JPS1What is the chance of a significant change in how this country pays for roadways? Slim and none. And Slim was just seen riding out of town.
With the rise of electric cars - I think you may see that change sooner rather than later.
It's been fun. But it isn't much fun anymore. Signing off for now.
The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer, any other railroad, company, or person.t fun any
charlie hebdo JPS1 If the government in its wisdom decided to increase the fuel and/or excise taxes on big trucks so that they paid their "fair share", the cost would be passed through to every person buying the goods being shipped on the trucks. But maybe our roads would be better.
But maybe our roads would be better.
Agreed! The fuel tax, as well as excise taxes, which are used to build and maintain the nation's roadways, should be increased across the board.
Fuel taxes, which reflect the price of building and maintaining the federal and state highways, should be adjusted for inflation since they were last increased in the early 1990s. Doing so would eliminate the need to transfer monies from the general funds to the highway trust fund or similar state funds.
The cost of local streets and country roads should be embedded in the price of fuel as a tax at the pump. Increasing the fuel tax to fund local streets and county roads could be offset by a corresponding reduction in property, sales, etc. taxes used to pay for local streets and county roads.
If motorists saw the true cost of driving at the pump, or as nearly true as can be reflected in the pricing mechanism, they might make wiser choices about the types of vehicles they drive and make greater use of public transit.
What is the chance of a significant change in how this country pays for roadways? Slim and none. And Slim was just seen riding out of town.
JPS1 ROBIN LUETHE JPS1 - thanks for that longer reply. That all seems to make sense. And as I estimate even those heavy trucks are shipping us stuff we want, and at low prices. If the government in its wisdom decided to increase the fuel and/or excise taxes on big trucks so that they paid their "fair share", the cost would be passed through to every person buying the goods being shipped on the trucks.
ROBIN LUETHE JPS1 - thanks for that longer reply. That all seems to make sense. And as I estimate even those heavy trucks are shipping us stuff we want, and at low prices.
If the government in its wisdom decided to increase the fuel and/or excise taxes on big trucks so that they paid their "fair share", the cost would be passed through to every person buying the goods being shipped on the trucks.
I remember when studded snow tires were a new idea and seemed to be quite the rage for awhile. Nobody gave much thought to road damage or loose studs thrown from the tires at the time.
Most states have outlawed studded tires.
JPS1 - thanks for that longer reply. That all seems to make sense. And as I estimate even those heavy trucks are shipping us stuff we want, and at low prices.
Here in Washington State cars on the east side frequently use metal studs in the winter time and those studs to tear up the surface of the pavement.
ROBIN LUETHE I have read that passenger cars and light truck put no wear and tear on our interstate highways. It is all from large and heavy trucks.
ROBIN LUETHEI have read that passenger cars and light truck put no wear and tear on our interstate highways. It is all from large and heavy trucks. Where are those great RRs when and where we need them? LOL
Being out lobbied in Congress and the State Houses. Follow the money - between the trucking industry and the construction industry it is at least two to one on the 'campaign donation' pay to play game, and in dollar amounts more likely 10 to 20 to 1.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
Trucking, for all its problems, creates tremendous values for us consumers, we just pay for it in road maintenance. Railroads seem utterly unable to compete.
Some of us imagine shorter fast freight trains carrying container boxes sharing the tracks with great passenger networks. I don't know if it is even theoretically possible.
ROBIN LUETHE I have read that passenger cars and light truck put no wear and tear on our interstate highways. It is all from large and heavy trucks. Where are those great RRs when and where we need them? LOL
I have read that passenger cars and light truck put no wear and tear on our interstate highways. It is all from large and heavy trucks. Where are those great RRs when and where we need them? LOL
I think the trucking lobby must be very powerful, as weight and length limits on trucks have increased substantially over the past 60 years.
Yes, taxing authorities are, so far, at a loss as to how to charge operators of vehicles powered by electricity for their use of streets and hughways. It may be such will be required to stop at state line weigh stations for odometer checks --and for intrastate travel, regular odometer checks. So far, users of all-electric vehicles ar pretty much given free rides.
Johnny
There are two words that will define transportation in the future - More Expensive.
There is the current push to make more toll roads - the tolls being charged would make a Loan Shark blush. Autonomous vehicles will not be 'cheap' either to own or operate. The only thing that makes electric vehicles seem cheap in today's work is that the 'authorities' have yet to devise a tax plan on the electricity required to 'fuel' electric vehicles - once they do, any cost advantage of a electric vehicle over a fossil fueled one will diminish if not vanish
Passenger trains will be facing disruptive technologies in the next 50 years. Existing limited access highways with autonomous vehicles of various types may be the most formidable for distances of 250-300 miles. Electric/hybrid airtravel will compete at greater distances.
Higher speed trains for up to 200 miles in heavily populated areas are possible. But lack of grade separation is often a fatal flaw, and building such out is horrendously expensive. And the more so as speed increases.
A lot more light rail and subways, particularly if costs could be brought under control, would bring a huge benefit to cities. But even there autonomous buses on dedicated lanes will compete at a lower price.
Overmod Maglev and TACV have been 'reasonable' technologies since the 1960s -- but the 'real' question is why any speed much in excess of 220mph is long-term sensible for a ground vehicle. I picked 225mph as a 'target speed' for high-speed passenger in the 1970s because it was *just* possible to keep passengers protected against high-speed trauma in a straight-line accident with about 33" of proportional deceleration. If the cars come out of line ... it's probably Eschede time. One assumption for both maglev and TACV was that the guideway would constrain accidents to largely longitudinal 'mode' -- this is something of a gamble.
Maglev and TACV have been 'reasonable' technologies since the 1960s -- but the 'real' question is why any speed much in excess of 220mph is long-term sensible for a ground vehicle. I picked 225mph as a 'target speed' for high-speed passenger in the 1970s because it was *just* possible to keep passengers protected against high-speed trauma in a straight-line accident with about 33" of proportional deceleration. If the cars come out of line ... it's probably Eschede time. One assumption for both maglev and TACV was that the guideway would constrain accidents to largely longitudinal 'mode' -- this is something of a gamble.
I would think that air drag is the limiting factor, though collisions are much more likely with surface transportation than with aircraft, especially with guideways. With respect to the California HSR, I would think electric airliners would be cheaper, available sooner and faster between endpoints than the Cal HSR system. The main advantage for HSR is travel to/from midpoints where there would be more frequent service than with airlines.
On a related note, the USAF did a lot of work on terrain following radar and other low-level flying from the 1950's to 1970's, only to drop that approach for stealth aircraft. The F117 was an aerodynamic nightmare, but could fly farther at normal crusing altitude than a sleeker plane flying on the deck. Musk's Hyperloop uses evacuated tubes to simulate high altitudes.
When I was young there were studies that established the highest 'practical' achievable speed for steel-on-steel adhesion to be in the neighborhood of 310-315mph, based on the physics of the incident contact patch approaching the coefficient of sliding rather than static friction. I never saw the detailed physical analysis, so won't comment on whether it had aspects of non-flying-bumblebee style assumptions.
The French record train had special larger-diameter wheels fitted, and some careful attention to high-speed wheelslip. That said, the nominal reason I heard for the limit on achieved top speed was related to pantograph electrical pickup, not adhesion limit (or electrical transmission through the wheels, which becomes significant at that speed)
Just as one comes to question study of treatment modalities for melanoma for which the "best" alternative has 52% survival in the study period, one might come to question the sense of jet-aircraft speeds immediately adjacent to the ground, in our so-often imperfect world. (This far more so in our current culture of Internet-style engineering and testing methodologies...)
CMStPnP Jim200 In 50 years if the train speed increases to 300 mph, these curves will restrict you to about 250 mph maximum speed. I thought there is a finite ceiling type speed limit on how fast steel wheel on steel rail can go. However, long since forgot what the issue was.
Jim200 In 50 years if the train speed increases to 300 mph, these curves will restrict you to about 250 mph maximum speed.
I thought there is a finite ceiling type speed limit on how fast steel wheel on steel rail can go. However, long since forgot what the issue was.
What makes sense to me is that there are maybe three routes in the US today that would be economically feasible for true HSR. NYC-Philly-DC, LA-SF, and DFW-Hou. California was ruined, NY-DC suffers lack of focus, and Texas still has a chance. The rest of the country would be at best about higher speed trains.
My guess is there’ll be other “disruptive” ideas that will take over the country’s transportation imagination.
I think the Big Boy, the Japanese mag-lev, and colonizing the Moon are fun things to think about right now.
Jim200 New York to Chicago will be an important high speed line, with Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo the main cities. Albany is the crossroads to future lines to Montreal and Boston. Buffalo is the connection to Toronto. Cleveland is the crossroad to Columbus/Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Toledo is the connection to Detroit. All of these cities need to be interconnected.
New York to Chicago will be an important high speed line, with Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, and Toledo the main cities. Albany is the crossroads to future lines to Montreal and Boston. Buffalo is the connection to Toronto. Cleveland is the crossroad to Columbus/Cincinnati and Pittsburgh. Toledo is the connection to Detroit. All of these cities need to be interconnected.
If I were building a New York-Chicago HSR route, I know I'm biased but I'd go through Philly and Pittsburgh. Amtrak already owns tracks from New York to Harrisburg so that would be a good start and the route would include Philly and it would be a shorter trip for Washington DC and Baltimore to get to Philadelphia. I'd also want to go south from DC to Florida, passing through Atlanta if possible (longer in distance but larger population base).
Jim200In 50 years if the train speed increases to 300 mph, these curves will restrict you to about 250 mph maximum speed.
Four things that were learned from California high speed rail construction are that building into cities is expensive, tunneling is expensive, numerous highway overpasses are expensive, and will probably find that large curves are expensive, both to buy land, build and maintain the tracks with long distances of about 4 degrees super elevation. In 50 years if the train speed increases to 300 mph, these curves will restrict you to about 250 mph maximum speed. It would be best to avoid cities, tunneling, highways and build in straight lines with as few curves as possible.
Albany to Chicago is about 818 miles and at 220 mph would take around 4 hours.To keep construction costs down, there will need to be a slower speed blended service into the main cities mentioned and also into smaller cities. Express trains would only stop in main cities, while local trains would also handle smaller cities. It takes a lot of energy to get up to 220 mph, so it would be nice to recover some of the stopping energy by regeneration into ultracapacitors or flywheels or other storage devices.
As I recall, the last census had Texas with the most growth, so it looks like a high speed rail from Chicago to Dallas is also required. I know that in Austin they built a new school to handle future needs, only to find out that the next year it was overwhelmed and needed additional temporary classrooms.
4. Paris - Lyon is only 290 miles and the best trains cover that in 2 hours. Chicago to Cleveland is 350. I don't think Cleveland is a major destination for folks in Chicago. Better to go to Columbus and on to Pittsburgh, both of which are economically important and more likely to be destinations. We need to be planning based on 2020 and the future, not looking backwards 70+ years., nice as that might seem.
4. Paris - Lyon is only 290 miles and the best trains cover that in 2 hours. Chicago to Cleveland is 350. I don't think Cleveland is a major destination for folks in Chicago. Better to go to Columbus and on to Pittsburgh, both of which are more economically more important.
1) Far too many curves up the Hudson, which were dramatic even in the 100mph Turboliner days. (There was one little restaurant in Garrison that had an open-air 'bistro' section with tables that looked to be about 10' from a posted 100mph blind curve... you got some interesting action whether you were a railfan or not!) HSR here will involve either substantial building out into the Hudson, or much more tunnelling and cutting for elevated ROW. I do think we'll see service faster than 110mph in the next 25 years, but I sincerely doubt it will ever reach 125mph at any point, and even then only with heroic degrees of tilt actuation, perhaps comparable to what the experimental APT-E was capable of achieving. Many potential older and disabled customers will NOT like the visible effect of that much tilt, or the close proximity to so much rock and 'scenery' flashing past.
Farther east, the ex-LS&MS from Erie west has a plethora of grade crossings. Remember that the old NYC 4-track main had pathetic track spacing compared to what even 1970s LGV requires, and Perlman's rebuilding in the Fifties leaves inadequate room for anything but pillars for HSR viaducting. At which point you have to consider the curve right in the middle of Geneva, and how you clear bridges like the ones on 534 and Rt. 11 to Ashtabula with viaducts high enough to clear the many, many grade crossings. Yes, the grade profile is often conducive to high speed, but not the sustained high speed and controlled curvature that is needed for even rudimentary 'true' HSR.
2) HSR is not for intermediate cities, only for those destinations that benefit from the high speed. Presume some improved regional connectivity for intermediate cities, both in New York State and further west, rather than stopping the train at more than a very select few stations. This is of course more critical for sleeper trains, which suffer tremendous time 'hits' if required to follow acceleration and deceleration profiles suitable for 'normal' sleeping people ... let alone the 'differently abled' or elderly.
Overmod-- David Klepper replies. ( he thinks the issue is at home and is going to the University tonight so he may re-post this or add further comment)
1. We are talking about real HSR, with dedicated tracks. There areplaces where a new RoW will be preferred, but without the extremelyhigh real-estate costs of, for example, the Connecticut Shore Line orstraightening the Elizabeth, NJ, curve. There are places where fourtracks existed, now only two, so dedicated HSR on the RoW is possible,including space for a barrier separation if required.2. Assuming the Lake Shore is still around, it would be re-equippedto take advantage of the HSR where it exists. The 14-hour dayschedule would give much better service for intermediate cities, yetstill provide a useful NY - Chicago service for those who prefertrains or cannot fly.. It would not be as useful for thoseconnecting to Chicago - West Coast trains, but even today, I believethey are a minority of the Lake Shore's passengers. And it would beHSR only NYC - Buffalo, conventional speeds elsewhere.3. When a Cleveland - Chicago HSR exists, the day train's time couldbe shortened to ten hours and still serve intermediate points. And ifAmtrak's East Coast sleeper proves successful, then possibly anine-hour or ten-hour overnight service would be added in additionBut for this we may have to wait 50 years or more!4. There is precedent for this kind of thinking. The original HSRwas Paris - Lyon. But many trains continued on conventional tracks toMarseilles. For many years, now, there is HSR all the way.
MiningmanExisting service improved, not starting from scratch.
That won't be HSR, ever, except on a select few sections like the one where the jet RDC played. Note that no one has seriously proposed that a speed higher than the Empire Corridor 110mph be tried seriously as a priority ... and that's for the leg of the service where there's suitable density to justify the very high speed.
As it happens, we have a very detailed picture of the 'highest speed' for part of this specific run, developed with the aid of fairly sophisticated (for the time) computer modeling for a proposed TurboTrain service. I doubt that the cumulative effect of practical line adjustment for higher speed would give more than a few mnutes' advantage of what that train, with turbine power and inherent pendulum 'tilt', could produce. We will ignore the fun involved in sharing ROW with freight, even high-speed Z traffic, although that would sure queer any HSR proposal from Selkirk west (the old West Shore route being ill suited for rebuilding/relaying to any real HSR standards, no relief there either...)
Note that while the estimate was not continued as far west as Buffalo in the late '60s, it wouldn't be difficult to develop a current line profile, perhaps from GIS data, and use the dynamic assumptions to get corresponding speed and time profiling. Someone with the interest might try programming in the performance of a good contemporary tilting train that is self-powered and doesn't have clearance issues ... and 14 hours New York to Chicago is not HSR by even the most lenient potential definition. Even the 10 hours of the C&NYAL wouldn't likely qualify ... nor would it mean that much either as a 'day' or coach service or as a likely-bumpy and swoopy overnight sleeper, as the convenience of a very late departure for business travel isn't worth the enormous overall costs to provide that.
Repeating the routes of yesteryear because that's what we always did.
The economic importance of metro areas changes. NYC and CHI remain, Cleveland, Toledo, Buffalo, South Bend, Erie and Ft. Wayne: not so much. Columbus is THE city in Ohio that should be getting HSR direct service, and so should Pittsburgh. This is the problem. The rail routes were determined by economic factors of 100+ years ago. Time changes things in many cases
This came to me from David Klepper: ( seems he is having trouble logging on)
Why Buffalo?1. Economic Development. as a New York State project.2. Existing service improved, not starting from scratch.
Most HSTs would not be confined to the HSR, but wouldcontinue to either Toronto or Cleveland. The Lake Shore would be aday train, the HSR giving it a 14-hour NY - Chicago schedule,restoring decent Cleveland - Chicago service. Overnight NY - Chicagoservicre eoulf be restored as an HST when there is a Cleveland -Chicago HSR
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.