CMStPnPA safer approach here would have been to take over an existing rail passenger corridor, incrementally fix that up to a higher speed and milk all the real estate development you could along that line so you would have a model to show investors. I think Chicago to Milwaukee would have been the best candidate for that due to it's distance in length. It's mostly 80 mph now with mostly welded rail and it is very close to break even financially. Beef up that line with new equipment, new classes of service and passenger station improvements in Milwaukee and Chicago, a few more frequencies and it would be turning a profit.
I disagree strongly. The marginal improvement path you propose has all of the burdens of dealing with the underlying freight railroad, whose capacity passenger trains steal with far below market compensation, and worse for proponents, with engineering standards that will not support the speeds trains need to be competitive with short haul air.
I think the Texas proposal hits the sweet spot for a start from scratch project that has the potential to demonstrate what a high speed train can do. First, the trip length is about right. Second, there is a large market at both ends. Third, they do not plan to waste resources serving small time intermediate points. Fourth, they will build from scratch, so can build to the engineering standards required to support the intended speed. Fifth, since they are building from scratch line will be all grade separated, a big improvement in safety and reliabillity. Hit a car on a grade crossing and your line is tied up for 3-4 hours if you do not get derailed. Bad for reliability, that.
As for financing, the Japenese will provide what ends up being necessary. They want to sell equipment so they have plenty of incentive.
I think that if this project gets built it will either kill the notion of high speed trains on dedicated right of way in the US, or more likely prove it.
Mac - NOT a fan of ATK, our national welfare railroad.
About the ROW along electric lines. Is the ROW owned ? If so are there any limitations of acquiring an easement ? If not owned but only an easement can easement holder issue a sub easement or will TEX Rail have to go to land owners ?
Power company will certainly like having a captive user and substatioln can provide the electricity by 3 phase - single phase 25 KV transformers.
.
Great discussion!!
Although the marginal/gradual approach of using existing RoWs, (as mentioned by CMStPnP and Don Oltmann) to move toward a goal of HrSR ->true HSR has worked well in Germany, even there for true HSR they have had to build several dedicated RoWs or sets of tracks in existing RoW once away from urban approaches using existing lines. As Fred pointed out, fast passenger service is not compatible with most freight lines, and I think this would be true even with better compensation.
The distinction between utility-owned land vs easements for power lines only is significant, but surely the TX HSR folks knew the answer at the outset.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
schlimm Great discussion!! Although the marginal/gradual approach of using existing RoWs, (as mentioned by CMStPnP and Don Oltmann) to move toward a goal of HrSR ->true HSR has worked well in Germany, even there for true HSR they have had to build several dedicated RoWs or sets of tracks in existing RoW once away from urban approaches using existing lines. As Fred pointed out, fast passenger service is not compatible with most freight lines, and I think this would be true even with better compensation. The distinction between utility-owned land vs easements for power lines only is significant, but surely the TX HSR folks knew the answer at the outset.
Yes but before Germany had the new dedicated HSR routes built they had significant ridership on their near HSR lines (up to 110-120 mph). Which in my opinion were just fine for a country that size. They also built most of the HSR lines to connect the same cities as the near HSR lines. Some of them were new routes completely because of the collapse of Communism but a good portion of them paralleled the near HSR lines at a distance. Germany is pretty tiny. North Sea Coast to South Border what about a 8-10 hour drive and that would not be at excessive speed. East to West, don't have a good estimate yet.
Hamburg to Basel 430 miles as the crow flies, Aachen to Passau 390 miles, also as the crow flies. Europeans consider Rail competitive with air at a maximum of 6 hrs, but best at 4 hours or less. Fastest time for Hamburg Hbf to Basel SBB is 6:30 with no change via ICE with 9 stops. Runs via Hannover, Kassel, Fulda, Frankfurt am Main, Mannheim and Baden-Baden.
CMStPnPYes but before Germany had the new dedicated HSR routes built they had significant ridership on their near HSR lines (up to 110-120 mph). Which in my opinion were just fine for a country that size. They also built most of the HSR lines to connect the same cities as the near HSR lines.
True to some extent. German trains always had high ridership. Although the Hannover-Würzburg stretch (327 km/203 miles, speed limit 280 kmh/175 mph) was running in 1991, as was the shorter Mannheim-Stuttgart stretch. The Deutsche Reichsbahn operating in the former DDR actually ran pretty well, having had war damage on a level similar to the west. The problem was that the Russians removed 2nd tracks and catenary in electrified stretches as part of reparations. The economic system didn't have much of an effect since a policy of total employment tended to offset the lack of capital investment.
The gradual approach worked in Germany because both the BRD and DDR already had well-established networks of intensive passenger services.
A most interesting article about Jananeese HSR. It seems that Japan only wants to sell HSR as a whole package. Most telling which this poster cannot understand. Their trains can only run left had running. Not very realistic running into Dallas Union station and Forth Worth Station. Other items is Japaneese insistence that their way is best. Example 3-G.
http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/SubmissionsArticle.aspx?submissionid=211372.xml
blue streak 1 A most interesting article about Jananeese HSR. It seems that Japan only wants to sell HSR as a whole package. Most telling which this poster cannot understand. Their trains can only run left had running. Not very realistic running into Dallas Union station and Forth Worth Station. Other items is Japaneese insistence that their way is best. Example 3-G. http://news.morningstar.com/articlenet/SubmissionsArticle.aspx?submissionid=211372.xml
They have a YouTube video on the 700 series train. There is no power car per say, instead each series of axles under the passenger cars has motors to drive the train. Also some of the Japan track infrastructure we would not need in Texas particularly the part in the center of the track that clasps the flanges of the train if there is a violent earthquake to prevent the train from derailing.
Agree I don't like the other features of the trains that much in Japan. I am a firm believer in a National Standards body for trainsets as what Amtrak attempted to do. Drives down costs for everyone and removes the temptations for politicians to cherry pick based on political "sweetner" packages.
Although this is a private firm so really can't have a whole lot of influence on what they decide to go with unless you can beat the financing package. Personally I prefer the German and French HSR trainsets over Asian.
Since you are not going to build a station in our town NIMBY !!
http://www.dallasobserver.com/news/in-ellis-county-officials-hatch-a-plot-to-kill-the-dallas-to-houston-bullet-train-7471216
FRA regulation review of Texas Central has IMHO bad news. Says system has to be completely separate of any Passenger or freight rail ines. Wonder if this is because of the Japan's signaling system requiring left hand running. See previous post.
http://www.progressiverailroading.com/federal_legislation_regulation/news/FRA-technical-report-reviews-corridor-alternatives-for-Texas-Central-Railway-project--45436
At least on the old C&NW (now UP West) line, it is still left-hand running, as always. Carl and Jeff could say more about that.
I would also suggest reading the actual FRA report. True HSR (not the NEC, which is not), whether in TX or elsewhere, must have a totally separate RoW. But existing terminal trackage can be used.
I don't think the project was planning on sharing terminal trackage or other rail's tracks. I think the intent all along was to buy the trainsets off the shelf with as little modification as needed. That should lower insurance costs and lessen some of the FRA trainset requirements applied to those trainsets that do share tracks. I think long-run this is a more costly approach in regards to expansion BUT I don't see any plan by Texas Central for expansion beyond Houston to Dallas.
Long article about opposition to the HSR line.
http://www.houstonpress.com/news/on-the-line-will-the-houston-dallas-bullet-train-revolutionize-texas-or-divide-it-forever-7679365
The point about left hand running in the article from the japaneese writer about the Japaneese bullet trains is that they can only run left hand. Don't know about yard and stations reversals. So if a track is out of service for whatever reason does that mean that directions is cancelled until problem fixed ?
Streak,
I can not figure out why you are so concerned about left hand running. If you have double track, then you have to have a current of traffic and right hand is as arbitrary a choice as left. Obviously with two stations it is not hard to design stations to suit even if doors are on one side. I do not know if they plan doors on both sides of cars or only one, but that has nothing to do with running left or running right.
The more interesting question to me is whether or not they will have intermediate crossovers. At first glance I see no reason for them and some good reasons to avoid them, since crossovers implies signaling in both directions, that is two main tracks. More flexible, yes but also more costly. The other big thing to remember is that this railroad will only run daylight, so track maintenance can be done at night. That removes the need for intermediate crossovers to get around track gangs. If you have no intermediate crossovers, you will not have to maintain them whcih significantly simplifies and economizes on track maintenance. The choice of simple and relatively cheap vs. complicated and expensive is independent of running left or running right.
The Japenese have over 50 years experience. I believe they have it figured out by now.
Mac
+1
Doesn't seem to bother the C&NW, either, which it did since the 1860s and still does today.
It would bother me if only right hand running. Anythin that limits your operation has bad potential. Another is that Japan has a different culture about maintaining ite. Look how quickly they restored service after the earthquake. Main problem is complete incompatibility with USA operation practices and inability to operate even in station tracks of current USA RRs.
Not having to mess with current terminal trackage is one of this systems' great advantages.
PNWRMNM Streak, Not having to mess with current terminal trackage is one of this systems' great advantages. Mac
So instead of having interconnections in Dallas at Dallas Union station to TRE, DART & Amtrak you would require the HSR passengers to hike, ride taxi, bus, or other means to go between stations ? There have been many articles over the years asking for more inconnections not less. Of course maybe TEX Rail can get air right to build an elevated track system at Dallas Union station ? That would have to include elevated tail tracks for storage.
The Houston station situation is hopeless and maybe TEX rail needs to locate near or at A Houston light rail station
As far as a single direction operation on rails. That means even though 2 tracks are built it will not be 2 MT with crossovers but instead two one way single track operation with maybe one way passing sidings. So every time something happens to a track that directions will be shut down. Will Corman or Hertzog , etc. even have knowledge to clean up the mess and restore signaling ?
IMO this can be easily rectified although the Japanese signaling may not have capacity to run two way traffic. Anyone know ?
blue streak 1So instead of having interconnections in Dallas at Dallas Union station to TRE, DART & Amtrak you would require the HSR passengers to hike, ride taxi, bus, or other means to go between stations ? There have been many articles over the years asking for more inconnections not less. Of course maybe TEX Rail can get air right to build an elevated track system at Dallas Union station ? That would have to include elevated tail tracks for storage. The Houston station situation is hopeless and maybe TEX rail needs to locate near or at A Houston light rail station As far as a single direction operation on rails. That means even though 2 tracks are built it will not be 2 MT with crossovers but instead two one way single track operation with maybe one way passing sidings. So every time something happens to a track that directions will be shut down. Will Corman or Hertzog , etc. even have knowledge to clean up the mess and restore signaling ? IMO this can be easily rectified although the Japanese signaling may not have capacity to run two way traffic. Anyone know ?
You do realize the current proposal on the table for this system is to NOT share trackage or platforms with any of the above mentioned transit agencies, instead the new Bullet Train will have it's own new terminal and if the above transit agencies want in on the action they will have to find a way to extend to the new terminal. So the current Texas Central proposal is for an entirely enclosed system unless I missed something with what they proposed.
Your proposal for Dallas Union Terminal is an interesting one in that the station is currently setup for a second floor train terminal that used to have pedestrian stairways down to the first level platforms. What happened since was that the Second Floor of DUT was purchased by the Reunion Tower Hyatt for additional catering rooms and then I think resold to Wolfgang Puck. Much of the waiting room on the second floor remains intact. The first floor was the baggage handling area I believe but it has been readopted to serve Amtrak, TRE and DART. At any rate the HSR tracks could easily come into DUT on a elevated structure and exchange passengers on the second floor of DUT. Infrastruture is in place for that or at least most of it. The problem of course is that the Texas Central wants to use the Dallas Station as a real estate play much as how the Japanese Central Railway does. So not enough room for real estate development at DUT and that is why they are opting for a totally new station just South of the current DUT........they want a lot of room for real estate development rights.
In the current DUT there is a massive stairway that connects the second to first levels (a little narrower than what you find at Chicago Union Station) as well as elevators and integrating the second floor back into train station operation I think would be ideal.......but probably will not happen in this case.
Primary sources for information are preferred. Here is the actual FRA report link:
https://www.fra.dot.gov/eLib/details/L16978
The Ft. Worth connection:
http://www.fortworthbusiness.com/news/d-fw-route-may-be-key-to-texas-high-speed/article_605ca738-45fa-11e5-8e8f-0f8b1da38280.html
First funds for a preliminary study for going Dallas - Ft. Worth. No indication if it will be an extension of Texas Central.
http://www.railjournal.com/index.php/north-america/dallas-–-fort-worth-hs-rail-gets-initial-funds.html?channel=535
The Dallas-Ft Worth UP RR alignment was always going to be a commutter rail line per NTCOG's long range plans so if the HSR falls apart, this money is still well spent towards the original goal.
NTCOG has quite an ambitious rail commutter plan with a final build out system in DFW that will probably be larger than Chicago's METRA in miles covered and routes but probably not so much with commutter train frequency. Also, they do not seem to be following Chicago's plan where all routes terminate and originate in a downtown of Dallas or Ft. Worth......opting instead for a point to point system, which should be interesting to see how that works.
Misleading headline. Story is Dallas - Ft. Worth will be slower speeds but read it for your self.
http://www.click2houston.com/news/latest-highspeed-rail-plans-for-texas-show-slower-speeds/35515402
Another link
http://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/article36711414.html
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.