph) to an almost Japanese one (speeds approx, 140 mph). It cost a lot of money and took a lot of time but the proof is in the pudding--they are popular.
Nowhere in my prior postings have I argued that we should build HRS just because they have it in Japan, France, Germany, England, Hungary, Austria, Sweden........etc etc etc. But I will say that if it makes sense to us, one op-ed from a tunnel-visioned Libertarian should not throw off what could be a national program of infrastructure improvement, as the Interstate Highway program did in the 1960's to early 1970's.
For the record, I think the next best step is moderate speed trains with about the level of service (daily frequency) of 1959. Is it too much to ask to move only fifty years backwards?
I gave up on supporting maglev; the future is way too far for most Americans to consider. The rest of the developed world is taking leaps and bounds: the cover of this week's Nature (which along with Science, The New England Journal of Medicine, and of course Trains is among the most important of our planet's publications) features the fifth dimension. 100 mph in three dimensions (but three times a day) would be okay for most purposes in this country....
[See "Digital Storage in Five Dimensions: How to cram 1.6 terabytes on a DVD sized disk," cover of Nature volume 459 (issue number 7,245), 21 May 2009.)]
I agree with you that maybe too much attention is paid too soon on high speed rail, before Amtrak service is brought to all large city pairs in the 48 states.
Mailman brought new Amtrak timetable which shows some of the same old disappointments:
- no connections Albuquerque-El Paso. I've thought for many years that an Amtrak train from El Paso - Denver would succeed, given the great Latino migration northward. Now there's a report that Gov. Richardson (NM) wants to extend his RailRunner trains, already serving Santa Fe (!!) to those end points.
- poor connections Phoenix-Flagstaff. And why not a Thruway bus Phoenix-Maricopa? I just don't understand that one.
- speaking of Phoenix, isn't it time for a maglev train Phoenix- San Bernardino area, connecting to MetroLink?
- and why no more routes for Auto Train, all these years? NY-Phila.-Chicago, Chicago-Denver, Chicago-St. Louis-Texas, and many many more.
- Here we sit in Allentown, PA, and the best we can hope for appears to be an extension of NJ Transit the few miles over the border. They did run bus services to NYC for a number of years. Another operator took over. Not even Amtrak here!
- Has Amtrak EVER undertaken a comprehensive, professional, national survey, to see what markets are not currently served, and where any expansion should take place first? Isn't the best place to start increased frequency on existing routes?
I do hope the stimulus addresses and solves these needs.
James E. Bradley
Lehigh Valley Chapter N.R.H.S.
I
Maglev The whole idea that "we can't afford high-speed rail" is out-of -context in this world today... Facebook Gets $200 Million Backing From Digital Sky By Joseph Galante "May 26 (Bloomberg) -- Facebook Inc., the world’s largest social-networking service, received an investment from Russia’s Digital Sky Technologies that values the company at $10 billion, more than Starbucks Inc. or Safeway Inc. Digital Sky will buy $200 million in preferred stock, gaining a 1.96 percent stake in the company, Palo Alto, California-based Facebook said today in a statement..."
Facebook, Inc. is a for profit business. It is able to attract private capital because the investors believe that it is a going concern that will return their capital with interest.
Unfortunately, most passenger rail projects, including operations, depend on taxpayer monies because they are money losing propositions and cannot attract private capital.
As for the idea that France has the right population density and the midwest does not I've a question. How does the population density of France compare with Illinois and Indiana? Then add the MKE - Chi route?. In the east what is the density from BOS - RIC? Add Albany - NYP? Pittsburg - PHL? San Diego - Santa Barber?
Population density is not the question here. France, and the rest of Europe, have over the past two centuries, developed their transportation system into what it is. So have we ours. At this point it is not sensible to apply our standards to them or thier standards to us. Compare, yes, But you cannot draw similar conclusions.
May I add my cent's worth from the other side of the Atlantic. As ever there are arguments on both sides, and I'd certainly not wish to argue that what works in Europe will work in the United States. That said American cities, even some of the most conservative and decentralised ones have adopted Light Rail, based to some extent on European practice, and it works.
Issue 1. High speed rail is for the rich. Partially true, but only because the poor don't travel. If you have no money you can't travel, whether by high speed train, bus, plane or car. You don't have a job, so make no journeys to work and on behalf of work. You don't go and see your friends in the next state and can't afford those weekend breaks to pop away to the city, or indeed countryside. Thus the pool of travellers is already biased towards the richer end of the population.
Issue 2. The democritastion of travel. Al's point is right in principle, but lacks some detail. The fastest trains in the 1950s through to the 1970s were either first class only or 1st and 2nd class but with supplements. This applied to Germany as well as France. Come the mid-late 70s the rail administrations in both countries realised the rail travel was perceived as something for the rich. Germany introduced 2 class intercity services (instead of 1st class only), France the Corail coach (good for 125mph) and of course the TGV. Some TGV sets (less than 1 in 10) were 1st class only, but they ran from Paris to Lyon coupled to a 1st class/2nd class set. I'm pretty sure no trains were 1st class only.
The 1st class only sets were refurbished at mid-life to 1st and 2nd class ones. As you'll all know the orginal Paris to Lyon High Speed Line was a stunning sucess (against considertable scepticism it has to be said). Capacity ran out, leaving bigger trains or better signalling as the only option if the demand was to be catered for. Both were done, from 5 min headways at c160mph there are now 3 minute headways at 186mph. Double deck TGV sets (a stunning technical achievement by the way) were introduced so that each train carried over a quarter more passengers.
Issue 3 Population density. It is an issue, France is actually mostly empty space, with150 miles plus between major cities. Not Western empty space I agree, but to some extent midwestern empty space. Agricultural land is cheaper to build on than an urban environment, so high speed lines in France are significnalty cheaper than in Germany, Belgium and the UK, let alone Japan.
Issue 4 Congestion. There is no solution to congestion, and perhaps never has been, save for short periods when transport provsion gets ahead of mobility needs. That happended in the late 19th centruy with urban trolley systems, in the 1920s and 30s with the first motor cars and in the 1960s and 70s with freeways. But traffifc tends to expand to fill the (road) space avaialble, or in other words you can't build ytourself out of congestion.
What you can do is increase mobility. Urban railways tend to do this by building underground. Congestion reduces for a while, but then the people who would never have dreampt of getting their cars out when it took 30 minutes to go five miles realise the roads are emptier and drive, thereby increasing congestion. Buiding freight capcity takes trucks off the roads so reducing congestion and encouraging new operators to put trucks on the newly uncongested roads thereby making them more congested. As Sam might say - that's the market.
High Speed rail's more subtle. Why would I go to Paris if it took me 5 hours. But if it's 2.5 hours I'll go, because I don't waste my weekend travelling. This is suppressed demand, ie journeys are undertaken that would not have been undertaken before. This applies to business journmeys as well. When it took 4 hours from Paris to Lyon business people did not consider making the trip there and back in a day. Now it's 2 hours each way, and up to every half hour in frequency people travel.
Nothing's simple, perhaps best to think about unintended consequences in all of this.
I like your last paragraph, Cricketer...it says a lot about how transportation means are viewed. Applied to the automobile in the U.S. it is the explanation of its surge. I live in a small urban area 200 miles from New York City. No trains. No planes. Only highways. Before the superhighway it was an all day trek, 6 to 8 hours, but today, three to three and a half. So those who want to go to NYC go by car, maybe bus. But now, as congestion builds toward the larger city, as parking becomes a major problem, as there are more and more trucks on these super highways, the more time it takes again, and the more desirable a fast train is (i.e., 4 hours or less).
Thank you, Cricketer, for making such good counter-arguments and for tactfully offering a much better history of my take on "democratization of speed" in Western Europe. Your whole entry is impressive, but I was particularly impressed with the paragraph that begins, "High Speed Rail's more subtle. . . " It was much more consequential than me flopping around talking about "marketing." and such.
A little OT, but I also want to second Cricketer's impression that the interrelationship of French towns and country has an almost Midwestern feel to it. Climates and regions vary, but I was impressed on my three trips not only how charming the older buildings are and how good even ordinary food is, but at the number of things I've seen that might be considrered "quintessentially American small-town" but are not necessarily. These include Wal-Mart type superstores, but they generally got theirs first; county fairs with tilt-a-whirl machines (which were generally made in Italy and look just like the Italian-build fair rides we have); pheasant hunting after harvest (ordinary French citizens do not legally own pistols but can own longarms and they like sport shooting too); and the "Trans-cereales" (hope I've spelled it right) hopper cars that looked a lot like our BNSF, etc., models and were almost as big. There's an attitude pretty widespread in the USA that all things French are either wilfully perverse or hopelessly sophisticated, but that's very far from the truth, which is more complicated but also more fun! - a.s.
al-in-chgo What is your idea of "hard evidence"? Physically bound printouts from the cost accounting or marketing departments at SNCF? Yes! The financial information can be found in the SNCF financial statements, although they are not nearly as transparent as Amtrak's financial reports. If you actually have hardcopy French statistics, shouldn't you be the one to share them with us? With actual numbers, I mean? And policy and operating decisions? I did not challenge Mr. O'Toole's asertions. Data regarding the profiles of people who use the high speed rail systems in Europe and Japan are probably difficult to get. If they are available, they would show hard data, i.e. incomes, type of travel, etc. The examples from other countries are to show a couple of things: (1) by reason of analogy, what has worked there might work here; and (2) no major industrialized country that has set at least a basic HSR network as a priority has failed to achieve that. Deficits of funding and technology can be made up for if the political will and social support are there. If the users will not pay the full cost to use the system, either directly or indirectly, the cost falls on non-users, who for the most part are the taxpayers. The first question is whether the United States should build high speed rail to solve a real transport problem. The second question is whether it can afford it. If the answer is yes, then looking at what other countries do to get ideas that may be applicable here is appropriate. But building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs. With the exception of a few rants about Mr. O'Toole's political views, which are irrelevant, most of the folks who have responded to his views with some worthy ideas. However, no one has put forth a realistic plan of how to pay for the proposed high speed rail or a concrete cost/benefit analysis. In the business world where I spent all of my working career, if I had proposed a major project without a reasonable projection of the cost and benefits, I would have been on the street looking for another job.
What is your idea of "hard evidence"? Physically bound printouts from the cost accounting or marketing departments at SNCF?
Yes! The financial information can be found in the SNCF financial statements, although they are not nearly as transparent as Amtrak's financial reports.
If you actually have hardcopy French statistics, shouldn't you be the one to share them with us? With actual numbers, I mean? And policy and operating decisions?
I did not challenge Mr. O'Toole's asertions. Data regarding the profiles of people who use the high speed rail systems in Europe and Japan are probably difficult to get. If they are available, they would show hard data, i.e. incomes, type of travel, etc.
If the users will not pay the full cost to use the system, either directly or indirectly, the cost falls on non-users, who for the most part are the taxpayers.
The first question is whether the United States should build high speed rail to solve a real transport problem. The second question is whether it can afford it. If the answer is yes, then looking at what other countries do to get ideas that may be applicable here is appropriate. But building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs.
With the exception of a few rants about Mr. O'Toole's political views, which are irrelevant, most of the folks who have responded to his views with some worthy ideas. However, no one has put forth a realistic plan of how to pay for the proposed high speed rail or a concrete cost/benefit analysis.
In the business world where I spent all of my working career, if I had proposed a major project without a reasonable projection of the cost and benefits, I would have been on the street looking for another job.
re: "[B]ut building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs."
Why are YOU allowed to make facile analogies based on the individual nuclear family when you are so insistent I can't analyze like agents by relating one nation's HSR system to another's? -- a.s.
al-in-chgo re: "[B]ut building high speed rail because the Europeans and Japanese have done so is akin to adopting the budget of the family down the street irrespective of whether it meets your needs." Why are YOU allowed to make facile analogies based on the individual nuclear family when you are so insistent I can't analyze like agents by relating one nation's HSR system to another's? -- a.s.
You have missed my point. You appear to be looking at other countries for a solution that will work in the U.S. without analyzing the problem, i.e. where is high speed rail a good fit. And how will we pay for it.
As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.
It is a matter of timing.
I have been reseving further comment on this topic until I receive my July Trains...
Maglev I have been reseving further comment on this topic until I receive my July Trains... The Truth About Trains Is what you know about railroading accurate? We asked the experts to set the record straight about myths, costs, societal influences, technology, fuel efficiency, and more
Whether Trains, which has a vested interest in all things railroad, will produce an objective assessment of the railroad industry, including the argument for high speed rail, presumably, in the United States or beyond, is questionable.
I too will read the article(s). But I will be mindful of the biases that will probably leak into the reporting. I suggest that there are better sources of information.
If I want to know how Amtrak is performing, I dig the information out of their financial and operating reports that contain objective, primary source data (Energy Information Administration) or data that has been audited by an independent auditor (Amtrak Annual Report). If I want to know how much the French Government subsidies the TGV system, I pull the information from the system and government financial reports. If I want to know the energy footprint of passenger rail compared to alternative modes of passenger transport, I go to the Energy Information Administration. And lastly, but not least, if I want to know the subsidies required to run a light rail system, I go to National Transit Database.
My major complaint with high-speed train travel is that it is difficult to observe close-by scenery. It passes by so quickly that observation is highly limited, and I get dizzy. Still worse is when any train operates on a sunken track with berms or walls blocking any view. Nevertheless, train travel is more like first-class air travel as far as seating and comfort is concerned.
Mark
Where is Ed at a time like this?
Sam1 As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.
To be somewhat contrarian myself, I think the focus on high speed rail in North America is premature, trying to run before learning to walk. For rail travel to work well the most important aspect is it be CONVENIENT for passengers to use. Other things being equal, obviously a fast train is more convenient than a slow one, but that is only part of the picture.
One of the biggest advantages in Europe, and why trains are so convenient, is that for many destinations they run as frequently as my city transit bus route. Some make more stops and take longer, but often just catching the next train provides the fastest journey. Waiting half an hour to catch a train that is 20 minutes faster is still a net loss of 10 minutes.
We only have to look at California to see how modest increases in train frequency have led to quite dramatic increases in ridership. By running more trains, the times become convenient for a much broader market. If the business meeting, shopping trip, etc., is shorter you can get home earlier, and of course if it runs overtime, there might be an suppertime departure to still get you home. The one train a day model that is all too common usually has a compromise schedule that is not particularly convenient for more than a handful of passengers.
High Speed Rail necessarily implies few if any intermediate stops. The issue of convenience again comes to the fore. The train may go right past your suburban town, but you will be forced to spend 40 minutes going to the city center before whizzing past your house 10 minutes later. A slower train that actually stops has a 50 minute head start, may well provide fairly competitive overall journey times, and is certainly more convenient to use. This of course is why the automobile is such strong competition to all modes of commercial transport, since the majority of trips are more than simply city center to city center (or airport to airport).
While there are likely a few corridors where high speed rail may be justified, my opinion is that at this stage the California example of increased frequency with relatively fast trains provides a better first stage. First develop a convenient and usable network so that passenger rail is seen to be more than a historical remnant. Once the frequency exists, and the service is being used, it becomes appropriate to consider the megabucks that the much higher speeds will cost.
John
blue streak 1Sam1 As I stated in my post, the first question is whether the U.S. should build high speed rail, i.e. what problem will it solve better than any alternative. The second question is whether we can afford it, which again no one posting to this forum, at least, has answered in detail. If the answers to these questions is yes, then it would be appropriate to look at what other countries have done and determine whether their solutions or modificatons would be a good fit here.Sam1: I think for better or worse the answer to the first question is yes HSR will be built unless there is a quantum shift in the political mindset. That said the 2nd quention comes into play. Can we afford Express (very expensive), Regional ( less expensive for the 110 - 150 MPH) which we sort of have for Bos - NH, Emerging which seems a very good start (90-110)?. Probably the test case of WASH - Raleigh being built and the resulting traffic will go a long way to verifying what we can afford.
I tend to agree with Paul about the fuel efficiency argument regarding Amtrak.
One problem has been the resolution of passenger safety by building rolling tanks and putting massive locomotives in the front. This didn't work at Chatsworth (CA) and lowers train fuel efficiency by increasing weight and resistance. At some point, the force of a collision throws passengers with more fatal results than from crushing. PTC is the only rational solution; and railroads should embrace it as well for freight operations. Way too many costly and deadly collisions occur between freights overrunning signals and block limits.
The second problem is utilization with a relatively small number of intercity passengers in the numerator, even on a sold-out Acela. The morning and evening commuter Hiawathas may be sold out or nearly so much of the time; but the dozen other trains averaged less than 50 passengers! With a one-way fare as much as the promtional rate to Saint Louis and virtually break-even with out-of-pocket driving costs, it's no wonder few beside those destined for downtown Chicago take the train. I've contended that if off-peak fares were reduced by half and ridership doubled, there would be no loss in revenue; and fuel efficiency would surpass a Prius with two people. At least two more peak round trips to Chicago would better meet demand and raise overall fuel efficiency.
Combining peak Amtrak and Metra trains may have been proposed in a previous thread. As it is, #330 arriving at 7:58 am is carded for 102 minutes compared to 92 minutes for other trains. Additional stops at Kenosha and Gurnee with the stop at Glenview moved to Lake-Cook and take the same time. This can be done carrying more passengers and justifying a slot in a near-capacity Metra commuter operation without costly capacity improvements.
I understand the TGV's, ICE's, and AVE's carry around 400 passengers (what is the average load factor?). Cutting through the fluff about high speed, these trains come from branches that provides the volume of traffic to justify the investment in high-speed infrastructure. The California plan may approach European traffic levels with services from San Francisco, Oakland, and Sacramento to Los Angeles and San Diego. It certainly come closer to justifying a Fresno-Los Angeles segment.
The downside is high speed takes energy. 200 mph goes well beyond what it takes to compete with driving. I vaguely recall some fuel comparisons with aviation; but they're not at hand and I'm too lazy (and lunch is ready) to look it up. The question becomes how much energy efficiency compared to driving is given up to compete with the airlines?
I agree with John's comment that high speed should not imply few intermediate stops. Suburban stops provide a convenience, and smaller markets deserve some rail service, whether on the high speed line or existing infrastructure as a complementary service.
As I've mentioned before, passenger service on the old JNR Tokaido Line did not cease with the New Line; and subsequent high speed lines only brought a reduction in services, not discontinuance, on existing lines. Furthermore the New Tokaido Line had non-stops, expresses, and locals with stops on passing tracks that allowed faster trains to overtake and pass.
Yes the fuel efficiency in the U.S. does not compare to Europe (and others) just because of our "heavy loading standards"; its the choice we have made over the years when it came to railroading in North America. It carried over to the highways, too, with big cars and huge trucks and truck trains (those tractors pulling two or more trailers at 80mph down the Interstate and 65 on the two lanes). Couple that with the fact that there are many other factors differentiating foreign rail systems and societies so you are actually comparing apples to oranges when talking foriegn versus North American railroading. It has technical as well as social and political overtones. We have to decide how we want to pay for our transportation system: a universal system for all to use equally (buy the service you can afford or want) under government financing or only those who can afford travel will pay for any and all travel out of thier own pockets, one trip at a time and at full cost, i.e. no government subsidies, traffic control, terminal control, research and development, tax breaks so that what you pay for is what you get and I ain't gonna help you. Niether exterme is going to work in this country, it has always been a sort of attempt at midddle ground with private and public sectors paying for it all so that all can share the need and use.
Randall O'Toole points to only 33 states being in high speed rail plans - that's relevance for 2/3 the senators.
Similarly, it's not so much the area as the population and travel demand being served along a corridor. This may not be much in the often-cited percentage of total travel; but it begins to have significance to travel in a corridor.
Well, my July Trains arrived the other day...
Passenger trains don't lose money (Bob Johnson, pp. 28-29).
"Maglev really is the technology of the future (David Lustig, p.33)."
Sam1 has questioned the reliability of this secondary source, and I couldn't agree more. But due to our nation's inadequate transportation system, it is difficult for me to get to a library for research.
And I know the response I'll hear to that is, "Use the internet!" But I trust the internet less than Sam1 and Trains as sources of transportation statistics. In defense of printed media, there is a fundamental difference between browsing a library and using Google. On the internet, one can find the information you are seeking. In a library, you stumble on surprises. Full text of many primary journal artices is not available on the internet, and only the best-supported universities can afford many specialty journals.
I have not read the July Trains having just recieved it this afternoon. However I did go through it and noted the names on the article mentioned above and have to take exception to the accusation that what is contained in Trains is not real railroading. Those writers of these articles in question are not fan writers but business writers and write for a whole group of other publications other than Trains or Kalmbach Publishing. Their credentials are excellent and their expertise widely sought. They have all had journalism experiences as well as railroad business exposure unlike any of us...well most of us. Certainly I would pay more attention to what they say about railroading than a writer or poster like me. Plus you have to consider the reputation and stature of Kalmbach and Trains on top of that. Wikopedia and Facebook and the like cannot match the professional journalistic efforts like that.
henry6 I have not read the July Trains having just recieved it this afternoon. However I did go through it and noted the names on the article mentioned above and have to take exception to the accusation that what is contained in Trains is not real railroading. Those writers of these articles in question are not fan writers but business writers and write for a whole group of other publications other than Trains or Kalmbach Publishing. Their credentials are excellent and their expertise widely sought. They have all had journalism experiences as well as railroad business exposure unlike any of us...well most of us. Certainly I would pay more attention to what they say about railroading than a writer or poster like me. Plus you have to consider the reputation and stature of Kalmbach and Trains on top of that. Wikopedia and Facebook and the like cannot match the professional journalistic efforts like that.
Magazine publishers select the writers who produce the articles that appear in their publications. Frequently the writers are asked to address a theme. The publishers edit the articles and pay the writers. Thus, they have a significant say in what is published in their publication(s).
There is not such thing as objective reporting. It is relative and, therefore, bespeaks of the need to read widely from many sources, including those at variance with your favorite publication(s), to get as broad and objective a view as possible. This is especially true for publications that are geared to fan and interest groups.
Few professional journalists blatantly distort their findings. But they filter them through their perspectives, which will be influenced by their life experiences, as well as the organization that selected them and is paying them.
I don't mean to suggest that Trains or any other publication would knowingly skew the facts regarding high speed rail, for example, but I doubt that the editors would hire a "Mr. O'Toole" to write an article for Trains.
The most objective assessment of the high speed rail projects that I have seen is a March 2009 audit report issued by the Government Accounting Office (GAO). It does not have a dog in the hunt, which a Texas way of saying that it does not have a vested interest in the outcomes of its findings. It is known amongst auditors and many laypersons as one of the most objective reporting organizations in the United States if indeed not the world.
I subscribed to Trains for more than 25 years. Now I buy only those issues, as well as PDF files, that contain subjects that interest me. If an issue contains more than one article that interests me, I buy the magazine at the news stand. I buy approximately four issues a year; I will probably buy the July issue. But I will compare the findings in any high speed rail article(s) against the GAO's findings as well as any independent audits of these projects.
I have told Trains that I would be willing to buy on-line and download the articles that interest me. I prefer this approach to buying a magazine with only one article of interest. Trains could wait a month or two to make the articles available on line so as not to unduly harm news stand and subscription sales. Unfortunately, the editors have not bought into my desire. But they will. The day of print journalism is coming to an end. This 70 year old sees it with crystal clarity.
You're right, Sam. If you don't like what a magazine or newspaper stands for, or a TV netwrok, station, or show, stands for, don't buy, don't look. But also don't complain. That is who they are and you know that going into it. (And I mean this in a generic, general way, not a personal way.)
Well Sam, last week marked the beginning of a good test of whether or not HSR can make money or not. Last week Alstom completed the first bodyshell for a new AGV (next generation TGV) for the company NTV. NTV is intending to compete against the incumbent Trenitalia for HSR in Italy. As a competitor to the State owned Trenitalia, NTV isn't likely to receive subsidies from the Italian government.
NTV website
For what it's worth, I have some experience in high-speed rail economics, technical aspects, and feasibility studies, and my billable hours in the last six months have swung almost 100% into high-speed rail.
This is what I can tell you from an insider's point of view:
Bottom line? This is an interesting thread but so far all it's mostly done is restate positions that I already knew from the people I knew already had them.
If the voting public wants HSR, they get HSR. If they don't, they don't. So be it. I'm not worried that the nation will come to an end either way.
My guess from spending waaaay too much time inside the beltway lately is this:
I try to just deal with reality. Whatever the public wants, they get. Majority rules. I can rant and raise my blood pressure. I can exile myself to another country -- any suggestions which one is better? Or I can just suck it up and get with the program.
RWM
Anyone who reads these knows that Sam and I don't often agree, and I hope our discussions don't sound like there is any personal animosity.
That said I believe that too much emphasis is being put on the fact that many will be paying for a system that few will use. It is, in fact, the nature of our society to do just that.
Here in charlotte, millions of tax dollars have been spent, and continue to be spent on a whitewater center which few local people use. Hundreds of millions were spent to replace a 12 year old Basketball arena with a new one that a small percentage of the people use. Millions have been spent on a NASCAR Hall of Fame which will be attended by mostly out of town visitors. Millions in tax breaks to entice businesses to relocate here, etc. They do it because they believe it benefits the community, not just the actual users.
In my opinion, Intercity Rail and Light Rail fall into that category.
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
cx500 While there are likely a few corridors where high speed rail may be justified, my opinion is that at this stage the California example of increased frequency with relatively fast trains provides a better first stage. First develop a convenient and usable network so that passenger rail is seen to be more than a historical remnant. Once the frequency exists, and the service is being used, it becomes appropriate to consider the megabucks that the much higher speeds will cost.
cx500For rail travel to work well the most important aspect is it be CONVENIENT for passengers to use.
Yes convenient has shown what the passenger counts will go to when you look at the California example. Both the Santa Barbara - San Diego and San Jose - Sacremento - Bakersfield examples have yielded more passengers. The worse problem is the capacity limited trains ( with the realization that platform lengths are a problem to increasing train lengths ) and the inability to cut the number of cars on off peak trains (maybe more cab cars are needed?). Decreasing curvature to less than 1 degree allows the Emerging HSR ( 90-110 ) to be implemented. Then the convenience factor is very important. /When memory schedules are implement with the appropriate number of cars then are they convenient?!
henry6 You're right, Sam. If you don't like what a magazine or newspaper stands for, or a TV netwrok, station, or show, stands for, don't buy, don't look. But also don't complain. That is who they are and you know that going into it. (And I mean this in a generic, general way, not a personal way.)
I did not mean to imply that I did not like what I read in Trains, and it was not intended as a complaint. As I stated, I buy approximately four issues of Trains a year because they contain more than one article that I want to read. I also have downloaded many of the past articles that Trains has made available on-line.
My point was that Trains, like most special interest publications, may not be the most objective source for an assessment of the value of passenger trains. The same applies to all sorts of special interest group publications, i.e. gun magazines are not likely to promote laws to curb gun ownership; fitness magazines are not like to urge people to become couch potatoes, etc.
Railway Man is correct when he states that there are many intangibles associated with high speed rail, or any transport project, that cannot be quantified. Moreover, he is correct to say that the tangibles, i.e. technical, costs, revenues, etc. can only be estimated. Wise planners, as a matter of fact, don't project a single outcome. They use scenario analysis to project three or four likely outcomes.
Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations. Someone has to pick-up the tab. If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference. Given this dynamic, planners should make sure that they are designing the most practicable outcome, i.e. usability, affordability, etc. In most instances I have not seen a compelling argument for high speed rail.
Unfortunately, in public projects political decisions oftentimes trump commercial decisions, and outcome decisions are made for the wrong reasons, with a significant liability for present and future taxpayers. This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together.
Does the public want high speed rail, or is it the vested interests, e.g. construction companies, equipment builders, etc., that have convinced the politicians that the public wants it.?
Railway Man For what it's worth, I have some experience in high-speed rail economics, technical aspects, and feasibility studies, and my billable hours in the last six months have swung almost 100% into high-speed rail. This is what I can tell you from an insider's point of view: Calculating the net value of any transportation solution set is extremely difficult, whether it's a city, corridor, region, or nation. There are many variables for which values are not known and cannot be calculated, and many assumptions that have to be made. Thus, when someone hands me a study that says "HSR is the solution we must have now!" or "HSR is a pig in a poke!" I just sort of shrug and say "Sure. Whatever." Same thing for new airports, new highways, new interchanges, new transit systems, new whatever. I've written and read and edited way too many of the studies to have confidence that any of them are something you can gilt and put on a pedestal. This is not to say that all studies are bogus and it's a waste of time. You have to start somewhere with something, and learning anything is better than insisting on remaining ignorant. I just want to point out that if you don't understand the assumptions, you don't understand the study. And the assumptions are almost always fundamentally political in nature. In the worst studies, people have started with an assumption (which is usually either that HSR is bad, or HSR is good), and then picked the facts to fit. Those studies -- whether by Cato or Sierra Club or their kind, I throw into the wastebasket because I already know that even if they're correct, I'll never be able to sort out their good methodology and facts from their bad. They've already told you they have an axe to grind, you already know what the outcome has to be, so why waste your life. Unless you're the kind of person that just likes to have high blood pressure or just needs to have people agree with you. But even in the best studies, there are assumptions about what it is that the people want -- what kind of transportation they want, which in turn informs what they are willing to pay for, which in turn informs what they are willing to support politically. That's inescapable. People do not choose to either ride on or support or pay for a transportation system based solely on a rational economic balancing of all the possible choices. (Chicago School of Economics, RIP.) First, they cannot nearly be well-enough informed to make those decisions because so many of the economic effects are second, third, fourth degree and so on, so many of the effects are subtle, and because they make decisions in large part based on emotion. For example, "I don't like to drive in traffic." "I don't like being on a bus with weird people." "I don't like to go through security at the airport." If I am studying transportation economics, how on earth do I put an economic value to ANY of those emotional decisions? Sure, when the cost of air transportation is $0.01 from LA to Chicago, I bet a lot of people who hate flying will suck it up and fly. And when the cost is $1,000,000 for a coach ticket, I bet a lot of people who hate driving will suck it up and drive. But in between, who knows where the price points lie? People buy all sorts of things that "rational economics" tells us they shouldn't, like $60,000 1-ton 4WD pickups to carry a 140-pound person on dry, sunny paved roads to the office parking lot in the business park in the suburb. While it would be nice to boil down a political decision to purely technical terms, and have technical people announce technical solutions that the public could gratefully accept with relief, that's not possible. The technical solutions invariably are founded upon assumptions that are political at their core. The whole analysis just goes around in a circle and you're back where you started. Unlike Europe and Japan the U.S. is not much of a top-down country and not homogenous. Thus our solutions are heterogenous and they're not the same from one place to the next. The states have enormous influence over Washington. It's a rare program that the administration gets to do without Congress and the Governors redoing it until you can't even recognize it any more, to suit their state's needs and desires. Bottom line? This is an interesting thread but so far all it's mostly done is restate positions that I already knew from the people I knew already had them. If the voting public wants HSR, they get HSR. If they don't, they don't. So be it. I'm not worried that the nation will come to an end either way. My guess from spending waaaay too much time inside the beltway lately is this: We will indeed get a HSR system, slowly, messily, and piecemeal. Each state will be in virtually complete control of how they do their system. About 10 years from now we'll have a couple of very nice systems in a couple of states, a couple of really useless and worthless systems, and a couple that just muddle along. There's no political will to build new highways or new airports on any scale. The decisions on reducing greenhouse gases, dependence on foreign oil, and suburban sprawl have already been made. The public spoke in the last 2006 and 2008 elections. I guess they could change their mind in 2010 and 2012 but I would not bet that way. HSR is an outcome of those decisions. To undo HSR we would have to undo the public's decisions on sprawl, environment, quality of life, etc. Not very likely I think. I try to just deal with reality. Whatever the public wants, they get. Majority rules. I can rant and raise my blood pressure. I can exile myself to another country -- any suggestions which one is better? Or I can just suck it up and get with the program. RWM
Well put!
Random thoughts:
I happen to agree with your opinions and point of view, so does that make them more correct?
What about the value of trains as "kinetic art?" If enough people just like watching them go by, whether or not they actually carry anyone from point A to point B, wouldn't that be enough justification?
Ranting is not a bad thing, per se. It is a sport. And some of us like to play.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
Sam1Unfortunately, in public projects political decisions oftentimes trump commercial decisions, and outcome decisions are made for the wrong reasons, with a significant liability for present and future taxpayers. This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together. Does the public want high speed rail, or is it the vested interests, e.g. construction companies, equipment builders, etc., that have convinced the politicians that the public wants it.?
I've never seen a public project that wasn't all about politics. Commercial need? Not to sound cynical, but "commercial considerations" is usually nothing more than a post hoc justification for a decision already made by a political faction. Or, a blunt weapon used by one political faction to beat on the the other political faction. No where have I ever seen a political faction submit itself to economic fact or logic.
Ironically, the only public transportation mode that has to present an actual economic case or ridership case in order to obtain federal funding is rail. Highways, port improvements, waterway improvements, and airports do not; they can simply show "demand" or "safety" and use that to justify the expense.
As to whether the vested interests have done the convincing that the public wants HSR, it's actually the other way around. Most of the lobbying effort and dollars are being spent to try to convince Congress and the governors that the public does not want high-speed rail, but instead wants more highways. The contracting community has an enormous amount of investment into highway expertise, machines, and relationships, not in rail. They are scared to death of it. As for the equipment manufacturers, there really aren't any domestic manufacturers to speak of. But regardless of that, I think Congress is actually very good at representing the views of their individual states and districts, which is good (there's local accountability) and bad (good-of-the-nation. I do think there's a sizeable portion of the voting public that thinks HSR is a wonderful idea. Whether they base that belief on economic concepts, I seriously doubt. But I don't think the public cares all that much about the nuances of economics anyway; they like programs because they think they're important and cool and congruent with their vision of America. It's kind of like me buying a refrigerator, which uses up a significant portion of my discretionary income. Do I need "stainless steel" finish at $300 extra? Probably not, and for the life of me I can't see any economic advantage to it. But I bought it anyway because I think it looks better than white.
oltmanndRanting is not a bad thing, per se. It is a sport. And some of us like to play.
Your blood pressure must be lower than mine.
Sam1Unfortunately, in public projects political decisions oftentimes trump commercial decisions, and outcome decisions are made for the wrong reasons, with a significant liability for present and future taxpayers. This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together.
And skip any cost/benefit analysis altogether? Highway projects don't require them. I've never seen one done on a highway project, nor a study of alternatives - all of which are generally required for rail and transit projects. Unfortunately, where I live, most highway construction is done by the county with property tax money. Hardly a "user fee".
I wonder if "only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees" wouldn't be a more genuine way to do it.
Perhaps it could work like this:
1. Gov't decides to build HSR line.
2. Aquires 1000'' wide ROW at current real estate value to mitigate any NIMBY objections to noise from construction and operation, catenary EMF, etc.
3. Builds rail line.
4. Decides it needs only 100' ROW for safe operation. Sells now-more-valuable land around stations to developers. Leases remaining land for industrial/commercial use.
5. Land sales/leases profit pays for construction and provides war-chest to offset future operating costs not covered by the fare box.
Wouldn't cost non-users a dime.
Hasn't that been done? Isnt' that what Land Grants and Bonding Authorities, et al, were about? Isn't that how we got to today?
Sam1 Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations. Someone has to pick-up the tab. If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference. ..... ..... This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together.
Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations. Someone has to pick-up the tab. If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference. .....
..... This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together.
But herein lies the question none of us can answer: what is the role of government in social and commercial life? Was Roosevelt wrong with the CCC projects, etc.that built highways and bridges which enabled the country to get through WWII and helped the prosperity (of the automobile, suburbia, industry and commerce) that followed the War? Or Eisenhower with his Federal Highway Program . projects which contributed greatly allowed for both the publice and the truckers to travel coast to coast on four lane highways at 70 to 90 mph? Or the St. Lawrence Seaway project which eliminated many east coast port activities in favor of the Great Lakes? The next question is that just because someone can't find a quick return on investment or the investment is too big a risk for the individual, does that mean a project like damming a river for hydro power, or building a highway between two points, or an airport, or harbor facilities, or running a police department or any other municipal services, should be projects that don't get done or services that are not rendered? The question, Who is going to pay?, has a lot more question behind it, and a lot more answers than just "us".
Railway Man oltmannd Ranting is not a bad thing, per se. It is a sport. And some of us like to play. Your blood pressure must be lower than mine.
oltmannd Ranting is not a bad thing, per se. It is a sport. And some of us like to play.
Probably. Ranting is just the minor league version of Righteous Indignation, which is our national pastime.
Clever plan, Don. I like it and I just passed it on to a couple of people. It's not novel, and I've heard people articulate the same idea for years, but it's easy to overlook things like this in the heat of battle, and you brought it back to my attention at a perfect time. Thanks!
Henry's comments bear examination. To add to his list, Seward's purchase of Alaska. Turned out pretty good, but at the time people were appalled.
henry6The question, Who is going to pay?,
Or, "Who pays how much for what?"
henry6 Sam1 Any capital project (public or private) must be funded, as is true for its operations. Someone has to pick-up the tab. If the users don't pay for it, then the non-users (taxpayers in the case of public projects), almost always within the hoist country, have to pick-up the difference. ..... ..... This is the fundamental reason why I believe that government should only build transport infrastructure if it can recover the cost through user fees, and why it should stay out of operations all together. But herein lies the question none of us can answer: what is the role of government in social and commercial life? Was Roosevelt wrong with the CCC projects, etc.that built highways and bridges which enabled the country to get through WWII and helped the prosperity (of the automobile, suburbia, industry and commerce) that followed the War? Or Eisenhower with his Federal Highway Program . projects which contributed greatly allowed for both the publice and the truckers to travel coast to coast on four lane highways at 70 to 90 mph? Or the St. Lawrence Seaway project which eliminated many east coast port activities in favor of the Great Lakes? The next question is that just because someone can't find a quick return on investment or the investment is too big a risk for the individual, does that mean a project like damming a river for hydro power, or building a highway between two points, or an airport, or harbor facilities, or running a police department or any other municipal services, should be projects that don't get done or services that are not rendered? The question, Who is going to pay?, has a lot more question behind it, and a lot more answers than just "us".
For most of the projects that you have listed, i.e. federal highway program, St. Lawrence Seaway, airports, etc., the government(s) have recovered the cost of the projects through user fees or taxes paid by most of the users who are also taxpayers.
I am not optimistic that high speed rail or any form of passenger rail can recover its operating expenses let alone the capital investment.
How and for what the government(s) should spend the people's monies is a legitimate debate. But government spends on transport projects, as an example, or any other spend for that matter, have to be recovered one way or the other. This is beyond debate, at least for anyone remotely familiar with finance.
A government sponsored spend, without a game plan to recover the costs, is a guarantee for more debt. Like California, the U.S., UK, etc.! And the cost to service the debt can have a dramatic impact on the quality of life for everyone.
henry6 Hasn't that been done? Isnt' that what Land Grants and Bonding Authorities, et al, were about? Isn't that how we got to today?
Sure. I'm also reminded of having read somewhere that many transit lines were built by land developers before the day of the gov't built road. They purchased farm land, built a transit line into it. Subdivided the land and made a killing selling houses. Knew, all along, that owning an operating a transit line was a losing proposition. Ran the line for a while and then sold it to the local gov't.
Now, in the "day of the road", land developers get the gov't to build them the roads into the farmland they've purchased. Is this better or worse?
I guess my point was to define government and then define its role in our society and its role in commerce and industry. Not an emotional answer, not a political view answer. Can anybody in a forum like this, with topics like these, really do it without bringing in pholosophies and political innuendo?
And on another level, when the government bought the Lousianna Purchase (even Seward's Folley), chartered and land granted the Transcontinental railroad into reality, built the CCC and Federal Highways, built power dams and waterway dams, when these feats were planned and authorized, was there a calculated return on investment or did they just speculate that it is what the country needed in the future?
No, I am not high on HSR, but who here can predict with 100% certainty that it will or will not produce results like the above mentioned projects and do it without an emotional or political bent?
Let's remember that France among others had access to Marshall Plan US tax dollars after World War II. SNCF made the most of them and built one of the best rail systems in Europe. They did run a test train in 1958 that went 205 MPH. France also was late in building its freeway system and chose instead to fix up its N roads which helped the trucking industry in the 1950's.
Most Europeans travel second class.Even people on business, they have improved the seats on the Continnet a lot. Wooden seats were the norm on some trains in Switzerland in 2ND class in the 1950's. On the inter city trains at least one gets a comfortable seat in 2ND these days.
I'm not sure how far the link extends between the Marshall Plan and France [having] one of the best rail systems in Europe. As far as I know, no new railway lines were built until the TGV network was developed in the mid-1970s, thirty years later.
Marshall Plan money went to rebuilding and upgrading existing railways. Electrification was a major component to replace steam power, much of which had be destroyed in the war, and to exploit coal in the absence of domestic oil resources. Electrification facilitated TGV development by allowing trains to continue beyond the high speed trunk segments to numerous destinations.
The lack of such railroad electrification in the US is an obstacle to the incremental development of high speed networks practiced in Europe and Asia. Would California build a Los Angeles-Bakersfield high speed segment that temporarily replaces the bus connection? Would building the Bakersfield-Modesto segment first, as I understand is being considered, really provide much benefit until other segments are completed? Would existing lines be electrified first, then replaced as high speed sections are opened?
Some observations on rail travel in Germany. Over the past 40 years I have ridden on the DB (German Rail). I recently rode DB trains of all types over a two week period. Travel is generally fairly fast, on local trains (RB) to very fast on InterCity trains ( IC, electric engine hauled) to extra fast on InterCity Express trains (ICE, like Acela)) reliable, frequent, and comfortable and smooth-riding. Some examples:
Frankfurt airport to the Cologne Convention Center (ICE) non-stop 110 miles 50 min. 132 mph.
Hamburg Main Station to Berlin-Spandau (suburb) (ICE) non-stop 168 miles 120 min. 168 mph.
Mannheim to Mainz (IC) non-stop 51 miles 42 min. 75 mph.
Mannheim to Mainz (RB) 17 stops 51 miles 80 min. 38 mph.In contrast, I rode Metra's BNSF sububan line in Chicago. Naperville to Union Station, non-stop, 32 miles 34 min. 56.6 mph. Although this is pretty quick service, the ride, even in fairly new bi-level cars is very rough (like a buckboard) and noisy.
My conclusions: if we are to have anything approaching decent passenger service in the US, perhaps we need to bring in European engineers to design and build dedicated electrified right-of-ways on which to operate.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
Correction: The Hamburg to berlin train speed is only 84 mph. Sorry!
schlimmIn contrast, I rode Metra's BNSF sububan line in Chicago. Naperville to Union Station, non-stop, 32 miles 34 min. 56.6 mph. Although this is pretty quick service, the ride, even in fairly new bi-level cars is very rough (like a buckboard) and noisy.My conclusions: if we are to have anything approaching decent passenger service in the US, perhaps we need to bring in European engineers to design and build dedicated electrified right-of-ways on which to operate.
In contrast, I rode Metra's BNSF sububan line in Chicago. Naperville to Union Station, non-stop, 32 miles 34 min. 56.6 mph. Although this is pretty quick service, the ride, even in fairly new bi-level cars is very rough (like a buckboard) and noisy.
This has 0% to do with European engineering. It has 100% to do with what the respective rail lines are being asked to do. Put U.S. gross freight tonnage, U.S. freight axle loads, and U.S. low-cost wheel, rail, and equipment maintenance standards onto European passenger lines low-gross tonnage, low-axle loads, high-cost maintenance standards, and they'd do even worse than ours do. That's well-known fact in the U.S. and European industry. You can ask track to do everything perfectly, but it's kind of stubborn and will refuse.
I've ridden most of these lines in Germany, though I prefer the regional line to the ICE line between Koln and Frankfurt as it has the better view along the Rhine.
HSR viability involves and awfull lot of questions and points of view from competing interests. At the bottom of all this is the question of neccesity. Is it really needed between say LA and vegas? Or is this just politics that will leave the public (non railfans) seeing just more money poured into a project that might well leave the industry with a real PR problem, kind of the way a lot of people see AMTRAK.
Railway Man "This has 0% to do with European engineering. It has 100% to do with what the respective rail lines are being asked to do."
Yes and no. In Germany, almost all track, freight or passenger, has concrete ties. On the BNSF Metra line, which once hosted Zephyrs, it remains aged wood ties. Hence the terrible ride which obviously can't handle even 79 mph. So what we need is frequent service on separate, dedicated passenger lines, high speed or less-than-high-speed, if we want passenger service that people will use.
schlimm Railway Man "This has 0% to do with European engineering. It has 100% to do with what the respective rail lines are being asked to do."Yes and no. In Germany, almost all track, freight or passenger, has concrete ties. On the BNSF Metra line, which once hosted Zephyrs, it remains aged wood ties. Hence the terrible ride which obviously can't handle even 79 mph. So what we need is frequent service on separate, dedicated passenger lines, high speed or less-than-high-speed, if we want passenger service that people will use.
No sir. Wood ties will give you a much better ride than concrete. Concrete ties are more noisy, harder to maintain in good surface and line, and less resilient, which makes them much more demanding about surface and line. There is nothing "aged" about those wood ties in that particular line, either, it's maintained to FRA Class 5-plus, which means on average those ties will be about 10-15 years old, with some that are new and some that in the 20-25 year age. The ride is safe for 79 mph but it may not be as comfortable as you wish. There is nothing old fashioned about wood ties, either. From an engineering perspective they are an either/or for concrete. The decision of which to use is local delivered cost, and costliness of track windows for replacement. Railways such as light-rail lines or high-speed rial lines often prefer concrete because they want to have less-frequent work windows for replacing ties, which in an urban setting, on an elevated track, or in a tunnel, and with very narrow work windows late at night and on weekends, is a very big deal. Many 90 mph-plus rail lines with excellent ride quality are laid on wood throughout the world.
Ride quality is affected by the following:
You can't obtain very high ride quality, and share a line with heavy freight trains, without spending an ungodly amount of money. That's been well known in the world-wide rail community for more than 100 years. Railway engineering is an international community with no secrets. We all read the same journals, go to the same conferences, and hire the same scientists.
I don't have any problem with anyone observing that the ride quality experience of many U.S. passenger trains is inferior to that of many European or Japanese trains. I've made the same observation myself and so has just about everyone, it's not novel to you and I. But to ascribe the difference to an inferiority of U.S. engineering, or U.S. knowledge, or U.S. practices, is incorrect. The difference is that the U.S. asks its railway system to do different things, and deliver different results. The U.S. is not asking its rail system to deliver anything other than low-cost, high-volume freight capacity, and provide some capacity for passenger trains on a significantly less-than-actual-cost basis. If the U.S. is to ask its rail system to deliver high ride quality for passenger trains too, then it will have to pay for it with separated passenger lines that heavy freight trains don't beat up. That is exactly what the U.S. railway industry and the U.S. DOT have agreed will need to happen, and that's what President Obama is proposing to pay for with high-speed rail funding. In the meantime, for us to expect to have our cake and eat it too - and then blame the freight rail industry for not giving us something for nothing, or the rail engineering profession for being stupid -- is a bit rich.
RailwayMan:
You'll find I have agreed with you about the need for dedicated passenger-only lines. However, I doubt if everyone else with fast trains (eg., Germany, Japan,France, UK and China) is using concrete just to avoid maintenance. The ride simply is much smoother and quieter. BTW, I recall riding American trains on shared right-of-ways in the 60"s on the IC, ATSF and CB&Q. Very fast (80 +) and smooth! Of course freight cars had lower, though hardly low tonnage then.
schlimm RailwayMan:You'll find I have agreed with you about the need for dedicated passenger-only lines. However, I doubt if everyone else with fast trains (eg., Germany, Japan,France, UK and China) is using concrete just to avoid maintenance. The ride simply is much smoother and quieter. BTW, I recall riding American trains on shared right-of-ways in the 60"s on the IC, ATSF and CB&Q. Very fast (80 +) and smooth! Of course freight cars had lower, though hardly low tonnage then.
Let me give you some background on me, I've been in the railway business both in the U.S. and abroad for more than 25 years now. I've hired (and fired) railway engineers from Britain, Canada, the U.S., India, and several middle-eastern countries for more than 10 years now. I'm bemused by the suggestion that we're parochial or ignorant of foreign standards. When I was in grad school most of my research assignments used Indian rail journals because they were really into the science.
Avoided maintenance cost and disruption to passenger schedules is 99% of the reason why a passenger rail line chooses concrete. The other 1% is initial delivered cost (hardwood ties are more expensive than wood in all the areas of the world where hardwood forests never existed or have all been chopped down).
The axle loadings in the 1960s were rarely greater than 55,000 lbs. Axle loadings today are 71,500 lbs. But that's not just a proportional difference. Much, much more is being asked of the rail and wheel metallurgy today. In the 1960s the predominate rail failure mode was "wear out." Today the predominate rail failure mode is rolling-contact fatigue, which is a major reason why you observe lower ride quality -- we're at the very upper end of the rail material capability on a freight/passenger rail line with U.S. axle loadings.
Gross tonnages on almost every high-use U.S. rail line are two to five times greater, or much more, than in the 1960s. But the number of tracks are the same or fewer on those lines. The track is being asked to do much more than it was then. It's not surprising that ride quality has declined greatly.
Another major difference in ride quality between then and now in the U.S., which is probably not known to you, is the change in rail section. In the 1960s most U.S. passenger-carrying rail lines were laid with 5-1/2" base rail in the 115-lb. size range. Today, those same lines are laid with 6" base, 136 lb. or 141 lb. rail, necessary to support the higher axle loadings we have now. There is a significant decrease in ride quality with the heavier rail sections because it is so much stiffer and less forgiving of all the imperfections in surface and line. The standard European rail section, by contrast, is UIC 60, which is very similar to our current 115-lb. rail section. It's a great section for high-speed passenger but not so hot for heavy freight.
I also have to get in line behind concrete ties. Riding all NY Metro area rail lines, inlcuding subways, I am of the impression that concrete ties are quieter adn work better than wood; and, except for a bad batch of concrete ties both MNRR and Amtrak got, they seem to last longer
henry6I also have to get in line behind concrete ties. Riding all NY Metro area rail lines, inlcuding subways, I am of the impression that concrete ties are quieter adn work better than wood; and, except for a bad batch of concrete ties both MNRR and Amtrak got, they seem to last longer
Correlation is not necessarily causation.
I don't know what it is you want to accomplish. If you want to know what I know, it's free for the asking. If you don't want to know what I know, I will politely stop sharing (nothing personal and no offense taken). But if you want to tell me that what I know "I don't know" because your observations lead you to different conclusions, I'm sort of nonplussed, because you're not using terms I can relate to. I am not and could not disagree with your observation that the lines laid with wood ties seem to be noisier than the lines laid with concrete, just pointing out that rail, wheel, surface, line, subgrade, and fastener conditions might be very different on the different lines. How are you certain that it's the concrete vs. wood that's the cause?
Of course for a truly hi-speed line in excess of 150 mph the newer concrete slab system is used (eg., on the new Nuremburg-Munich line) to elim,inate problems with flying pieces of ballast. Pretty expensive, though. But if we want a usable system, we will need to pay. For some runs, a pretty fast, but not truly hi-speed line might suffice at a lower cost. Frequency of service is at least as important as top or average speed.
Phoebe Vet Anyone who reads these knows that Sam and I don't often agree, and I hope our discussions don't sound like there is any personal animosity.
I think I mentioned before I wonder if you and Sam are the same person with two different login names, I rarely see a post from one of you without a rebuttal from the other. I don't follow a very scientific sampling though, being a trolley fan I lean towards the transit and passenger forums. Maybe I should check out some of the teakettle forums, there might be a few posts about steam trains there where you and Sam agree.
Patrick Boylan
Free yacht rides, 27' sailboat, zip code 19114 Delaware River, get great Delair bridge photos from the river. Send me a private message
On this thread's first couple of pages there were some posts that mentioned rail, and high speed rail in particular, passengers tend to be relatively well to do. The impression I got was that those were complaints that middle class and poor were being short changed, or discriminated against, somehow.
If high speed rail is a money maker via fares, then I don't see why the fact that rich people use it vs poor people is a bad thing, or at least the rich are paying their way appropriately. And if it's part of a subsidized system, then the putative rich fare payers would be cross subsidizing the other parts of the system that the less rich travelers use.
Also no man is an island, look at the big picture, what alternate transportation would the rich bloated plutocrat take otherwise, and what is that mode's cost or subsidy?
This recurring statement about HSR only for the rich: I must challenge the accuracy of that. I don't know about some countries, but in Germany the ICE ridership is certainly not just the rich. They seem to come from most of the citizenry, probably more urban than rural. And it's not like Germans don't have cars, including expensive ones they like to drive as fast as they can go. Everybody rides trains because they are convenient ,comfortable and pretty fast. And not necessarily cheap; often airfares are as cheap or cheaper.
Railway Man In the 1960s the predominate rail failure mode was "wear out." Today the predominate rail failure mode is rolling-contact fatigue, which is a major reason why you observe lower ride quality -- we're at the very upper end of the rail material capability on a freight/passenger rail line with U.S. axle loadings.
In the 1960s the predominate rail failure mode was "wear out." Today the predominate rail failure mode is rolling-contact fatigue, which is a major reason why you observe lower ride quality -- we're at the very upper end of the rail material capability on a freight/passenger rail line with U.S. axle loadings.
Could we please have an explanation of just what "rolling-contact fatigue" is? If the cause of such fatigue is the heavy axle loadings of today's freight cars, why is it noticable on lightly loaded passenger cars -- is it somehow a permanent rail deformity? Is this a cummulative problem in that a given rail has sort of a lifetime limit of "x" number of 71,500 pound axle loads?
"Wear out" or "rolliing contact fatigue"! Doesn't matter. Americans build things, put a "life span" on them, then expect them to last forever even without maintenance. Talk railroads and trains, highways and cars, or pipes delivering water to your house, its all the same thing. "Life span" has become a term for tax write offs and depreciation rather than a guage which to use to maintain, repair, or replace. So when at the end of the "life span" we are suprised that it didn't and won't last forever and ever as is and that it will cost us to rebuild or replace.
The one thing I admire about the Europeans is that they know how not to throw out the baby with the bath water: they keep and respect the good of the old while still progressing with new techonologies, philosophies, and concepts.
Dakguy201 Could we please have an explanation of just what "rolling-contact fatigue" is? If the cause of such fatigue is the heavy axle loadings of today's freight cars, why is it noticable on lightly loaded passenger cars -- is it somehow a permanent rail deformity? Is this a cummulative problem in that a given rail has sort of a lifetime limit of "x" number of 71,500 pound axle loads?
The following AREMA paper goes into detail (I've summarized below). http://www.arema.org/eseries/scriptcontent/custom/e_arema/library/2004_Conference_Proceedings/00011.pdf Skip down to the illustrations on page 22 and you'll see graphically why RCF leads to poor passenger vehicle ride quality. RCF is a damage phenomena that results from overstressing of the rail material caused by repeated intense rail-wheel contact cycles. The results appear on the rail surface, usually on the head and/or gauge corner, as shelling, head checks, squats, or corrugation. All will give a very poor ride quality, causing both loss of smoothness and increase of noise. This failure mode appeared in the 1990s and has become a primary mode of rail failure. It was implicated as the cause of the Hatfield derailment in 2000 in Britain, and by the FRA in more than 100 derailments in the U.S.
The #1 cure for RCF in a passenger vehicle environment is eliminate freight from that track by either diverting the freight to truck, or building a separate track for freight. Other solutions are grind the rail head and gauge corner frequently and precisely, control wheel geometry precisely (with frequent turning cycles), detect bad-actor freight wheelsets and bogies before they get onto the track and damage it (one trip, one bad axle, can do severe damage). These cures are costly. It's why freight is only barely compatible with 90 mph passenger in the U.S., and incompatible with plus-90 mph.
.
Ride quality is affected by the following: Quality of the surface and line -- it is very hard to maintain this for high ride quality (not safety) on a shared freight/passenger line with high freight axle loadings and high freight gross tonnage, one or both of which obtains on almost all U.S. lines (which are freight lines, first and foremost, outside of the center tracks on the Northeast Corridor) but not on most European passenger/freight lines. Quality of the rail geometry and surface -- again, very hard to maintain this to a very high ride quality on a shared freight/passenger line with high axle loadings and high freight tonnage. See above. Quality of the wheel geometry and bogie maintenance -- must be maintained to a very exacting standard to obtain high ride quality, and if the rail surface and line, and rail geometry, has heavy freight use, the cost for this skyrockets. So it's not attempted, anywhere in the world.
I remember one of my advocacy colleagues remarking about a Superliner car about how such a "big thing" is kept on the rails by "those tiny flanges", and it was a surprise when I pointed out that it wasn't the flanges that kept it on the rails apart from as a backup system.
Apart from Talgo, the way railroad cars are kept on the tracks is that there is a solid axle connection between the two wheels, and the wheels have a conical taper, the net effect is that when an axle slides off to one side relative to the railhead, one wheel has a bigger effective diameter at its contact patch and the other wheel has a smaller effective diamer, steering the axle back towards center. It is well known, however, that this arrangement is kinematically unstable -- the axle will steer back and forth in a sinusoidal pattern without the amplitude of that sinusoidal weaving back and forth between the rail ever diminishing. So axles are combined into trucks or bogies as they are called to damp that oscillation.
It is also known that even when wheels are combined into bogies, there is a certain critical train speed where those oscillations will grow until they meet other bounds such as flange contact or possibly even derailment. My understanding is that operating below but close to that critical speed can amplify track irregularities and produce a rough ride.
Why this critical speed phenomenon should occur for a purely passive system -- why a system with only mass, spring, and damping can have oscillations that don't damp down -- seems a bit of a mystery. But the system is not passive as energy is put into the train by supplying motive power to push it down the track, and the friction characteristics of the wheel-rail contact are regarded to be the mechanism by which tractive effort is converted into the oscillations.
My first question to RWM is to what extent are ride quality problems in passenger equipment related to this dynamic instability effect and to what extent are they related to simply rough track, much as a bumpy road produces a rough ride in a car operated at speeds well within its stable range?
My second question relates to what I have seen written on dynamic instability, and the variables I have seen considered are the rail profile (maintained by rail grinding), the wheel profile (maintained by wheel grinding, and I understand that TGV and Shinkansen do frequent wheel grinding to maintain wheel profiles), and the suspension compliances (related to what you called bogie maintenance). My question is, is the track compliance (relating to factors such as ballast condition, wood vs concrete tie, type of rubber pad used with concrete) also an important variable in dynamic instability and the critical speed?
My third question is whether keeping a high critical speed and the related issue of ride quality is purely a matter of track compliance, track geometry, wheel profile, suspension compliance and maintaining all of these to required tolerances or if some progress has been made on forgiving design?
The first group of engineers to look at this systematically were the Japanese with their pioneering Shinkansen, and their efforts were a combination of high engineering standards, rigorous maintenance of track and vehicles, and increased spring stiffness against turning of the bogies. The second group of engineers to look at this to my knowledge were the British with their Advanced Passenger Train project. I had heard that they had something called a Heumann wheel profile, where the specified wheel profile was closer to the kind of hollow you get with the natural wear pattern, and that they were considering a bearing to allow the two wheels to rotate independently in the manner of Talgo? The idea was to come up with suspension designs and wheel profiles that were more forgiving of wear -- did anything ever come of it?
There are also a number of guided-axle systems -- notable Talgo with independent wheel rotation, the Alan Cripe Turbo Train with a solid axle, and various European patents on "forced steer" conventional two-axle bogies. The idea is that one could suppress wheel hunting and raise the critical speed by increase the spring resistance to axle self-steer, but provide enough forced-steer alignment of the wheels to reduce the increased wear levels that would result. Has anything come of that -- does any of that work?
My father Veljko Milenkovic had worked at GATX in the early 1970's on some concepts related to dynamic stability. One of his pet peeves (like many dads, he was vocal about such things and I grew up hearing about them) was railroad companies insisting on bi-directional trains. In his opinion the dynamic stability problem could be made to go away with some kind of semi-trailer arrangement like the 1930's version of Talgo as well as the C&O's early 1950's Train-X prototype. I remember him ranting "They don't design your car to be bi-directional! You don't drive your car at highway speeds in reverse!"
Another idea is one on which he shares a patent with a colleague at GATX, and this patent was developed for the ultra-wide gauge RRollway concept of a railway drive-on drive-off high-speed automobile ferry substitute for toll roads. The system is that you would do away with the solid axle connection, the wheel taper, or even flanges, and the bogie would be guided by side rollers gripping one of the rails. The system was in a way like the Alweg Monorail, but instead of multiple wheels contacting a single concrete beam from the top and sides, you would have steel wheels doing the same thing to one of the two steel rails and have the other rail free to bear the weight of the other wheel.
This roller guidance system is something he showed mathematically to solve the critical speed problem, and this system is a departure from conventional railroading but not as radical as Alweg Monoroal or maglev. But like those other systems, there is additional complication in the track switch -- you would require a fully movable frog as well as switch point -- these may even be described in that RRollway patent. But at least this system would be railway compatible -- if it is in standard gauge, you could dispatch a road switcher locomotive to rescue a stranded HSR train, something that is an issue with Alweg, maglev, and the like.
Why anyone in the advocacy community should even care about all of this escoteric tech is that it affects the economics and practicallity of HSR. My understanding is that HSR is pretty much the Japanese model of high engineering standards, high levels of maintenance to maintain those standards, and more or less conventional railway equipment. I am curious if in 40 years since the pioneer Shinkansen whether there have been significant technological improvements that would allow doing more with less - operating at high speeds without the high maintenance expense.
henry6 "Wear out" or "rolliing contact fatigue"! Doesn't matter. Americans build things, put a "life span" on them, then expect them to last forever even without maintenance. Talk railroads and trains, highways and cars, or pipes delivering water to your house, its all the same thing. "Life span" has become a term for tax write offs and depreciation rather than a guage which to use to maintain, repair, or replace. So when at the end of the "life span" we are suprised that it didn't and won't last forever and ever as is and that it will cost us to rebuild or replace.
Let's take something as prosaic as tires on cars. I am an American. I own and operate a car. I do not in any way expect the tires to last forever. I count on having to replace them with new tires every however many miles that kind of tire is supposed to be good for. I make allowances for the kind of driving I do on how long the tires last. I do rigorous maintenance on the tires, checking their pressure frequently and taking them in for "flat repair" if they don't hold pressure.
When the tires wear out, I do not trade in the car but I simply buy new tires. These new tires are a big expense, but they are an expense I can plan on given that tires wear at a certain rate.
I do other kinds of maintenance with regard to the tires. If it were up to me, I would do frequent wheel alignments because I am very fussy about details of the car's handling and whether it has a slight pull and whether it resists the pull from crowned roads and cross winds. My alignment is probably out-of-whack most of the time because where I live has roads that look like the craters on the Moon. This is not the result of the City not doing road maintenance because gosh knows how many road contruction zones there are or how much I pay these days in property tax. A lot of this has to do that there is a lot of building construction where I live and constant and chronic tearing up and patching roads to put in utility services.
My car maintenance guy as well as a former student of mine who now works for Toyota convinced me that the thing to do is more frequent tire rotations instead of wheel alignments. Given that the wheels will never be held within factory specs, the tire rotations spread the wear around and give me a lot more mileage out of the tires. I follow this advice, perform this type of maintenance, and get good service from my tires. Am I an "ugly American" for taking this "maintenance shortcut" on the advice of experts (the owner of a car repair shop and and engineer at Toyota's Arizona proving ground)?
Now suppose there were something either about the tires, the condition of the roads, or the design of the car that tires were blowing out at random intervals with a chance of nearly 1 over the 50,000 mile rated life of the tire. Would I be unhappy about this state of affairs? You betcha!
Suppose someone came along and told me that I had to do daily inspection of the tires and that if I saw a hairline crack, I would have to pitch the tire and get a new one. Would I be unhappy? Would this make me an "ugly American" who sits on a sofa eating junk food in front of cable TV in all my waking off-work time? A person thoroughly unlike those healthy, slim, open-minded, maintenance-minded, cheerfully tax-paying, train-riding, philosophically flexible Europeans?
Now for all of the talk about how Americans are this and Americans are that and America is falling behind the Europeans in railroad tech, here is this fellow who comes along and explains the results of research done on these shores on railroads. OK, OK, if you follow the link to the paper, the work was done in Canada.
So someone new comes along and shares with the passenger train advocacy community about a new problem relating to the high axle loads and level of maintenance of equipment used in freight service and how this problem affects passenger trains. We are collectively going to run this fellow off this forum because we in the passenger train advocacy community haven't had a new idea since the inception of NARP 40 years ago and we aren't about to accept any new ideas about passenger train operations either.
Paul, you're getting into more than I can distill, mostly from lack of expertise on my part. I can offer only some broad guidelines.
Unsatisfactory ride quality is usually a result of (1) poor surface and line (2) rough wheel-rail contact area characteristics. Bogie design and car geometry can create problems too, but usually those are all-or-nothing phenomena, i.e., either "it works" or "it doesn't work." Bogie design can be optomized for a track with good rail-wheel contact and good surface and line, or optimized for bad, but it won't do both. The bogie has to do a lot more work when surface and line and rail surface is bad, and more work means heavier components are required (bad), more wear is generated (bad), more heat must be wasted (bad), more vibration is set up (bad), all of which degrade bogie life and bogie work output dramatically. Poor surface and line is usually a subgrade and drainage issue at its root; if you do not have either, you can never hold surface and line for very long. Rough rail-wheel contact area problems are usually a result of damage to the rail head by heavy axle-loadings, or bad metallurgy of the rail, or poor grinding technique and design, or lack of maintenance of the wheelsets.
U.S. and European/Japanese rail economics have very different business models. One of my mentors, who has spent now more than 40 year in the industry including more than 10 years leading the establishment of rail freight systems in Europe, noted to me once the following. "You can sum the differences by saying that the U.S. has an excellent freight rail system that does a little bit of passenger not very well. Europe has an excellent passenger-rail system that does a little bit of freight not very well." I usually don't use that characterization with non-rail industry people, because it's red meat dragged in front of ideologues and hair-splitters. But its fundamentally true. Europe asks for different things from its rail system. That doesn't mean one or the other is "right" or "wrong" but if we don't understand it and accept it, we'll just go around in circles and do stupid things, I think.
As illustration of how this works out, because U.S. practice is basically a heavy-haul practice based on the existence of cheaply purchased, cheaply-maintained free-runner freight cars, it emphasizes maintaining the rail and not the wheel, because its easier to control the rail and ignore the wheel. Whereas European/Japanese practice is basically a passenger practice, with the equipment making frequent visits to the shop if only for cleaning, they can emphasize maintaining the wheel and not the rail. The preference can be turned around and done the other way, but that has ramifications on almost everything about the equipment, track, and operating and maintenance practices, and by extension the economic and business model.
There has been some searching around the margins for alternative solutions such as you describe, but so far no one has demonstrated any significant, obvious, benefit to the stiff axle, two-axle bogie, flange on the inside of the wheel architecture worked out in Britain and the U.S. prior to 1850. It would take a staggering amount of R&D work to take an alternate architecture to commercially implementable stage, and no one I know has seen any obvious inctentive to do so for high-speed rail or freight rail. The current architecture works extremely well, and is simple, cheap, and its characteristics studied for a long time. It bothers some people I work for that anything worked out so long ago could possibly still be any good. Whether they get that attitude through arrogance about how smart people are now compared to a century ago, or absolutely no understanding of science and engineering, I do not know. I just smile, and don't waste my time reminding them that the fundamentals of farming were worked out 6,000 years ago and somehow we haven't all starved to death in the meantime. Patrick Smith, the airline captain who writes the "Ask the Pilot" column, noted the other day that the architecture of the current state-of-the art jet transport was essentially designed by the Wright Brothers. Long story short, I am not professionally compelled to investigate alternative guideway solutions such as Maglev or monorails. Just contemplating the amount of money it would take to even concept a new architecture, and understand its economic differences with the current architecture, and run down its failure modes and safety problems, makes me depressed.
Thus, I don't think we are likely to see any revolutionary changes in the basic architecture. There is still a great deal of opportunity for improvement in the existing architecture such as better rail metallurgy, better measurement and fault detection systems, and ways to automate maintenance and focus maintenance at an ever finer grain, that I think we'll continue to steadily slice cost out of the system by 2-3% per year. In other words, every 20-25 years we'll double the work output of a rail system for the same price input.
There's no question that Europe and Japan have vastly more experience than North America in high-speed rail technology. That's why we borrow from them heavily. Similarly, North America has vastly more experience in heavy-haul technology, which is why the heavy-haul systems worldwide are all North American practice and we regularly go overseas to consult to them. The rail community is global in its outlook and greedy in its practices, appropriating and adapting good ideas wherever it sees them. I see no risk that the U.S. as it embarks on a high-speed rail program will not leverage foreign practice 100%. There's no not-invented here syndrome in my world. As illustration, flash-butt rail-welding was developed in the Soviet Union -- that didn't stop anyone in the non-communist world from recognizing its value and borrowing it immediately.
But Paul, your car is your private property to care for as you wish...there are many who don't pay attention to their cars until the tires go flat or they're pulled over and ticketed for unsafe tires. But more importantly my point goes to public projects like highways, water systems, and railroad and related equipment. Hundreds of years since the first laying of water pipe in many cities is an example: they've lost the plans; its working so don't fix it; or yeah, they know its there but don't know where it comes from or where it goes but as long as nothing happens its ok. Then in the dead of winter one finally splits open and there is a real problem. Instead of having routinely replaced and upgraded we react to catastrophe. Highways are another problem: we build them for 5 ton trucks and a 20 year life span. Next we know there are 20 ton trailer trains on a 50 year old highway that has only been repaved a couple of times. On the railroads, the GG! and the DL&W MU's both gave service well beyond thier initial 20 year expected life span, way beyond, before real replacements were considered, then needed.
RayG8 HSR viability involves and awfull lot of questions and points of view from competing interests. At the bottom of all this is the question of neccesity. Is it really needed between say LA and vegas? Or is this just politics that will leave the public (non railfans) seeing just more money poured into a project that might well leave the industry with a real PR problem, kind of the way a lot of people see AMTRAK.
Many wise people have posted on this forum that not all HSR projects will pan out. How true. However the article on Friday Jun 4th train's newswire of a bonding proposal will probably go through given the present polical climate. If it does and many people think it will then HSR will be on an unstopable fast track. The politics are very great and we need to prevent as much as possible any thing that will be bad publicity.
The thing is that all of us posters need to be is very critical of the proposals and not let restrictive engineering shortcuts be implemented causing a permanent restriction to HSR. Shortcuts can cause a permanent loss of potential traffic. Two examples are THE tunnel (NJ TRANSIT's hudson river tunnels) which probably already is too late to be made AMTRAK friendly and the proposed Victorville - Las Vegas line specifying only 16' 9" clearances (should be 23' ?). We should all be contacting the FRA to have them specify the 23' clearance! ( RWM spoke of this earlier) Do we believe that HSR intermediate stations should have separate station tracks to allow overtakes of Expresses around Regional trains? Will speed restrictions be eliminated to HSR can go from Conventional to Emerging to Regional to Express? The possibilitys of bad decisions are very lenghty and our vigilance will be very important.
Two opposing principles at work:
Finding the right balance - ay, there's the rub.
I don't think you need 23'4" overhead clearance for a high-speed passenger line, because you really do not want to ever put freight on it. But that's just a minor point to your very appropriate basic premise that the technical standards and details need to be thought through before shovels are turned.
Thanks to RWM for that reference to information on rail deformation/failure.
Do 315,000 lb capable railcars have 4 or 6 axles? The reason I ask is that (to take one example) Union Pacific shows substantial portions of their system as 315,000 capable on the chart on their website. This includes the entire Overland Route west of Omaha, the Sunset Route as far east as Houston, the Salt Lake to LA link, and the Portland to LA line.
If those cars are 4 axle, this railroad, and I assume the other Class I's, are continuing to push the envelope regarding what can be done safely with their freight trains. In my mind, this reinforces the point that to get to anything approaching high speed rail you have to have seperate tracks.
Dakguy201
It certainly sounds like separate trackage is an absolute requirement, even for sub-HSR service. We also need to make wise choices as to locations for upgrades to a viable passenger service. A minimal population density rules out most long-distance (~1000 miles?) runs for now. But clearly routes beyond the "lots of promises, disappointing performance" NE Corridor are needed.
Dakguy201Thanks to RWM for that reference to information on rail deformation/failure. Do 315,000 lb capable railcars have 4 or 6 axles? The reason I ask is that (to take one example) Union Pacific shows substantial portions of their system as 315,000 capable on the chart on their website. This includes the entire Overland Route west of Omaha, the Sunset Route as far east as Houston, the Salt Lake to LA link, and the Portland to LA line. If those cars are 4 axle, this railroad, and I assume the other Class I's, are continuing to push the envelope regarding what can be done safely with their freight trains. In my mind, this reinforces the point that to get to anything approaching high speed rail you have to have seperate tracks.
4-axle. Look just like a 286K car but have larger bearings and wheels, and a slightly larger bogie to carry them. 315K is not a safety issue, it's an economic issue. So far, widespread use of 315K has been deemed uneconomic.
High speed rail is not a stand alone service. To take advantage of the speed it must have few stops. The smaller communities must be served by a local or regional train. The local train can use the same track, and use as much speed as it's many stops permit. The local stops need a siding, so that the high speed train can pass the local without slowing down. With stops in only the larger cities, much longer distances become a reasonable option. Only the high speed train needs to be federally funded. The locals should be run by the states and the stations operated by the communities which they serve.
I realize that you do not want to ever put freight on HSR. However you may want to put full bi-level conventional passenger equipment on that line since the axel loading will only be a small amount more. I may be wrong but the Victorville - Las Vegas proposed clearances (including CAT) will not clear superliners. Does anyone know for sure?
Railway Man Unsatisfactory ride quality is usually a result of (1) poor surface and line (2) rough wheel-rail contact area characteristics. Bogie design and car geometry can create problems too, but usually those are all-or-nothing phenomena, i.e., either "it works" or "it doesn't work."
Unsatisfactory ride quality is usually a result of (1) poor surface and line (2) rough wheel-rail contact area characteristics. Bogie design and car geometry can create problems too, but usually those are all-or-nothing phenomena, i.e., either "it works" or "it doesn't work."
I think I am mixing up two kinds of bogie problems.
In your technical paper, you mainly talk about bogie problems on the high axle load freight cars. High axle loads are given as a reason for the rail surface to take a pounding, and a high axle load freight car with the trucks out of spec give the rail surface a real pounding. I am thinking that the maintenance cost issue you were talking about was one of keeping the freight car fleet up to a high enough standard so they don't damage the rails in a way to impede passenger service at 90+ MPH on the same line.
The second kind of bogie problem is the one I was thinking about on the passenger coaches. You suggest that the passenger bogie is an all or nothing proposition -- you either run safely at a given speed or you are above the critical speed and you jump the tracks.
There are the ride quality problems related to rough track, but there is also evidence of ride quality problems related to bogie stability at speeds below where you jump the tracks. I had read a discussion in a British journal on railroad technology where the authors were relating dynamic stability to 1) the rail profile, 2) the wheel profile, and 3) the directional compliances (spring rates) in the bogie, and they were complaining that spotty maintenance of a certain class of coaches created the situation where you could be OK in one coach and bounced around in another coach. I have also wondered if many reports of rough riding on Amtrak might have to do with worn journal guides more than particularly rough track.
Paul, I think what I did was write without clarity.
What I meant was this, for the passenger ride issue:
As far as freight bogies, it's not feasible to build and maintain freight cars with 286K axle loads to run on plus-90 mph track without severe economic penalties. The rail profile desireable for high-speed passenger is not the rail profile desireable for heavy freight. They're fundamentally incompatible. The rail surface required for a good ride quality for passenger is not the rail surface that can be obtained if freight runs on the same line, without a very high maintenance cost and greatly diminished rail lifespan. I suppose it might be possible to build a freight bogie that didn't kill rail on a high-speed rail line, but I don't think anyone would want to pay for it. The economics all point toward separate track structures. This is not to say that a high-speed passenger train cannot "get off" the high-speed line and "run conventional" on a line that carries freight, as you would commonly find in last-mile situations in a major terminal, where there isn't spare right-of-way laying around to place a new passenger track onto, or at a major river crossing. Of course, the passenger train speed will be knocked down to 79 mph (or much less) and the ride quality won't be so hot. This is the near-term solution I think we'll see in many corridors, because the cost per mile to build new HSR passenger train infrastructure in a city center can easily be 10-30 times the cost to build it out in the suburbs or farmland between cities.
blue streak 1I realize that you do not want to ever put freight on HSR. However you may want to put full bi-level conventional passenger equipment on that line since the axel loading will only be a small amount more. I may be wrong but the Victorville - Las Vegas proposed clearances (including CAT) will not clear superliners. Does anyone know for sure?
I'm not so sure you want to run Superliners or California Cars on a high-speed line. The weight per axle is more than twice that of a high speed train. I am certain that the vertical clearances should allow for a double-deck TGV or Shinkansen and 25-50kV electrification.
Las Vegas doesn't seem like a high-volume destination where HSR would be viable with trains only every 1-2 hours without a dinner and show included. This would be like the NEC with fewer Acelas and no Regional, long distance, or commuter services to support the infrastructure.
A more conventional (110-125 mph?) train on a high speed line from LA to Victorville could continue to Las Vegas over the existing line. Hourly expresses to San Francisco, Richmond, and Sacramento and a Central Valley local might be fleeted to allow a conventional train to Las Vegas. Dual-powered gas turbine-electric/electric high-speed trains would be needed to fit in with more high speed traffic. It's a question of tailoring the application to the need.
The type of car, Superliner or regular coach, brings up another point not brought up in these discussions so far. That is: why is the person traveling, why are we running this train, and for whom. Yes, it is all part of marketing but we the type of service being offered will dictate the equipment and speed. Just moving people from place to place is the most basic of service, needs only a car with decent seating; if it is commuter, up to two hour ride, one type of seat, but if long distance, then more comfortable seat is needed. If long distance, then is the service for business or tourist? Each has different needs of speed and amenities. How important...and different...is the scenery for a tourist or for a businessman? I could go on and on, but you get what I mean. The reason for the traveling as well as the travel conveyences as part of marketing has to be considered in determining any service, and more so with high speed if only to determine return on investment (dollars and cents, and other factors).
I think there needs to be an understanding of what levels of comfort we are talking about . I would certainly expect a much higher level of comfort on an inter city train than on a local or a commuter train. In Europe the inter city trains have a much more comfortable seating in 2ND class than do other trains. I didn't see any 3-2 seating on inter city trains, common on lesser trains.Most business travelers in Europe travel in in what they call standard class now. The train trip between Paris- Lyons or Frankfurt- Munich is a long trip and rates a decent seat. They have premium standard class which caters to business. The business traveler will always be the backbone of any inter- city service.
Railway Man Paul, I think what I did was write without clarity.What I meant was this, for the passenger ride issue:Track is far and away the primary cause of poor ride quality. Bogies are usually only a cause of poor ride quality if they are not maintained, or a bad design to begin with. Poor bogie designs and unmaintained bogies usually are a result of trying to design and maintain a bogie that will make-up for poor track quality. In other words, if the track is poor quality, it's hard to make up for it with a better bogie. It's asking too much of the bogie. There's been a lot of effort to try to solve the track problem with a bogie solution; I'd rather just solve the track problem with the track.There are some bogie designs that have demonstrated poor tracking qualities. There's usually not much that's feasible to improve them other than scrap them and start over, or stiffen the ride so much that while the bogie becomes safe, the ride quality goes to hell.As far as freight bogies, it's not feasible to build and maintain freight cars with 286K axle loads to run on plus-90 mph track without severe economic penalties. The rail profile desireable for high-speed passenger is not the rail profile desireable for heavy freight. They're fundamentally incompatible. The rail surface required for a good ride quality for passenger is not the rail surface that can be obtained if freight runs on the same line, without a very high maintenance cost and greatly diminished rail lifespan. I suppose it might be possible to build a freight bogie that didn't kill rail on a high-speed rail line, but I don't think anyone would want to pay for it. The economics all point toward separate track structures. This is not to say that a high-speed passenger train cannot "get off" the high-speed line and "run conventional" on a line that carries freight, as you would commonly find in last-mile situations in a major terminal, where there isn't spare right-of-way laying around to place a new passenger track onto, or at a major river crossing. Of course, the passenger train speed will be knocked down to 79 mph (or much less) and the ride quality won't be so hot. This is the near-term solution I think we'll see in many corridors, because the cost per mile to build new HSR passenger train infrastructure in a city center can easily be 10-30 times the cost to build it out in the suburbs or farmland between cities. RWM
I wasn't aware that there was a difference in optimal rail profile for freight and high speed passenger.
Even so, I think the more pertinent question is whether 110-150 mph passenger services can co-exist with freight.
It's mostly a matter of traffic volumes, axle loads, and speeds. Freight is at one end of the spectrum with high axle weight and moderate speed; and passenger at the other with the exponential effect of speed. At the end of the day, either one can degrade surface and line more than the other. Running passenger trains requiring Class VI or higher standards simply is going to cost more to maintain. Are the volumes of traffic condusive to sharing infrastructure costs or not?
Most high-speed lines have evolved as trunks where trains do get off and run at more conventional speeds for a distance.
The 3-piece freight truck is adequate for the speeds freights operate. Freight railroads don't want to be resurfacing and relining tracks any more often than necessary. It's as easy to surface and line to Class VI or better as Class V, taking longer to degrade and avoiding more frequent maintenance. Track must be maintained to a pretty high level for 60-70 mph intermodals and other priority trains to minimize rapid degradation and more frequent maintenance.
If higher freight speeds are desired, more expensive features of high speed passenger trucks can be adopted and weights on axles can be reduced along with trains designed for less drag.
Furthermore, I rode the BNSF between Naperville and Chicago recently; and the ride was decent, if not as smooth as Europe. It's a lot better than the CTA. Even the newly rebuilt subway tracks on concrete "ties" cast in place on the tunnel invert get rough from slight mis-alignments above 35 mph.
I suppose there may be a breakdown of intercity travel by trip purpose somewhere. I just wonder if business travel is the backbone for intercity. Kinda deserves a separate thread.
This is an interesting discussion! What level of interoperability should be expected, desired, or will prove economical can really drive the final product.
There are those who say, "freight and passenger must be completely separated" as if it was etched in stone on the tablet that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain. (along with "wait an hour after eating before swimming", "don't run with scissors", and two others.)
Then, there are those like Gil Carmichael who have been insistent on including freight railroading in the plans.
I think I fall closer to the second camp.
I'm of a mind that there is enough overlap between existing frt network and desired HSR (110 mph) network that it would be a mistake to leave freight out of the discussion. Certainly, it would be a big mistake to let coal trains or stack trains go tramping up and down class VI track at 60 mph, but certainly a premium trucked, lower axle loading intermodal train could fill some slots on that class IV track.
In some cases, it could create new market niches or compete with team drivers. Overnight Atlanta and Charlotte to North Jersey anyone? In others, it could just help increase the capacity of a line segment, such as Cleveland to Chicago. One passenger and two freight tracks - interoperable - would likely be cheaper to own and operate than two of each - separated.
If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can.
HarveyK400It's as easy to surface and line to Class VI or better as Class V, taking longer to degrade and avoiding more frequent maintenance.
It's as easy to surface and line to Class VI or better as Class V, taking longer to degrade and avoiding more frequent maintenance.
No sir.
oltmanndThis is an interesting discussion! What level of interoperability should be expected, desired, or will prove economical can really drive the final product. There are those who say, "freight and passenger must be completely separated" as if it was etched in stone on the tablet that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain. (along with "wait an hour after eating before swimming", "don't run with scissors", and two others.) Then, there are those like Gil Carmichael who have been insistent on including freight railroading in the plans. I think I fall closer to the second camp. I'm of a mind that there is enough overlap between existing frt network and desired HSR (110 mph) network that it would be a mistake to leave freight out of the discussion. Certainly, it would be a big mistake to let coal trains or stack trains go tramping up and down class VI track at 60 mph, but certainly a premium trucked, lower axle loading intermodal train could fill some slots on that class IV track. In some cases, it could create new market niches or compete with team drivers. Overnight Atlanta and Charlotte to North Jersey anyone? In others, it could just help increase the capacity of a line segment, such as Cleveland to Chicago. One passenger and two freight tracks - interoperable - would likely be cheaper to own and operate than two of each - separated. If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can.
A month ago, I agreed with you in the 90-110 range, but the more I learn each day, the more I am convinced that 90-plus is not viable. The track people have really disabused me of the idea, and I was already highly skeptical from the train-control aspect.
How did railroads handle this dilemma in the streamliner era and the heavyweight era?
Were ride characteristics poor by today's standards, but good in relation to the standards of the time?
I've read often that steam engines were very rough on the rails.
jclassHow did railroads handle this dilemma in the streamliner era and the heavyweight era? Were ride characteristics poor by today's standards, but good in relation to the standards of the time? I've read often that steam engines were very rough on the rails.
Freight and passenger were all of the same demensions or patterns so that engeneering and technology was able to accomodate the fit but passenger trains did run at higher speeds than freight (and that is a very broad, generalization of the factors).
Rail was 39 feet long each, staggard so that no joints were opposite the other. Track crews kept the rail as level, straight, and smooth, even the ballast edeges could be used as true!
Steam engines did pound rail since the piston and rod motion caused forces on the rail a diesel or electric doesn't. Even counter balancing did not totally even it out.
But the big question, or arguement, is should freight and passenger trains operate on the same right of way? Or on the same track? Those involved in traffic today say "no" to sharing track and "not really a great idea" to sharing rights of way (seams that each side fears a derailment of the other will mess up their auto insurance premiums [he said sarcastically]). I would think that, from an operation standpoint, common sense says the two should not meet in long distance operations and might be able to be tolerated in commuter operations. A freight railroad that cannot service its customers properly without having to run and hide because of scheduled passenger train, at least is going to increase its costs and at worst lose business. Likewise a passenger operation that cannot run frequently and speedily without being held up by slow or switching freights, will lose its customers. The nostalgic concepts of going in the hole for the Limited do not make it in today's railroad world. And would be suicidal in a HSR operation. So, ideally, yes, the two types of servcie should be kept as seperately as possible so that both can thrive on thier own merits.
My feeling about "jet age" engineering is quite different. Yes, there were a lot of neat things about jet age electronics, etc., but I never liked the Metroliner...it made me feel like chopped liver being squeezed into a tiny tube. My analagy is that way back when (yes, even before my time) theater goers were treated to the dark, the lush, the plus...everything the home wasn't; it was a different experience than anyplace else. Today, you go in and sit down in a room that's just like Jack's cellar without the model trains: bland, cold, characterless, just like everyother basement on the block and they call it a theater. A train, especially a long distance train, has to be more than a street bus ride, and it sure better be better than a flying sausage! I thought the UA Turbo trains had a good crossover feeling between traditional railroad and airplanes, but never found that in a Metroliner car.
"Harvey K 400:
Furthermore, I rode the BNSF between Naperville and Chicago recently; and the ride was decent, if not as smooth as Europe. It's a lot better than the CTA. "
Really? Maybe it depends on what train you rode. I rode the non-stop, which averages almost 60 mph so it must hit ~70, I would guess, in some stretches. The ride was terrible, at times bottoming out, and also having a lot of lateral hunting. CTA? Apples and oranges.
Ha! I rode the lead cab car from Harvard, Il towards Chicago and I clocked us doing 65 MPH against the mile markers (this is the old C&NW Northwest Line). Later that day I rode an "inspection train" for guests of UP and Metra (passenger and transit advocates, media, Operation Lifesaver, etc) up and down the UP Metra lines, and I was not in a leading cab car and didn't clock any times, but we ran as an express without stops. On neither of these trains did I notice any particular bounce or sidesway -- thought the ride was smooth. I was impressed because back in the 70's when I commuted on North Line of C&NW, there was noticable sidesway -- that was the one thing I remembered about those rides.
As a general notion of experiment and control, if one person rode BNSF on the Naperville line and had a smooth ride, another got bounced around, I would look more to the trucks rather than the track -- of course as mentioned this may be comparing a local with an express and speed is a difference.
Again, drawing on highway experience, a road that is rough at high speeds is often equally rough at low speeds. That the roughness gets accentuated with speed so dramatically on rails suggests, yes, there is roughness of the roadbed or rail surfaces, but the bogies and suspension are doing something to amplify it with speed, suggesting operating on the forward slope of a resonance, where resonance is achieved at the bogie critical speed.
Paul:
I rode both the fairly new Sumitomo cars with Atchison trucks as well as the older Budd cars (with GSC trucks?). Both ran rough on the express runs. I recall commuting on the CNW West (Geneva) Line back in the 70's. Similar rough ride on the 5:05 express. So perhaps it is less-than-optimal track condition that speed exaggerates. It certainly suggests the incompatibility of freight with even modestly fast passenger runs. Given the increased freight axle loadings now vs. 35-40 years ago, it is even more a problem.
henry6 Freight and passenger were all of the same demensions or patterns so that engeneering and technology was able to accomodate the fit but passenger trains did run at higher speeds than freight (and that is a very broad, generalization of the factors). Rail was 39 feet long each, staggard so that no joints were opposite the other. Track crews kept the rail as level, straight, and smooth, even the ballast edeges could be used as true! Steam engines did pound rail since the piston and rod motion caused forces on the rail a diesel or electric doesn't. Even counter balancing did not totally even it out. But the big question, or arguement, is should freight and passenger trains operate on the same right of way? Or on the same track? Those involved in traffic today say "no" to sharing track and "not really a great idea" to sharing rights of way (seams that each side fears a derailment of the other will mess up their auto insurance premiums [he said sarcastically]). I would think that, from an operation standpoint, common sense says the two should not meet in long distance operations and might be able to be tolerated in commuter operations. A freight railroad that cannot service its customers properly without having to run and hide because of scheduled passenger train, at least is going to increase its costs and at worst lose business. Likewise a passenger operation that cannot run frequently and speedily without being held up by slow or switching freights, will lose its customers. The nostalgic concepts of going in the hole for the Limited do not make it in today's railroad world. And would be suicidal in a HSR operation. So, ideally, yes, the two types of servcie should be kept as seperately as possible so that both can thrive on thier own merits. My feeling about "jet age" engineering is quite different. Yes, there were a lot of neat things about jet age electronics, etc., but I never liked the Metroliner...it made me feel like chopped liver being squeezed into a tiny tube. My analagy is that way back when (yes, even before my time) theater goers were treated to the dark, the lush, the plus...everything the home wasn't; it was a different experience than anyplace else. Today, you go in and sit down in a room that's just like Jack's cellar without the model trains: bland, cold, characterless, just like everyother basement on the block and they call it a theater. A train, especially a long distance train, has to be more than a street bus ride, and it sure better be better than a flying sausage! I thought the UA Turbo trains had a good crossover feeling between traditional railroad and airplanes, but never found that in a Metroliner car.
Today the Superliners provide a fine ride as do the Amtrak California cars. I am a firm believer that Amtrak retired the Budd cars far to soon. We should have copied Via Rail in this regard. The seven or eight experiences I have had in Viewliner sleepers leave much to be desired. If they are going to build additional Viewliners I hope they send them to Pueblo for further testing as they are noisy and ride very rough compared to the old Budd cars. I have been hearing good thibgs about the NJT double deck cars and do not know why they cannot be adapted for eastern long distance services.
California's proposed HSR system is designed to operate at speeds of 200 -220 mph and it has no place operating on any trackage shared with freights, in fact I have my doubts if it can be compatible with Bay commuter trains along the peninsula.
Al - in - Stockton
passengerfan I too rode the Metroliners and was not impressed
Metroliners were not great equipment, but to a teenager, they looked cool and they were fast! (and they were a big commercial success. They pretty much single-handedly saved intercity passenger service in the US, in my opinion)
passengerfanCalifornia's proposed HSR system is designed to operate at speeds of 200 -220 mph and it has no place operating on any trackage shared with freights,
I agree. Not even on the last mile. It's not practical to design 220 mph equipment to meet FRA requirements for interoperability.
Railway Man oltmannd This is an interesting discussion! What level of interoperability should be expected, desired, or will prove economical can really drive the final product. There are those who say, "freight and passenger must be completely separated" as if it was etched in stone on the tablet that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain. (along with "wait an hour after eating before swimming", "don't run with scissors", and two others.) Then, there are those like Gil Carmichael who have been insistent on including freight railroading in the plans. I think I fall closer to the second camp. I'm of a mind that there is enough overlap between existing frt network and desired HSR (110 mph) network that it would be a mistake to leave freight out of the discussion. Certainly, it would be a big mistake to let coal trains or stack trains go tramping up and down class VI track at 60 mph, but certainly a premium trucked, lower axle loading intermodal train could fill some slots on that class IV track. In some cases, it could create new market niches or compete with team drivers. Overnight Atlanta and Charlotte to North Jersey anyone? In others, it could just help increase the capacity of a line segment, such as Cleveland to Chicago. One passenger and two freight tracks - interoperable - would likely be cheaper to own and operate than two of each - separated. If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can. A month ago, I agreed with you in the 90-110 range, but the more I learn each day, the more I am convinced that 90-plus is not viable. The track people have really disabused me of the idea, and I was already highly skeptical from the train-control aspect. RWM
oltmannd This is an interesting discussion! What level of interoperability should be expected, desired, or will prove economical can really drive the final product. There are those who say, "freight and passenger must be completely separated" as if it was etched in stone on the tablet that Moses dropped on the way down the mountain. (along with "wait an hour after eating before swimming", "don't run with scissors", and two others.) Then, there are those like Gil Carmichael who have been insistent on including freight railroading in the plans. I think I fall closer to the second camp. I'm of a mind that there is enough overlap between existing frt network and desired HSR (110 mph) network that it would be a mistake to leave freight out of the discussion. Certainly, it would be a big mistake to let coal trains or stack trains go tramping up and down class VI track at 60 mph, but certainly a premium trucked, lower axle loading intermodal train could fill some slots on that class IV track. In some cases, it could create new market niches or compete with team drivers. Overnight Atlanta and Charlotte to North Jersey anyone? In others, it could just help increase the capacity of a line segment, such as Cleveland to Chicago. One passenger and two freight tracks - interoperable - would likely be cheaper to own and operate than two of each - separated. If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can.
There are a few places where there is already some experience with >79 mph passenger service and freight operation.
1. Hudson line from Stuyvesant to Poughkeepsie. I believe there are some stretches of class VI track (or at least there were 20 years ago) mixed with a couple pair of road freight trains a day. The freight traffic is generally at night because of the Metro North curfew on the south end of the line. No unit trains or stacks, though. Freight trains run with standard Conrail/PRR 4 aspect cab signal with LSL train stop system. Wood ties and 132# rail. 50 mph max freight train speed.
2. NEC. Newark DE to Bayview MD (and either Baltimore or Anacostia to Bowie MD). All class VI track. Lots of 286,000# unit trains. No stacks. Typically 3 or 4 train pairs a day north and south of Perryville. Freight operates with standard Conrail/PRR 4 aspect cab signals with LSL. 50 mph max freight train speed. NS pays a high trackage rights fee for use and an additional chunk for 286,000# cars. NS also has to jump through hoops to keep high impact wheels off Amtrak. WILD at Mill Creek PA used to identify cars for set out at Harrisburg/Enola.
3. ATSF (okay, BNSF) transcon. Lots of 70 freight/90 passenger class V track. Older than dirt inductive train stop. Lots and lots of stack trains. Amtrak tested their RoadRailers at 100 mph on the NEC in order to qualify them for 90 mph on the ATSF. (Amtrak Roadrailers had swing hanger trucks unlike NS's which use conventional 3 piece trucks)
Using these three as starting points, there are no engineering solutions going forward from here? Wouldn't PTC make train control easier, cheaper and better compared to klutzy cab signal + train speed control/train stop? How about using ECP as the backbone to do real time car health monitoring?
Let's say you were doing Chicago to Cleveland and the design is for a half dozen passenger trains a day, each way. The current route has a 4 track wide ROW, is fairly straight and flat and is currently double track, class IV, with near capacity freight traffic on it. Couldn't you plop down a single, 110 mph class VI track, offset as far as possible from the freight track, put in crossovers every 20 miles or so and allow the passenger trains to use the freight track for meets, track failure and maintenance detours, etc?
If so, then allow limited us by the freight carrier with pircing structure and operating restrictions ala the NEC during the off-peak periods? It would at least allow the frt carrier the option of thinking about marketing a premium intermodal product using premium equipment that would be easy on the track structure.
But Oltmannd, you are dealing with equipment both freight and passenger, that fit the old technical pattern in tandem. When you get to really high speed passenger rail, you enter new technologies which are not necessarily compatable with contemporary freight...tri levels, oversized tanks and hoppers, etc. The question then becomes "can there be high speed rail freight?" which sets off in a new direction.
Don, if you re-read above, I was talking about 90-plus, not 79-90. Like I said above, the track people feel there is a break point at 90. I haven't spent 30-plus years in track like they have, so if they are wrong, I won't be the one to argue it. I'm just reporting what they say. I "take sides" only in the sense that I don't try and upend the entire industry on my own say-so.
Some comments:
Amen! Pass the marshmallows.
HarveyK400 If we're going to spend all this public money, lets get the biggest bang for the buck we can. Amen! Pass the marshmallows.
WIth this kind of mixed traffic the biggest bang might be a catastrophic collision! Hold the marshmallows.
Railway ManDon, if you re-read above, I was talking about 90-plus, not 79-90. Like I said above, the track people feel there is a break point at 90. I haven't spent 30-plus years in track like they have, so if they are wrong, I won't be the one to argue it. I'm just reporting what they say. I "take sides" only in the sense that I don't try and upend the entire industry on my own say-so.Some comments:Note that many of the places where 90 mph occurs, the freight traffic is either minimal or nonexistant.Most of the Class 1s not only have no experience with Class 6 track, they don't even own any machines that will work to Class 6. Who other than Amtrak is maintaining to Class 6 at present?PTC is a whole lot better than ATS/ATC in many ways, but it will actually cost capacity, and loss of capacity will result in loss of operating flexibility.I agree there's no real problem with using the freight main to make your passenger train meets on (we're studying that in a couple of corridors for more than a year). But unless the FRA grants a waiver permitting non-compliant vehicles on PTC-equipped lines, we'll be stuck with heavy vehicles and their poor performance. On the other hand, the last mile problems will be more important in determining whether there's mixed freight/passenger on these lines. For what it's worth, our most recent conversations with the FRA in D.C. concerning a compliance waiver didn't fill me with enthusisasm.It will be interesting to see which freight carriers would want to use the passenger track during off-peak hours and accept the liability for damaging the track/delaying the passenger trains. I think maybe one, maybe two of the carriers would be able to find a business model for that. RWM
First, I was on the Southwest Limited that I clocked at 100 west of Fort Madison in ATS territory making up time lost for a crossing collision involving Metra. I think you'll agree that this is not a low-volume freight line; yet the ride was comfortable without too much lean on curves. Yes, this is anecdotal and not routine; but it was, at the same time, a pleasant surprise demonstrating that it can be done on lines with 40-60 freights a day.
A North Western official told me they surface and line to better than Class VI because it takes longer to degrade to Class V, and track equipment used here is the same stuff in Europe; so I really question your statement about not having the capability which is distinguished from maintaining.
Frankly, I don't understand how PTC would reduce capacity without the implication that rules are more easily stretched without it. One of the advantages of PTC is to guide safe and effective train handling. I have some experience with signaling issues; and this seems like a myth being spread, posturing, to obstruct adoption.
Granted, existing compliant equipment is heavy and inherently less energy-efficient, but it's the load factors that really kill the psgr-mi/gal and psgr/crew.
With shared facilities and a more or less dedicated passenger track, there is a capability to run around a disabled train - regardless of it being a freight or passenger.
An advantage of shared routes is that the cost of infrastructure improvements, especially crossing grade separation, is minimized.
HarveyK400First, I was on the Southwest Limited that I clocked at 100 west of Fort Madison in ATS territory making up time lost for a crossing collision involving Metra. I think you'll agree that this is not a low-volume freight line; yet the ride was comfortable without too much lean on curves. Yes, this is anecdotal and not routine; but it was, at the same time, a pleasant surprise demonstrating that it can be done on lines with 40-60 freights a day. A North Western official told me they surface and line to better than Class VI because it takes longer to degrade to Class V, and track equipment used here is the same stuff in Europe; so I really question your statement about not having the capability which is distinguished from maintaining.Frankly, I don't understand how PTC would reduce capacity without the implication that rules are more easily stretched without it. One of the advantages of PTC is to guide safe and effective train handling. I have some experience with signaling issues; and this seems like a myth being spread, posturing, to obstruct adoption.Granted, existing compliant equipment is heavy and inherently less energy-efficient, but it's the load factors that really kill the psgr-mi/gal and psgr/crew. With shared facilities and a more or less dedicated passenger track, there is a capability to run around a disabled train - regardless of it being a freight or passenger.An advantage of shared routes is that the cost of infrastructure improvements, especially crossing grade separation, is minimized.
Harvey --This ride on Amtrak on BNSF was recent? In gross violation of FRA regulation and railway operating rules? Was it a regular, daily practice?
I don't know what North Western practices were. That company no longer exists. I do know what current practices and capabilities are re Class 6. If you want to think I am misinformed and too stubborn to admit it, think whatever you wish.
I don't take personal offense at your questioning me. I can't for the life of me think what your point is, other than to advance a vision, assert the technical capabilities exist to sustain that vision, and then push back against any information contrary to that assertion. I have no interest in winning arguments with you, nor do I have any interest in either denying or supporting your vision. I'm not worried if anyone else reading this forum is swayed or not swayed, nor worried if someone here will start believing the sky is orange and the moon made of cheese unless I type faster and with more use of bold and italics. If you want to scoff at my knowledge, mox nix to me.
The machines are not "the same" as in Europe. Some of them are built in Europe, some aren't. Some of the machines used in Europe are built in the U.S. Why not call up Nordco or Plasser or Harsco and ask them if you can spec the machine to get Class 6 or better, or if a given machine is even capable of Class 6? And ask them what each of the Class 1s buy? Have you ever done that? I've bought the machines!
If you would like me to explain how PTC reduces capacity, that information is free for the asking. If you're predisposed to disagree with me anyway as you think I and my cohorts are trying to be obstructionist, please let me know so I don't waste my time. (It's a bit funny to read in one sentence that I am using inside knowledge to be obstructionist and in the next that I don't have any inside knowledge.) My day job consists of arguing with people about rail policy, contracts, and economics from 0500 to 1800 and that fulfills all of my needs in that regard. Right now I am supposed to be working on PTC implementation strategy and finance documents, so I should get to work.
The UP North can get mildly rough between tie renewal and resurfacing every few years without freight traffic. The worse are the bounces at the non-ballasted deck bridges which are to be replaced in a road clearance/bridge replacement project.
The Northwest Line bridges were redone a few years ago in Chicago with concrete ties, deeper ballast, and 115# cwr track. When new, it was as smooth as glass; but the high track stiffness produced a louder ringing sound from the rolling wheels; but not as much as the NEC or the English 100 mph West Coast Main in 1974.
henry6But Oltmannd, you are dealing with equipment both freight and passenger, that fit the old technical pattern in tandem. When you get to really high speed passenger rail, you enter new technologies which are not necessarily compatable with contemporary freight...tri levels, oversized tanks and hoppers, etc.
Absolutely.
henry6 The question then becomes "can there be high speed rail freight?" which sets off in a new direction.
Probably not. The time value of even very high value goods is too low and the energy cost is too high volumes needed to make a train.
Railway Man Don, if you re-read above, I was talking about 90-plus, not 79-90. Like I said above, the track people feel there is a break point at 90. I haven't spent 30-plus years in track like they have, so if they are wrong, I won't be the one to argue it. I'm just reporting what they say. I "take sides" only in the sense that I don't try and upend the entire industry on my own say-so. Some comments: Note that many of the places where 90 mph occurs, the freight traffic is either minimal or nonexistant. Most of the Class 1s not only have no experience with Class 6 track, they don't even own any machines that will work to Class 6. Who other than Amtrak is maintaining to Class 6 at present? PTC is a whole lot better than ATS/ATC in many ways, but it will actually cost capacity, and loss of capacity will result in loss of operating flexibility. I agree there's no real problem with using the freight main to make your passenger train meets on (we're studying that in a couple of corridors for more than a year). But unless the FRA grants a waiver permitting non-compliant vehicles on PTC-equipped lines, we'll be stuck with heavy vehicles and their poor performance. On the other hand, the last mile problems will be more important in determining whether there's mixed freight/passenger on these lines. For what it's worth, our most recent conversations with the FRA in D.C. concerning a compliance waiver didn't fill me with enthusisasm. It will be interesting to see which freight carriers would want to use the passenger track during off-peak hours and accept the liability for damaging the track/delaying the passenger trains. I think maybe one, maybe two of the carriers would be able to find a business model for that. RWM
Thanks. It will be interesting. I hope the "always" and "never" folk don't kill it for the "lets try this" folk.
Amazingly enough, I think the "let's try this" folks are winning -- at least at the Class 1. I wouldn't have bet on that a couple of years ago. The irony is that the D.C. agencies, the high-speed authorities, and the states for the most part are way behind the curve. That's where I am getting all the push-back from.
You are NEW around here, aren't you? Advance a vision, assert the technical capabilities, and then push back against information contrary? I never saw it expressed so succinctly, but that pretty much defines the passenger train advocacy community let alone the comments section of pretty much any Web page these days.
oltmannd to my understanding actually works for a Class 1 railroad. Sam1 is an accounting/finance professional who has seen electric power utility deregulation from the inside. My excuse is that I am a research engineer trying to follow in my father's footsteps, a man who designed the constant-velocity power transmission for the roller test stand at Pueblo, Colorado and who had a stack of notes from his ASME conference abstract and his work at GATX on bogie design that I rescued from the ravages of the red squirrels attracted by his walnut plantings. I am trying to get up the learning curve of Lagrange-Hamilton and Lyapanov theory to get that work to see the light of day. Others will have to offer up their excuse.
Don, you lost me there. I don't know the players without a program and don't know who the "lets try this" folk are.
As to the traffic restricting of PTC, I have to agree with RailwayMan based on what is written in Trains of all places. The trouble with PTC is that it has to assume the lowest common denominator in braking performance in setting the protection zones.
The narrative for a long time has been "110 MPH Midwest Regional Rail Initiative" to do a kind of near HSR "on the cheap." I don't think anyone is seriously thinking going faster in the share-the-tracks mode, but RailwayMan is telling us the 90 MPH is stretching it unless there are serious restrictions on freight operations (like not having any). I don't know where the 110 MPH comes from and whether it was pulled from the air, but it has become a kind of shibboleth in the advocacy community.
All of this is not simply idle jibber-jabber as according to Trains (of course!) the 8 billion in the Stimulus Package is not going to be a downpayment on a single dedicated HSR line but looks to be spread around among as many as 10 different places, pursuing various kinds of improvements to conventional rail shared with freight, and I am sure the 110 MPH thing is going to be a big issue.
My excuse is that I have been around trains, riding, observing, even organizing and operating special train trips, and special trips (an excercise in utilizing schedules of different systems...rail, light rail, subway, and bus; and different agencies, but learned a lot about operating practices and equipment usasge), and museum/tourist operations for over 60 years. I remember the first time I knew I doing 100 mph when returning to NYP from a fan trip to Montauk, LI, NY and those aboard the LIRR MU west of Jamaica stop watched the mile posts annonced a speed a bit over it. I also heard stories of "hoggers' getting the most out of thier train at the century mark, side by side races of DL&W and Erie west of Elmira, and DL&W passenger trains making up time on the Cut Off at more than 100 more than once. It happened a lot on all roads. But I try not to dwell on that, that is nostalgia. The reality of railroading has changed from the mettle of its operating men to the metals...and wires, and micro proccessors and computers and sattelites and legal limits imposed by insurance companies and lawyers and government agencies. I like to see new technologies applied to solving the problems and operations of railroads. Just because it used to be done does not mean it is the way it has to be done, or that it was economical or safe at all to begin with. I have dealt with railroaders from the lavatory attendents to the president and everyone in between. I feel I have some experience in railroading in that little respect. A professional, by no means! But just enough working with and inside, and learning from experiencing the old and new, coupled with access to the broadest range of employees and practitioners the business had to offer. There is so much to be learned on these pages by those who actually plan railroads and services, operate the trains, operate the business end, et al., that makes these discssions fun and enlightenting. I know I often throw something in which is above my head or based on what somebody else said or told me. But if I am wrong, I am glad to get the answers and good conversation.
The Amtrak experience was four years ago, and tracks may have been Class VI - certainly rode well if only subjectively. ATS was FRA-compliant. Again, this probably was only occasional and not an everyday event. No exceptional speed was experienced on the return trip.
Being currently involved, you have an insight few of us have access to. Your wording suggested carrier postures with regard to PTC, which under the circumstances are at least suspect. I have questions in part because of previous positive postings regarding PTC. Some of us I think would appreciate an elaboration.
You may be very familiar with current track maintenance equipment; but it is still incredulous to me that manufactures would produce to such individual specifications for track profile measurements. Most mainline equipment seems to use laser sighting systems; but maybe I'm wrong.
The other thing that makes absolutely no sense is that if track is brought just into compliance to allow trains to operate at a given speed, the least failure or degradation will result in a slow order and need for maintenance relatively quickly. There is a distinction to be made between maintaining track to a given standard and the work standards for maintenance that would be much finer. This is why I wonder that machines intended for mainlines can be used, or desired, for only up to Class IV or Class V track.
Paul Milenkovic As to the traffic restricting of PTC, I have to agree with RailwayMan based on what is written in Trains of all places. The trouble with PTC is that it has to assume the lowest common denominator in braking performance in setting the protection zones.
That's one example of the fundamental change that PTC represents in train control. Before, reliance was placed upon the good judgement of the train crew to operate in a safe condition. Because of fatalities caused by single-point failures attributable to humans who did not exercise good judgement, PTC will remove many of those pathways that led to single-point failures. That sounds excellent in concept, but the problem is that it's not technically or economically feasible to make PTC sufficiently fine-grained to accurately replicate the good judgement of a human throughout the vast range of scenarios that a train confronts in everyday operation in a highly variable world. Instead, it's only technically feasible to replicate the judgement of an extremely conservative human. No one wants to design a safety system that doesn't create safety, so when in doubt, everyone will choose the worst-case scenario and design for that.
This creates a significant delta in train performance outcomes. For example, it's possible to operate a train right at the speed limit and apply brakes at the last possible moment to stop short of the signal, or, it's possible to apply the brakes early just in case the rail might be a bit slippery or the brake shoes a little less effective than ideal. It's not technically feasible to put the same amount of instanteous experience into the algorithms of a PTC system that a skilled engineer can do after he sees how his train handles and with his detailed knowledge of idiosyncracies of the territory. Maybe people smarter than I will figure all this out in the next few months -- there is quite a bit of work at TTCI at present into braking algorithms -- but I'm not yet cognizant of any good-news stories.
In other words, we're building a system to eliminate the last 0.00001% of failures, which is an approximatation of the percentage of all train-handling events that could cause a fatality that a human being fails and does cause a fatality. That's the decision, and we're all on board with it. I'm faintly amused by the people who are accusing us of dragging our heels, using accusations of the category "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"
Railway ManPaul Milenkovic As to the traffic restricting of PTC, I have to agree with RailwayMan based on what is written in Trains of all places. The trouble with PTC is that it has to assume the lowest common denominator in braking performance in setting the protection zones.That's one example of the fundamental change that PTC represents in train control. Before, reliance was placed upon the good judgement of the train crew to operate in a safe condition. Because of fatalities caused by single-point failures attributable to humans who did not exercise good judgement, PTC will remove many of those pathways that led to single-point failures. That sounds excellent in concept, but the problem is that it's not technically or economically feasible to make PTC sufficiently fine-grained to accurately replicate the good judgement of a human throughout the vast range of scenarios that a train confronts in everyday operation in a highly variable world. Instead, it's only technically feasible to replicate the judgement of an extremely conservative human. No one wants to design a safety system that doesn't create safety, so when in doubt, everyone will choose the worst-case scenario and design for that. This creates a significant delta in train performance outcomes. For example, it's possible to operate a train right at the speed limit and apply brakes at the last possible moment to stop short of the signal, or, it's possible to apply the brakes early just in case the rail might be a bit slippery or the brake shoes a little less effective than ideal. It's not technically feasible to put the same amount of instanteous experience into the algorithms of a PTC system that a skilled engineer can do after he sees how his train handles and with his detailed knowledge of idiosyncracies of the territory. Maybe people smarter than I will figure all this out in the next few months -- there is quite a bit of work at TTCI at present into braking algorithms -- but I'm not yet cognizant of any good-news stories.In other words, we're building a system to eliminate the last 0.00001% of failures, which is an approximatation of the percentage of all train-handling events that could cause a fatality that a human being fails and does cause a fatality. That's the decision, and we're all on board with it. I'm faintly amused by the people who are accusing us of dragging our heels, using accusations of the category "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" RWM
My understanding was that PTC computed specific train handling from data on cars and lading and monitored performance such as for acceleration and brake response for calibration, taking into account speed, grades, curves, weather, distance to stop or speed restriction, and safety factor. Weren't these and perhaps other factors used to create algorithms for performance?
HarveyK400 My understanding was that PTC computed specific train handling from data on cars and lading and monitored performance such as for acceleration and brake response for calibration, taking into account speed, grades, curves, weather, distance to stop or speed restriction, and safety factor. Weren't these and perhaps other factors used to create algorithms for performance?
I get the feeling that the algorithms a seasoned engineer gets through the seat of his pants are finer than any computerized system can produce. Do you drive a car? Stick or automatic? Sedan, SUV, or sports car? Thats the difference.
HarveyK400My understanding was that PTC computed specific train handling from data on cars and lading and monitored performance such as for acceleration and brake response for calibration, taking into account speed, grades, curves, weather, distance to stop or speed restriction, and safety factor. Weren't these and perhaps other factors used to create algorithms for performance?
Inputs are:
En route calibration is something of an enigma. In concept it's a great idea; no one has figured out yet how to do it in a reliable, predictible, and FRA-certifiable fashion.
Algorithms remain under study at TTCI and at the Class 1s.
The FRA Product Safety Plan and Railroad Product Safety Plan requirements under Subpart H and I put the onus on to the vendor and the railway to certify this all works perfectly.
In the face of a crumbling airline industry, we need more government investment in railroads:
I don't know about anyone else, but I have no intention of ever flying again as long as the airport resembles an East German border crossing in the '60s.
Phoebe Vet I don't know about anyone else, but I have no intention of ever flying again as long as the airport resembles an East German border crossing in the '60s.
Paul Milenkovic Don, you lost me there. I don't know the players without a program and don't know who the "lets try this" folk are.
The dogmatic "always" or "never' folk are those who grab a position and then hold on tight. They include the frt RR that says "never" to any additional passenger service on their routes and advocates who start with the position that HSR must be 180 mph dedicated ROW,etc. etc, and then work backward to the arguements for.
The "lets try this" folk are those who start with a goal or problem statement and then try to find common ground or mutual benefit for the stakeholders. A good example would be the NCRR program. NC wanted faster and more frequent service in their state. NS and NC worked together to improve the NCRR, replacing high maintenance equilaterals with #20s so that the passenger trains don't have to slow down when the switch is lined normal, adding some sections of double track and installing CTC and upgrading track on a more lightly used portion of the RR. NC gets improved passenger service. NS gets a more fluid (there's that word, again), easier to operate and maintain railroad. Of course, in this case, NC had some leverage - they own the RR!
Or, let's say there is some route where 110 mph service is desired and it has several curves that need reallignment. Rather than just saying "no" to the whole deal, the frt RR sees that the reallignment could benefit them since they could reduce superelevation and all the trouble of maintaining it. So, they offer up some $$ comensurate with the benefit they'll get (plus a fair return) to help move things along.
Or, they look to see if there is some political quid pro quo for being flexible in their approach toward these things.
Paul Milenkovic I don't know where the 110 MPH comes from and whether it was pulled from the air, but it has become a kind of shibboleth in the advocacy community
110 is as fast as you can run with conventional equipment on conventional track without having to jump through all kinds of hoops. The only place I know where this is currently being done outside the NEC is CP-169 (west of Schenectady) to Poughkeepsie NY where CSX (and Conrail before them) maintain Class VI track for NY and Amtrak (at their incremental expense).
From the Conrail days....http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=8020
Railway Man HarveyK400 My understanding was that PTC computed specific train handling from data on cars and lading and monitored performance such as for acceleration and brake response for calibration, taking into account speed, grades, curves, weather, distance to stop or speed restriction, and safety factor. Weren't these and perhaps other factors used to create algorithms for performance? Inputs are: Horizontal and vertical profile (absolute value) Permanent and temporary speed limits (absolute value) Tonnage of train (absolute value, or at least what the trainsheet claims; there's considerable discussion on how this will be made more accurate -- I expect a whole lot more AEI readers to be installed) Braking horsepower of train (estimated value) Algorithms remain under study at TTCI and at the Class 1s. RWM
This produces braking curves that are longer than those currently used to set existing signal spacing and speeds?
Isn't actual speed also an input?
Maglev In the face of a crumbling airline industry, we need more government investment in railroads: Airline event reflects industry slump "Media questions fly at a somber meeting of international carrier executives who are focused on survival. The industry has been rocked by the recession, swine flu outbreak and the Air France crash." By Peter Pae, Los Angeles TimesJune 9, 2009 (excerpts) "Reporting from Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia -- The telltale signs of an industry in crisis were unavoidable at the biggest airline trade group's yearly gathering..." "One of the highlights of the event: a panel on whether aviation could ever be economically sustainable. (The consensus: Maybe, but only after further painful consolidation.)" "'We've never seen anything like this before,' Jong Hee Lee, president of Korean Air Lines Co. and a 40-year veteran of the carrier, said of the travel slump that had hammered the industry. 'Everybody is saying, 'Let's survive.' '" "The association's 226 member airlines, including the largest U.S. carriers -- Delta, American and United -- account for about 93% of the world's international traffic. No event draws as many airline chief executives, estimated at 150 at this year's meeting." "In one of the conference's more depressing moments, the group's CEO announced Monday that the industry would lose $9 billion this year, more than double the forecast made just two months ago.""Revenue is projected to tumble 15% to $448 billion, a drop more than twice as big as the falloff in sales after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks." "And airline executives say there's little relief in sight..." full story at: http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-airlines9-2009jun09,0,3942501.story
Volatility has been a characteristic of the airline business since the get go. It will always be the case. Airlines come and go, but to think that airplanes are going to disappear and people are going to flock to trains is unrealistic.
Investment in passenger rail makes sense for relatively high density, short corridors where expanding highways and airways is cost prohibitive. Thus, a significant per cent of commercial passengers take the train from Philadelphia to New York. The percentage of commercial passengers taking the train from Charlotte to New York is very low.
oltmanndThis produces braking curves that are longer than those currently used to set existing signal spacing and speeds? Isn't actual speed also an input?
Initial and final speeds are inputs, yes.
The answer on signal spacing is actually that the braking curves are very similar with PTC. Signal braking distances are derived from a similiar algorithm that uses vertical profile, an assumed maximum possible weight per car (e.g., every car is 158 TPOB), a conservative braking horsepower, and initial and final speeds. However, signal spacing is only interested in whether a worst-case train that is given an aspect can adhere to that aspect, and leaves it up to the engineer to determine if he is a worst-case train or a best-case train. Thus signal spacing is almost always much greater than what a train is going to actually do, because no train is ever as bad as the worst case. Thus in most cases trains are crowding much closer than the signal spacing nominally dictates. PTC, however, will undo that crowding.
For example,using one of the rule books, an engineer sees a yellow aspect. The rule says "Proceed prepared to stop before any part of train or engine passes next signal. Freight trains exceeding 30 mph must immediately reduce speed to 30 mph." The "stop at next signal part" is not discretionary, but where the braking from 30 mph to stop occurs and how hard of a braking effort that will be is discretionary, as is the "immediately reduce" part. What does that mean? Reduce to 30 the minute you see the signal? Reduce to 30 after the head end reaches the signal? How aggressive shall the braking be? PTC will "see" that signal aspect and make sure the train is at 30 before the head-end reaches the signal, which in many cases means the braking will begin to 30 long before the engineer can visually see the signal, and will follow a worst-case braking scenario to arrive at that target speed. In a non-PTC system, the engineer of a light train with good dynamic braking on a dry day may run right up to that signal at 45 and then drop the speed in a hurry as he passes it.
Now think what happens at every permanent speed restriction and station stop. I've spent enough time in the cab to know that one engineer can drop his train onto the entrance of the speed restriction or platform aggressively, and another engineer will dawdle up to it. Or put another way, from the viewpoint of a train dispatcher, different engineers can get identical trains across the same territory with remarkably different running times, and both adhere to the rules.
Braking horsepower would seem to have a wide range of values depending on the ratio of loaded and empty cars. In explanation to other readers, braking force was limited to about 60% of empty car weight to avoid locking the wheels and sliding; but this may have changed more recently time.
Railroads seem to have gotten away from weighing cars, and the comment on the accuracy of the trainsheet complicates calculating train braking distance. The railroads' care that the load limit is not exceeded; but seemingly have little interest other than for customer car supply to know how much the lading weighs or if it maxes car volume.
One thing you didn't mention was the number of cars and the time it takes to set up brakes for the whole train. It seems newer brakes are faster acting, so that is another variable to deal with.
I don't have anything on fade as a component of braking horsepower in what's left of my library, but this would seem to be a curve related to speed, brake force, and ambient temperature. Brake force varies for different types of shoes and the individual adjustment of each car. As a train, one might start with the assumption of an average adjusted for empirical deviations.
With ambient temperatures near or below freezing, I understand how ice buildup is problematic and may need manual input/override if suspected. The engineer can't really see what's happening behind him, although a passing train might. Another possibility may be to make running brake applications periodically and prior to the distance required for dynamic braking to bring down speed. Never having run a train or read an account of this procedure, I have no idea if this is done.
In the same vein, do air brake valves freeze up often from moisture in the line condensing and icing up with falling temperatures?
Dynamic brake horsepower seems to be as readily available as locomotive horsepower and varies with speed, notwithstanding the small variations in actual unit performance on a given train. Am I missing something? Who cares what the future may bring?
Weather - temperatures and winds in the area of the train - might be obtained from the Weather Service. It seems newer locomotives may measure ambient air temperature for more efficient operation.
Even an experienced engineer would have little more than a fuzzy ideal of how the train will handle, taking into account the same but unquantified variables, and act cautiously. Both engineer and computer can get some idea of braking performance by how long it takes to accelerate the train against the actual tonnage and rolling resistance that allows some recalibration. I understand this is a combined rolling resistance and drag algorithm and not the whole answer.
It seems facetious for people to claim that a human can come in hot and the computer not for the very reason of assuring safety. Sooner or later the hotshot engineer is going to overrun a block and maybe hurt someone. I am not convinced that PTC would reduce capacity to any measurable degree, even with 50 trains a day.
Railway Man Initial and final speeds are inputs, yes. The answer on signal spacing is actually that the braking curves are very similar with PTC. Signal braking distances are derived from a similiar algorithm that uses vertical profile, an assumed maximum possible weight per car (e.g., every car is 158 TPOB), a conservative braking horsepower, and initial and final speeds. However, signal spacing is only interested in whether a worst-case train that is given an aspect can adhere to that aspect, and leaves it up to the engineer to determine if he is a worst-case train or a best-case train. Thus signal spacing is almost always much greater than what a train is going to actually do, because no train is ever as bad as the worst case. Thus in most cases trains are crowding much closer than the signal spacing nominally dictates. PTC, however, will undo that crowding. For example,using one of the rule books, an engineer sees a yellow aspect. The rule says "Proceed prepared to stop before any part of train or engine passes next signal. Freight trains exceeding 30 mph must immediately reduce speed to 30 mph." The "stop at next signal part" is not discretionary, but where the braking from 30 mph to stop occurs and how hard of a braking effort that will be is discretionary, as is the "immediately reduce" part. What does that mean? Reduce to 30 the minute you see the signal? Reduce to 30 after the head end reaches the signal? How aggressive shall the braking be? PTC will "see" that signal aspect and make sure the train is at 30 before the head-end reaches the signal, which in many cases means the braking will begin to 30 long before the engineer can visually see the signal, and will follow a worst-case braking scenario to arrive at that target speed. In a non-PTC system, the engineer of a light train with good dynamic braking on a dry day may run right up to that signal at 45 and then drop the speed in a hurry as he passes it. Now think what happens at every permanent speed restriction and station stop. I've spent enough time in the cab to know that one engineer can drop his train onto the entrance of the speed restriction or platform aggressively, and another engineer will dawdle up to it. Or put another way, from the viewpoint of a train dispatcher, different engineers can get identical trains across the same territory with remarkably different running times, and both adhere to the rules.
Stupid me. I knew this. I just forgot. With PTC the engineer has to keep his train "under" the worst case speed/distance curve. This is exactly how the LSL system works with cab signals, only it has no idea of where the train is on the RR. It assumes worst case signal spacing on the territory and is very aggressive lots of places it doesn't need to be.
oltmanndStupid me. I knew this. I just forgot. With PTC the engineer has to keep his train "under" the worst case speed/distance curve. This is exactly how the LSL system works with cab signals, only it has no idea of where the train is on the RR. It assumes worst case signal spacing on the territory and is very aggressive lots of places it doesn't need to be.
Like my brain-fade on 539 engines the other day.
There's lots of means by which PTC can be fine-tuned to reduce the capacity loss that is created by making every braking case the worst braking case, which is the safe and simple course. But the cost of implementation and maintenance of these means, and the cost of the proof to the FRA that safety is not being compromised, become impractical in a hurry. There's a lot of research money being spent now looking at ways to reduce the capacity impact, but there's not a lot of confidence that by 2015 when in theory PTC is all rolled out, that we won't have taken a 10-20% capacity hit.
By comparison, the other day we got into a question about hump yard capacity. After talking around with a lot of people who combined had more than 2,000 years of experience designing, managing, and operating hump yards on somewhere around 20 different Class 1s and terminal roads, we concluded that the same hump-yard that had a capacity of 3,000 cars over the hump in 1960 today had maybe 2,000 cars over the hump a day, and the only significant change we could ascribe this to was safety practices. That's not saying, of course, that we begrudge the safety improvement, only that it's usually impossible to have a free lunch.
HarveyK400Braking horsepower would seem to have a wide range of values depending on the ratio of loaded and empty cars. In explanation to other readers, braking force was limited to about 60% of empty car weight to avoid locking the wheels and sliding; but this may have changed more recently time.
Braking HP per wheel would be brake shoe force X coeff of friction (shoe to wheel) X train speed. Brake shoe force is a function of brake pipe pressure and geometry of braking mechanism (cylinder diameter, levers, etc.)
HarveyK400Railroads seem to have gotten away from weighing cars, and the comment on the accuracy of the trainsheet complicates calculating train braking distance. The railroads' care that the load limit is not exceeded; but seemingly have little interest other than for customer car supply to know how much the lading weighs or if it maxes car volume.
Lots of stuff gets weighed, but not always for billing purposes. Many coal loaders weight what they're loading on the fly. RRs have weigh in motion scales to verify weights in some locations. WILDs weigh cars as a secondary function of measuring impacts. Automated hump systems have weigh in motion scales on th hump grade. The problem is if you are going to use car weight as an input, you have to have it almost before you turn a wheel. Most of the time, you don't know it until you are part way through the trip. And, you almost never have anything useful for intermodal boxes.
HarveyK400One thing you didn't mention was the number of cars and the time it takes to set up brakes for the whole train. It seems newer brakes are faster acting, so that is another variable to deal with.
Not much of a variable. Airbrake signal propogation is and has been pretty close to the speed of sound for quite a while now. (something like 80-90% of it, I think) Time for the brake to actually set up on the car isn't much of a variable, either.
HarveyK400 With ambient temperatures near or below freezing, I understand how ice buildup is problematic and may need manual input/override if suspected. The engineer can't really see what's happening behind him, although a passing train might. Another possibility may be to make running brake applications periodically and prior to the distance required for dynamic braking to bring down speed. Never having run a train or read an account of this procedure, I have no idea if this is done. In the same vein, do air brake valves freeze up often from moisture in the line condensing and icing up with falling temperatures?
The problem of ice in the trainline almost always gets you before you leave the initial terminal. You can't get the application and release and get the front to rear differential (or air flow) back to what it wants to be. I have heard that there are instances when a brake valve will stick from frost, but this tends to cause UDEs rather than a "no brake" condition.
HarveyK400Dynamic brake horsepower seems to be as readily available as locomotive horsepower and varies with speed, notwithstanding the small variations in actual unit performance on a given train. Am I missing something? Who cares what the future may bring?
I don't know if we'll ever get to a point where we're allow to count on the DB for anything other than convenience. It's certainly not a safety device!
HarveyK400Weather - temperatures and winds in the area of the train - might be obtained from the Weather Service. It seems newer locomotives may measure ambient air temperature for more efficient operation.
Weather is sometimes the cause of the variable you're interested in, namely the wheel/rail adhesion during braking. You could put a tribometer on the locomotive, I suppose, and measure it in real time, but you'd still not have what you really need. You need to know what the rail conditions are up ahead where the braking will be taking place. Could a weather forecast give you enough "9s" for your reliability calculation?
HarveyK400It seems facetious for people to claim that a human can come in hot and the computer not for the very reason of assuring safety. Sooner or later the hotshot engineer is going to overrun a block and maybe hurt someone. I am not convinced that PTC would reduce capacity to any measurable degree, even with 50 trains a day.
If the PTC system has to assume "all loads", it could really slow things down. This could make a big difference getting trains into passing sidings, etc.
There are lots of other variables that create variablility (duh!) in operations. That hot shot engr. that you allude to, might get over the road quite a bit faster than Mr. Milquetoast. He might try to keep it right on track speed or a mph or two over as much as possible, brake hard into speed restictions and put it back in 8 as soon as possible. Mr. Milquetoast might be content to cruise along letting speed vary quite a bit below track speed before he reacts. He might just coast into speed restictions, and might take his time getting back into 8 once he thought he was clear and then some.
There are attempts to reduce this variablility in train operation and minimize fuel consumption at the same time by providing the engineer with dynamically generated "suggested" train handling and measuring compliance. NS's LEADER program is one of these.
Don said all this much better than I could have.
I misspoke in trying to summarize: it is the brake shoe pressure braking ratio that was the product of a (nominal, general use) brake ratio of 60% light weight assuming 70-ton cars [Hay].
I understood it took about a second per car, 1-1/2 min for a 90-car train, for brake pipe pressure reduction (signal propagation?) which is the reason for the interest in electronic brake control. Did I get this wrong; or are there separate issues?
This is understandable sitting in the yard overnight; but what about changes in the weather in route or climbing to higher, colder elevations?
"I don't know if we'll ever get to a point where we're allow to count on the DB for anything other than convenience. It's certainly not a safety device!"
I suppose dynamic braking may not meet an industry definition of a safety device since it poops out at low speed. Even so, it would seem to aid in reducing train speed so partial disabling of train air brakes, for instance from ice build-up, would not be a total catastrophe.
Conversely, are dynamic brakes operationally unreliable? Isn't this similar to a unit being shut down in modeling performance?
"Could a weather forecast give you enough "9s" for your reliability calculation?"
That's a good question. Isn't weather condition more for adjusting for what might be considered worst-case operating conditions? It's not so much a forecast as monitoring real-time weather reporting sites and interpolating data for the railroad ahead of the train.
It just came to mind that the railroads, at least the BNSF, have their own weather department to warn of severe weather and flooding dangers, perhaps more.
"If the PTC system has to assume "all loads", it could really slow things down. This could make a big difference getting trains into passing sidings, etc."
This seems to be a very negative outlook. Why on earth would PTC have to assume "all-loads" when tonnage and car data already is available and accumulated for the train?
"There are attempts to reduce this variablility in train operation and minimize fuel consumption at the same time by providing the engineer with dynamically generated "suggested" train handling and measuring compliance. NS's LEADER program is one of these."
Even if PTC used virtually the same worst-case algorithm as in establishing signal block lengths and allowable speeds, why would it be necessary then to brake before reaching the approach block? This is equivalent to imposing an advance approach block which is not deemed necessary for current, assumed less reliable or compliant, non-PTC operation.
For train handling purposes, PTC might allow one train to drift and reduce speed to save fuel or to time a rolling meet well before the approach block. Keeping a train rolling may save time overall starting and recovering speed after a delay.
A long time ago I read some stuff on rail profile and the cant of the tie plate. This seemed inconclusive with pros and cons; so I hadn't worried about it. What's changed with respect to heavy-haul and high-speed now that was refered to in recent posts? How does it work in mixed traffic for the NEC at 125 and 150; and could it work in the Midwest at 110?
All of this has been very interesting. BUT...why do we really need to invent the wheel? To do so seems to not take advantage of what others already have had to struggle with. Can we not examine the HSR and sub-HSR practices in France, Germany, etc. to see what they are using, their experience, what works, what doesn't, costs, etc.? Or are we too parochial and thin-skinned to admit that other countries may know more than we do about some topics.
It is not a matter of reinventing the wheel, or others knowing more, but rather adapting a different wheel. As has been stated, North American railroads chose a heaver standard than did European railroads (for instance). Therefore thier trains are lighter which leads to other variables and therefore it is not a matter of just bringing a European model over here, put it on the tracks and let it go, Adapting to our rail system is much more comlex than that. That, at least in general, is how an Alstom VP explained to me why we can't just bring 'em over and run 'em.
HarveyK400This seems to be a very negative outlook. Why on earth would PTC have to assume "all-loads" when tonnage and car data already is available and accumulated for the train?
The problem is the association of the waybill to the event reporting that tells you this car is on this train. AEI scanners are pretty good at giving an accurate consist, but how do you know that that car in the consist that shows as empty is really empty?
The waybilling system knows about origins and destinations and what's in the car but it doesn't know where the car is. The car reporting system knows where the car is (most of the time) but has no idea where the car is going or what's in it. The association betweent the two is made in the back-office using some heuristic logic - and it doesn't always get it right.
The error rate may be very small, but it can come in bunches. You may get 20 cars out of one industry where erroneous car reporting or logic causes you to associate the previous empty waybill with the current load. So, you think that they are empties when they are actually loads. If they make up half the local train that pulled them from industry, the safe braking curve calculated from this information would not insure the train stopped short of movement authority. Very bad.
Part of the problem is drawing a bright line between the placment, release and pull. The placment and pull information is manually collected by the train crew, faxed to the yard office, and manually entered into the car reporting system. Despite edits in the data systems there are still lots of places for errors and omissions to occur. Even when the data is correct, there are still timing issues that can cause problems. You can get a release from the customer before you even get the placement event into your own system.
Elevating car reporting and waybilling systems to be part of a safety system leaves butterflys in my stomach.
I think the way to do this is to implement ECP braking and get data from each car directly. The "smarts" on each car plus the commications train line could handle more than just braking info. You could get car weight (good enough for a braking algorithm), bearing temperature info, car ride quality info, etc. by adding a few sensors.
HarveyK400I understood it took about a second per car, 1-1/2 min for a 90-car train, for brake pipe pressure reduction (signal propagation?) which is the reason for the interest in electronic brake control. Did I get this wrong; or are there separate issues?
The brake valves react rather quickly to the pressure signal, but the brake cylinder gets up to full pressure rather slowly. But, there is not much variablility car to car.
HarveyK400Conversely, are dynamic brakes operationally unreliable? Isn't this similar to a unit being shut down in modeling performance?
Every spring and fall there is a spate of UDEs due to frost in the brake valves for exactly this reason.
DB can quit and the train can still operate through. Think of it as a "nice to have" train handling feature. Whether it's working or not is really a moot point. I suppose a rather sophisitcated train automation system could plan on using DB and if results were not sufficient, go to the air.
Pardon me, but to some extent I feel that the technical discussion is a diversion from the intended thread topic. The US needs to improve and expand passenger rail service. Airlines are going broke. Planes are falling*. Automobile manufacturers are going broke. Highways are overcrowded.
Without a philosphical commitment, the economic and political barriers will always be too great. Without a product to sell, market studies are meaningless.
---------------------
*(Slight digression--severe tropical thunderstorms, likely cause of AF 447 crash, will become more common as climate changes; this is a scientific consensus and my observation from living on Maui over 37 years. Weather was one element of the Buffalo crash, economic stability of airlines another. Christian Science Monitor has an on-line item today about possible terrorism in Air France crash; I doubt it, but for more on that topic see the "Railroads for Civil Defense" thread.)
Why not see if Nystrom (Milwaukee Rd Hiawatha) bogie trucks could be fitted to Viewliners? The patents have probably expired.
natelord Why not see if Nystrom (Milwaukee Rd Hiawatha) bogie trucks could be fitted to Viewliners? The patents have probably expired.
I was quite surprised the other day to see a Hiawatha zip past the Touhy Ave. (Niles) crossing. Consist was a mixture of Amfleet and the square bodies I associate specifically with the Hiawatha fleet.
Next thing you know, they'll be wanting reservations! AFAIK Hiawathas are the only Amtrak trains that don't require them.
best
al-in-chgo
Dear Al:
Nystrom trucks were under REAL Hiawatha cars on the C.M.St.P.&P., also known as The Milwaukee Road. Those cars were built in the 1930s. What you referred to as Milwaukee are the Amtrak trains running between Chicago and Milwaukee now. The REAL Milwaukee Road trains took 75 minutes for the journey. They ordinarily ran at least 100 m.p.h. for part of the trip. All of this occurred before the 1948 signal rules and the unfortunate advent of the FRA--a mere agency subject to whatever Act or Acts of Congress governing it may provide.
The current Horizon (GSI?) truck is comparable in overall design to the Hiawatha Nystrom truck even if the latter is better riding in your memories. The difference may be more a function of spring rates and travel. The problem now is that little would be gained without tilt suspension. FWIW, Europe got away from similar trucks for trains running above 100 mph.
I was impressed by the soft ride of the old single-level 400's. They rolled and pitched gently over battered rail joints. It seems that the bolster snubber was removed.
henry6 It is not a matter of reinventing the wheel, or others knowing more, but rather adapting a different wheel. As has been stated, North American railroads chose a heaver standard than did European railroads (for instance). Therefore thier trains are lighter which leads to other variables and therefore it is not a matter of just bringing a European model over here, put it on the tracks and let it go, Adapting to our rail system is much more comlex than that. That, at least in general, is how an Alstom VP explained to me why we can't just bring 'em over and run 'em.
It is kind of true too that we are talking about a continent that is also a lot larger. Our scales just do not jive that easily. Another thing that has to thrown in is our population densities are nowhere near what they are in Europe or China. If we were to do this it would have to be done from within our own collective reality anyways. Transcontinental HSR? Doubt that'll ever happen, but city pairs? Why not? I can even see an eventual daisy chain of city pairs across a portion of N.A., but again---? The whole thing about dedicated rails could be decades in coming---what with all the steps and hoops one would need to go through...
Any argument carried far enough will end up in Semantics--Hartz's law of rhetoric Emerald. Leemer and Southern The route of the Sceptre Express Barry
I just started my blog site...more stuff to come...
http://modeltrainswithmusic.blogspot.ca/
Of course adapting foreign trains to US rail does require some modifications. However, it shouldn't be impossible. In the 1970s Amtrak purchased/leased the French RTL and RTG turbotrains. Those designs were in common use in France. I understand they were precursors to the TGV. I don't think they were considered totally successful; however, the design was considered good enough that some were rebuilt for continued use in the 2000s. I understand that adapting them for US service required a bell and knuckle couplers. For that matter the Talgo trains are a Spanish design.
I think that most of the reasons that we can't/don't bring over foreign designs are regiulatory, like impact strength and percentage of domestic components. But those are arbitrary and can, and maybe should, be changed.
The RTG were used extensively on non-electrified lines in France in the mid-1970s. In many cases, they were allowed to run at 200kph (124mph); but the only one I rode did mostly 40 mph on a serpentine line around deep valleys between Bordeaux and Lyon. Eventually more lines were electrified and the TGV came along. I have no idea whether their was any dissatisfaction, per se.
Regulations are what they are and hardly without reason in the sense of being arbitrary. We've been over that in previous topics. Most would agree that keeping trains apart is a better course than designing for survivability with the forces involved; but this is predicated on a better and costly signal system than is generally the case in the US.
clarkforkOf course adapting foreign trains to US rail does require some modifications. However, it shouldn't be impossible. In the 1970s Amtrak purchased/leased the French RTL and RTG turbotrains. Those designs were in common use in France. I understand they were precursors to the TGV. I don't think they were considered totally successful; however, the design was considered good enough that some were rebuilt for continued use in the 2000s. I understand that adapting them for US service required a bell and knuckle couplers. For that matter the Talgo trains are a Spanish design. I think that most of the reasons that we can't/don't bring over foreign designs are regiulatory, like impact strength and percentage of domestic components. But those are arbitrary and can, and maybe should, be changed.
clarkfork Of course adapting foreign trains to US rail does require some modifications. However, it shouldn't be impossible. In the 1970s Amtrak purchased/leased the French RTL and RTG turbotrains. Those designs were in common use in France. I understand they were precursors to the TGV. I don't think they were considered totally successful; however, the design was considered good enough that some were rebuilt for continued use in the 2000s. I understand that adapting them for US service required a bell and knuckle couplers. For that matter the Talgo trains are a Spanish design. I think that most of the reasons that we can't/don't bring over foreign designs are regiulatory, like impact strength and percentage of domestic components. But those are arbitrary and can, and maybe should, be changed.
Regulatory, indeed. I note that CN (pre-VIA) used American-built turbos and dedicated low-slung coaches for years on its Montreal - Toronto corridor. The trains occasionally had to be pulled out of service for maintenance, but not inordinately so, it seems, as the equipment lived out its normal life before CN got rid of it. While in service, the trains made much better time on that Montreal - Toronto corridor than conventional trains, even though conventional trains could run in excess of 80 mph when conditions warranted (no ICC 79 mph speed limit for engines without cab signalling). The turbos probably offered some of the fastest non-electrified passenger service in N. America in the late Sixties - early Seventies. Yet despite a "home court advantage," they never quite took hold here in the USA. Note that I am not talking about the Rohr turboliners that Amtrak used with --as you said-- rather mixed success on its upstate New York (exx-NYC) routes.
BTW some of Europe's fastest passenger trains right now are fourth-generation Talgos running as HSR between Madrid, Barcelona and other principal cities. They are supposed to average (average!) about 180 mph if I am converting correctly from km.
Yes, regulatory ossification has kept U.S. rail technology back in the fifties, 1956, when Santa Fe debuted bilevel long-distance coaches (a year or two after some Chicago commuter lines put into service gallery-style bilevel coaches.) With the possible exception of the Metroliner, there were no more significant innovations and U.S. rail technology just stopped expanding when Budd stopped making transit equipment. Anything high-tech now is out of non-US-owned companies like Bombardier or Breda. Even the Accela traces back its heritage to a Swedish tilt design ca. 1990.
Some of the Spanish HSR trainsets are not Talgos. The S/103's are Siemens Velaro trainsets, very similar to the German Rail ICE 3's. US passenger rail technology seems to have come to a halt in the 1960's.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.