high speed rail NYC to Chicago

[blue streak 1]

Until the state of Ohio buys into HSR the route is dead in the water.

But as others have posted we need Higher speed rail first to establish a proven demand. The time frame will have to be about 40 years to get to the point a dedicated ROW can be built for these routes.

Using AMTRAK mileage which may be longer or shorter on high speed line(s). These assume a 2 or 3 stop super express run at 220 MPH with no slowing except at the terminal ends and intermediate stations.  Additional stops for regular express will take longer

NY - Cle         618             4 HR   (lakeshore route) 580 miles by PIT

NY - PIT         444miles     3 HR

Wash - PIT    300              2

PIT - CLE      140              .75

CLE - CHI      341             2

Ask me in 40 years how close we are.

 

[henry6]

oltmannd

.  How about extending  NY to Albany west to Syracuse and Buffalo as a start?

 

That, indeed, is where some of the money earmarked for Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida, and New Jersey is going!

[oltmannd]

Even the wonderful PRR didn't really have an alignment that would work very well for HSR.  The best the PRR ever did was 15-1/2 hrs.  You might squeeze a couple more out if you really tried.  Harrisburg to Huntingdon, you might get 90 mph in for a few stretches.  Huntingdon to Pittsburgh - what you have now is about it.  Pittsburgh to Alliance - maybe some 90 mph in spots.  West of Alliance there might be some opportunity, but the route doesn't go thru population centers.  If you want to do NY to Chicago as HSR, wouldn't  you want Cleveland and Toledo on your route, or Columbus and Indy?

The NYC route west of Albany to Chicago has more places were you could get to and sustain 110 mph.  It also was four tracks wide.  It would be a better choice.  But, since the market for HSR is generally <500 miles, why consider NY - Chicago as a route.  Let's start with the easy, cheap NEC extensions.  How about extending  NY to Albany west to Syracuse and Buffalo as a start?

The number of origin-destination pairs with comparable trip times as driving is large when you can tie the service into the existing NEC network. 

[henry6]

As logical as it sounds it is also not as easy as it sounds.  There has been some realingments for wider and higher cars, longer distances between track centers, different banking on curves, etc.   Then there are tne special needs of HSR which might interfere with the needs of contemporary freight needs.  Not that it is necessarily impossible, just not as easy and therefore there would be a lot of flak from the freight railroads...which their lawyers have already produced in the form of passenger train accident liability.  American transportation businesses, like all American businesses, are at a point where they've got to decide if they have to make 70 or 80 percent of $100 or if they can settle for 40 or 50% of $200.  Once we get that operating ration, return on investment, whatever you want to call it, settled, then we can start building for the future.

[schlimm]

Lines West was mostly two track, but the idea is a logical one worth exploring, except for two things:

1.  The freight railroads do not want the bother of passenger services, certainly nothing beyond what is already there, and will find many reasons why "that won't work."

2.  HSR is not likely in the current political climate.

[tnchpsk8]

The PRR had four tracks running side by side over most if not all of this route. When Conrail took over they removed one of the tracks. How difficult would it be to replace that track for high speed passenger service only. The right of way is already there,  owned by NS. Upgrading the roadbed  and installing ties and rail would be the expense. In most new rail route building the land aquistion is the most costly feature of the enterprise.