Absolutely correct Charlie.
The power/influence of the Military Industrial Congressional Complex is far greater than the passenger railroad lobby. Ike knew it, but his warning has gone unheeded by Americans for almost 60 years.
Maybe if Texas can get its HSR built AND running for awhile, others will take notice.
Much of the problem is political, revolving around people with Libertarian-OCD. Both of tag-team political parties love spending government loot on their construction and contractor buddies, so partying politics isn't an issue.
The only way to neutralize those with Libertarian-OCD is to spend the government loot ONLY on infrastructure. There's not much difference between "defense" industry, highway, and airport infrastructure. Sure, the Libertarians will still create their BS about how trains aren't "pure", but it will be less effective.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA4aaSzqT9s
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I honestly don't know the socioeconomic status or trendline of Buffalo, but it seems to be still stuck in the Rustbelt era, more than most areas. Perhaps comparable to Youngstown? If so, the only reason to put it on HSR routes would be the planners being stuck in the 1940s.
daveklepperShould be able to do as well NY - Albany - Buffalo.
Please, somebody recap why Buffalo is any kind of logical terminus for true and expensive HSR.
It started as important in the age of the canal, and its importance as a rail destination appears to me to have hinged on 'earliest access' to Great Lakes transshipment of fairly bulk cargoes (in particular, coal) which are no longer of particular strategic importance. Now it would be fun to rebuild the NYC station there (and preferably make it the center of a good PUD and then coordinated regional system at as quick a meaningful speed as possible) but is there really a distinctive future for whizzing people quickly there as opposed to, say, extending the trains to Toronto as a one-seat or coordinated-transfer ride?
(Of course there's also the temptation to wipe the eye of the weasels and provide HSR using parts of the CASO route ... now on elevated viaducting so without much necessary regard for those quick Lackawanna-Cutoff-style real-estate developments to prevent rebuilding it 'as a railroad' ... with a comparatively short extension of GO at the south/west end to connect to Toronto from that side...)
Should be able to do as well NY - Albany - Buffalo. And maybe the Californian situation will be straightened out, but it is a big political problem.
As to China: I have ridden Beijing to Shanghai and Shanghai to Hangzhou. My wife has additionally ridden Beijing to Tsingdao and Beijing to Tianjin. The services are very fast, comfortable, smooth riding, with pleasant, quiet coaches, comparable to or better than the numerous ICE trains in Germany or HSRs in Italy. Neither of us rode the overnight trains.
Although HSR rolling stock would be compatible for operation where essentisal over existing tracks, most of the lines would be dedicated to the HSR. This means no compromize for lower-speed freight service (particularly cant compesation on curves) and no wesr-and-tear from heavily-loaded freightcars. Whatever the track construction is, it would be mated to the equipment. Whether tiltilng is buil-in or not, would be an enginerering and economics decision. For New York - Buffalo, I am not envisioning following the existing "Water-Level Route" exactly, but improving on it where possible. Probably not possible through major ciies, like Utica en-route.
Yes, Charlie, we should learn from others' experience. Certainly China has HSR though temperture extremes. Be interesting to get a trip report on this forum frm somebody who rode there, particularly on overnight with HSR sleeper, which they do have.
Or has Norway put the referended research in JASA into practice on its own HSR if it has any?
Overmod charlie hebdo Roadbeds aren't what they were on the 20th in the 50s. Compared to what is necessary for 220mph speed, the state of the Water Level Route in the '50s might as well be cobblestones. The things I'm mentioning are almost vanishingly slight in percentage; the problem is that they can be exacerbated by the longitudinal speed and made irritatingly noticeable to people trying to sleep. Hence the action of putting small-excursion servo compensation on the bedding or part of the compartment structure to neutralize it, and perhaps the effect of even shallow permissible curves on the 'reclining' vestibular canals...
charlie hebdo Roadbeds aren't what they were on the 20th in the 50s.
Compared to what is necessary for 220mph speed, the state of the Water Level Route in the '50s might as well be cobblestones.
The things I'm mentioning are almost vanishingly slight in percentage; the problem is that they can be exacerbated by the longitudinal speed and made irritatingly noticeable to people trying to sleep. Hence the action of putting small-excursion servo compensation on the bedding or part of the compartment structure to neutralize it, and perhaps the effect of even shallow permissible curves on the 'reclining' vestibular canals...
Why reinvent the wheel? For high speed repackage, just borrow from the countries that have years of experience with it in getting it right.
charlie hebdoRoadbeds aren't what they were on the 20th in the 50s.
daveklepperI am also uncertain that any long-term-future true HSR will use the almost two-centuries-old normal ballast, resilient ties and tie-plates, screw or regular spikes, and T-rail.
Spikes of any kind have been obsolescent in high-speed construction for decades. Resilient bedding in 360 degrees of contact with the rail (i.e. in the tie bed, gauging shoulders, and on the spring clamping) is also required.
Possibly some form of slab-track, now routinely used in tunnels where track maintenance is most difficult, will be normal for HSR and sharply reduce incidences of sun-kinks and other failures.
As noted, true HSR requires regular adjustment of even small changes in line and surface. This proves increasingly difficult with most kinds of slab track once the installation gets a few years old, with somewhat heroic means needed to restore top-down track geometry under load when it goes out. The very good initial fixation becomes a problem when some of the fixation geometry becomes wrong. Here is a somewhat older article that is still a good reference to the general idea. There is another contemporary report from AREMA here, although some here might be leery of the paper title in light of the authors' affiliation.
Possibly the entire trackbed will be heated in winter.
This is not quite as wack as it might first seem, as (for example) the method used to keep footings for the Alaska Pipeline stable, with ground-source heat sinks deep in the subgrade and heat pipes providing transfer to key parts of the track structure, are possible without active power or more than periodic maintenance inspection. I wouldn't count on this actively removing accretions of snow, ice, or other climate-related things, though: my opinion up to this point is that it should be possible to keep the line clear with simple plowing/blowing/brooming up to a point ... with ease of removal of heavier deposits past that point. About the only thing that's likely to be actively heated is the immediate contact area of switches (which of course won't be frog-and-point design). One fortunate thing here, and with respect to many kinds of potential sabotage, is the cheap availability of good sensor-fusion cameras and software to coordinate them.
As noted, true HSR requires regular adjustment of even small changes in line and surface. This proves increasingly difficult with most kinds of slab track once the installation gets a few years old, with somewhat heroic means needed to restore top-down track geometry under load when it goes out. The very good initial fixation becomes a problem when some of the fixation geometry becomes wrong. Here is a somewhat older article that is still a good reference to the general idea.
Slab track is routinely used on HSR stretches in Germany.
Only NYC-Buffalo. And California HSR? Cancelled?
Ed
I am also uncertain that any long-terem-future true HSRvwill use the almost two-centuries-old normal ballast, resilient ties and tie-plates, creew or regular spikes, and T-rail. I can draw your attention to the paper:
Anders Nordborg, “Wheel/rail noise generation due to nonlinear
effects and parametric excitation,” Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 111-4, April 2002, p.1772-1781.
Possilby some form of slab-track, now routinely used in tunnels where track maintenance is most difficult, will be normal for HSR and sharply reduce incidences of sun-kinks and other failures. Possibly the entire trackbed will be heated in winter.
Much of the commentary concerning expansion of commercial aviation and meeting expanidng needs is relevant for the immediate future. I have no problem with that. I'm looking beyond that. The next twenty years might see HSR NYCity Buffalo, but I doubt any HSR anywhere ekse. Other than that I'm looking at HSR expanding 50 or more years from now, when needs grow beyond any existing aviation expansion plans.
Overmod None of that is a test prototype for anything except how to throw money at a whole bunch of things unrelated to actually running fast trains people want at a reasonable approximation to a profit.
None of that is a test prototype for anything except how to throw money at a whole bunch of things unrelated to actually running fast trains people want at a reasonable approximation to a profit.
I think "None" is a bit of an overstatement.
We'll just have to filter out the extraneous stuff, with an audit, say; and then with the trains running and the passengers riding and paying fares and the land owners either paid or not, I think we can get some good information on the matter.
That information can be used in considering what to do with following systems.
Now, possibly, the California High Speed Rail IS indeed a test prototype for throwing money. Here. And there. We can extrapolate from that, also.
Might I ask what CHSR is throwing money at that is unrelated...etc.?
I know they have a couple of miles of roadbed done, and some freeway relocation done. And maybe some land, or not.
What "inappropriate" throwing have they been doing? And is it really something following high speed rail systems won't be doing? Because if it is, that should be added to the projected costs of those projects.
Meanwhile, while we are on this long-spine HSR long-distance 'kick' -- who has thought about the logical effects of weather or microclimate on how these trains operate? I suspect there will be a great many times it's inadvisable to run these trains at full speed, or perhaps at all for a while, vs. the very limited actual windows that modern aircraft backed up by modern flight direction and PAR equivalent would be delayed.
BackshopSo your NYC-Chicago route is going to have a new-build track for two trainsets?
In his defense, he was only giving illustrations of a couple of 'premier trains'; there would of course be considerable 'other service' much of which would be limited to parts of the overall structure, as well as the equivalent of M&E right up to prospective maintainable line capacity and condition. You don't have an asset like a HSR through main line and not use it; you don't have an asset like a HSR-capable train and not turn it as fast as possible to keep using it. Among other things this was the operational model that made the Niagaras both famous and successful ... for the period they were actually successful. There is a cautionary tale for HSR proponents in what happened with them 'afterward'.
Convicted OneSo you are saying that there will be less land required to build secure, grade-separated long distance HSR corridors (and it's infrastructure) than would be required by the handful of airports required to serve the same corridor?
He really isn't saying anything, considering that required runway length for the 'next generation of SSTs' is not particularly greater either for takeoff or landing than currently provided for any city that's a logical 'terminal draw' for direct HSR stops, and there's plenty of available PUD-capable real estate where the more likely 'regional' stops for true HSR spine service would be located. Meanwhile, both the current and prospective (~4100 facilities, if I remember the order of magnitude of the FAA planning correctly) regional network of 'attended-tower' or equivalent airports is either well-in-hand or involves little high-value land acquisition particularly as so much of the prospective traffic involves relatively small commuter-size aircraft that can bridge any gap in a good regional-rail combination of heavy and light rail closed last-mile by Uber or comparable ride-for-hire wireless-Internet-enabled service.
I don't recall the 'expanded' version of paying-corridor length at present: the numbers go up and down depending on the current state of technology, with 'permissible' rail corridor service getting longer with increasing PRIIA-compliant speed (up to fuel-limited 125mph or so) but shorter as the end-to-end capability of a pervasive regional system both for 'distributed-load' headcounts and for serving point-to-point traffic over the full corridor length in not many more minutes than shorter 'feeder' hops for the corridor spine, with more convenient spacing between likely more frequent flights during a given 24 hours.
Note that I do continue to see heavy PRIIA-style trains in corridors as a useful service when there are anticipated heavy passenger loads either between endpoints or relatively short 'peak' rider numbers between intermediate points. Think of anything regional as a counterpoint to that ... but there is quite a bit of margin to be squeezed out of a Zunum-like regional infrastructure once the initial capitalization has been either sterilized or paid down, and it is fair to compare this with long-distance HSR (using fair renewable factor costs, if that's important to getting it either sterilized or paid down quicker or better ) when deciding to make what is a trillions-plus up-front investment in what might be frequently marginally-patronized (by the time it's eventually built) true-HSR service.
I for one would like to see a 'future history' for two very famous roughly contemporary plans that did not get built despite considerable work: the proposed 36-minute railcar service between New York and Philadelphia just before the turn of the century, and the Chicago and New York Air Line Railway (which was essentially killed by little more than the panic of 1907). Would either of these -- touted as capturing essentially all the high-margin passenger traffic as well as M&E between the cities involved -- continue to be a success today as built, or even as 'improved' during the years they could show distinctive profit?
7j43kThe San Francisco-San Diego line abuilding will serve as a test prototype for the concept ... We have the prototype under construction. Let's just see how it works out.
This even if the trains and the track structure itself turns out to be capable of sustained 220mph, which I frankly doubt without very expensive perpetual maintenance of a level not planned in the already-bloated estimates.
Serving a bunch of towns along the 99 corridor is a cute mission for PRIIA-compliant 125mph service, not high speed. As noted, it's already verging on a boondoggle to run fast trains in a fairly substantial portion of the I-5 corridor, any compromise not proving anything we don't already know better from European and Asian practice. Conversely running a 220mph line into the San Diego end of the LOSSAN corridor involves going waaaaay away from populated areas on the other side of some fairly colossal, seismically-active, rock-that-can't-be-TBMed-easily terrain, to save how much time?
You'll get somewhat better information from the TC project ... assuming that speed tells you much of anything we haven't really known since the mid-Seventies. All the CBTC-style proposals I've seen have been both inadequate and misguided in terms of providing what a good instantiation of something as primitive, now, as TVM would.
The big problem with 220mph service, whether it be on a 'second spine' or on actual sensible service (like LA-SF on a direct route with minimum stops and NIMBY action) is that you have to have a whole lot of railroad built and debugged before you actually start to railroad. While the incremental-style construction as seen in Germany will get the job reasonably done, in time... it'll be a poky 2min here and 3min there until eventually the higher-speed begins to coalesce into meaningful sustained running and hence time reductions. By which point we'll be into generations who won't particularly care to wait for return on our hundreds of billions. (Or perhaps are willing to work under Green New Depression conditions to git 'r dun at reduced wages in renminbi or whatever it is by then)
And now, back to long distance high speed rail.
These various proposed routes can't all be built at once. The San Francisco-San Diego line abuilding will serve as a test prototype for the concept. Such things as funding sources, technical solutions, ridership levels, amount of parking provided, and the willingness for governments to actually pay for the land they confiscate can be tried out before the next route construction starts. And, as a nod to the above post, we can even see how the streetcar systems get built out to adapt to it.
We have the prototype under construction. Let's just see how it works out.
The trolleycar was supposed to be dead too. Admittadly some of the current new light rail schemes don't make economic sense, and I don't mean just pay for themsleves, but just have not developed the predicted patronage or economic development. But others are very successful with patronage beyond expected and the local taxpayers happy with the investment and the subsidization. And Toronto residents are very pleased they hung on to their streetcar system.
And their new streetcars are certainly very different than any classic ones, a step beyond the PCC as the PCC was from what went on earlier.
I'd say that Amtrak reprsents the PCC era in analogy to passernger railroading. The PCC did prolong the life of some heritage systems, and those that kept some lines now find it a lot easier to develop light rail where it will work well.
There were probably about a thousand North American streetcar systems just before WWI. In 1965 there were only nine or ten. One, New Orleans, was kept just for tourism. San Francisco for that reason for one part and because of the Twin Peaks and Sunset Tunnels for the other part. Newark and Shaker Heights were already light rail with complete separation from traffic. Boston and Philadelphia because of a downtown subway. Toronto is and was modern for its time as a streetcar system. Now there are new systems in Dallas, Houston, El Paso, Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento. San Jose, Calgary, Edmonton, Buffalo, JerseyCity-Hoboken, Charlotte, Detroit, Kansas City, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Portland, Seattle, Denver, Salt Lake City, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Kenosha, possibly some I have left out and some more in design or construction.
High Speed to classic passenger railroading might be analogous to Light Rail to streetears.
Ov ermod, I agree with you. The primary purpose of the high-speed, but multi-stop day train would to serve intermediate poinsts, and each way it would be one of the regular hourly corridor trains in the two or three corridiors it transverses. But it woiuld also offerr a lower-cost end-point service than the 22nd Century Limited.
Although HSR has erroded the market for sleeper service across the pond, it is still provided on numerous routes, including two Scottis and possilby one Welsh.
I think I have to return to the main point. The highways in the corridorw are congested. Higher-speed rail, hopefully leading to really high-speed rail same day, is the most economical solution today, even if it must be subsidized. But if that subsidy is a national matter, than rural America demands its useful share. And then the most economical way ofd giving them their share in a diredtion that they want is well-run LDTS. They don't want buses or desguised ambulances just for the impaired, they want the trains and the trains are used, despite all the negative comments here.
Sure, much has changed since I left USA residence 23 years ago. But then the old days of the Broadway leaving New York with the crew outnumbering the passengers are also gone. What service there is is used.
and Anderson may just decide to give my food cost-reductioni plan a trial. Perhaps when one of the top Washington Union food-court restaurants lease comes up for renewal. Or a new Chicago Union Station restaurant.
JOHN PRIVARA Re: I don't think is a difficult concept to grasp. Last time I checked 2 or 3 hours at 180 mph in Europe AND Japan was the EXACT same distance as in US. How many large cities in the US are 360 miles apart? The issue isn't JUST density, it's congestion of highways and airports. It's more density TIMES congestion that matters. And, I don't see much of a difference between France or Spain and the US east of the Mississippi, anyway. http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#3/30.22/-14.77
Re: I don't think is a difficult concept to grasp.
Last time I checked 2 or 3 hours at 180 mph in Europe AND Japan was the EXACT same distance as in US. How many large cities in the US are 360 miles apart?
The issue isn't JUST density, it's congestion of highways and airports. It's more density TIMES congestion that matters.
And, I don't see much of a difference between France or Spain and the US east of the Mississippi, anyway.
http://luminocity3d.org/WorldPopDen/#3/30.22/-14.77
I was referring to areas mostly west of the Mississippi except the west coast and some of the south. Old LD routes that are throwbacks to 70 + years ago.
People (beyond foamers) in Europe like trains because they are often fast and convenient and mostly comfortable, even for 4 hours. They are part of daily life.
Re: Coast to coast HSR.
As ridiculous as "LD trains for sick people".
The REST of the world isn't doing long-distance HSR. What the rest of the world IS doing is connecting all the various transportation modes together.
No-one (except train-foamers) want to spend a minute longer on a train than they absolutely need to.
What EVERYBODY wants (except train-foamers) is the absolute shortest possible trip.
When things get congested you've got (basically) 3 options:
1) Expand the freeways
2) Expand the airports
3) Do something else: which COULD be HSR.
That's all they are doing in Europe and Japan. Nobody in Europe and Japan LOVES trains (except the train-foamers). But, they do like the connection options they've got; which we don't have.
There's no reason you shouldn't be able to get a HST out of an airport or city-center in the US, for 1 or 2 hour trip, that you'd otherwise (now) have to get a connecting flight for or drive.
HSR can't replace airplanes, buses or cars; but it sure can keep the freeways and airports from being expanded, and destroying more peasant hovels in the process (which has been the preferred method for 70+ years now).
Miningman To think that not all that long ago a maze of passenger trains all connecting to one another, combined with Interurbans and Street Car lines could get you anywhere. Culture and societal directions or manipulations? It could have progressed steadily from there to a system without question today.
To think that not all that long ago a maze of passenger trains all connecting to one another, combined with Interurbans and Street Car lines could get you anywhere. Culture and societal directions or manipulations? It could have progressed steadily from there to a system without question today.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.