Well here in Kalifoonia, as our governator calls it, the most logical choices are to break it into 3 sectors, northern, central and southern service
Northern being a ring route service from Sacramento to Oakland to San Jose and back to Sacramento thru Stockton.
Central being the long distance route service from Sacramento to Oakland to Fresno to Los Angeles to San Diego.
Southern being ring route service from San Diego to Irvine to Los Angeles to San Bernardino thru Temecula to San Diego.
All the technology already exists, all thats lacking is the political will of the people to act on it.
But we wont see on any of this till gas hits $10 a gallon and even then the no-tax-for-anything crowd would advocate returning to horse and buggies instead. Sad but true.
Have fun with your trains
daveklepper wrote:Why not use tram-trains for the planned electrfication, like Kartsruh's? Then use the existing streetcar and munimentro tunnel tracks to get the San Jose trains downtown, with equipment that can go 125 mph on high voltage overhead grade separated high speed track but can also behave like a PCC in traffic.
Good question.... The idea is great, but so far there are no trains which have the acceleration of a light rail vehicle with the top speed of HSR. The Karlsruhe-trains make 100 kph (62 mph). Even if someone starts to develop such a train for 125 mph it will take years until it sees passengers. Besides, I don't think that it is possible. Electric motors have a lot of advantages compared to combustion engines, but they can't work wonders. I have to admit that I can't think of a reason why, but so far I never saw an electric motor used for high acceleration and high speed at the same time.
Good point. Possibly then the San Jose service would have two types of equipment, one geared for top speed of 100 mph and used in local service, making all the stops, and continuing over MUNI through the downtown area. These would use the local tracks of a four track main line (or possibly three tracks). The same acceleration and braking capabilities that permit good performance in traffic should be of value in stop-and-go local service. The expresses would terminate at 4th and townsend as at present, with their motors geared for 150 mph. All this until money comes available for a downtown tunnel and terminal.
Remember that the Pacific Electric's Long Beach Line had four tracks with the center track used for the heavy express Blimps in LOng Beach Express service runing just to the el terminal, while the outer tracks used the lighter Hollywood cars with their faster acceleration in Watts local service, and these continued on the street.
Southwest_Chief wrote: daveklepper wrote:Why not use tram-trains for the planned electrfication, like Kartsruh's? Then use the existing streetcar and munimentro tunnel tracks to get the San Jose trains downtown, with equipment that can go 125 mph on high voltage overhead grade separated high speed track but can also behave like a PCC in traffic.Good question.... The idea is great, but so far there are no trains which have the acceleration of a light rail vehicle with the top speed of HSR. The Karlsruhe-trains make 100 kph (62 mph). Even if someone starts to develop such a train for 125 mph it will take years until it sees passengers. Besides, I don't think that it is possible. Electric motors have a lot of advantages compared to combustion engines, but they can't work wonders. I have to admit that I can't think of a reason why, but so far I never saw an electric motor used for high acceleration and high speed at the same time.
Tram trains are not for high acceleration, so they have nothing to do with the topic. They do share tracks with the ICE trains in Germany, but that's on traditional rail lines.
Never saw an electric motor used for both high acceleration and high speed at the same time? That's exactly what happens with TGV, ICE, Shinkansen, AVE, and KTX. Name one internal-combustion-powered rail vehicle that can outperform straight electric.
High Speed Rail? In the USA?
We have it, it works!! The Amtrak Northeast Corridor. But at a cost that the goverment will not spend again. They do not even want to pay to maintain it and high speed rail is high maintenace.
The cost of rebuilding the New Haven to Boston, x New Haven RR, from an 80 mph railroad to a 150 mph railroad took 5 years, including raising bridges for Catenary and eliminating grade crossings, at HUGE cost overuns.
That headlight a 1/2 mile down the track will blow by you in 12 seconds!
Don U. TCA 73-5735
1) Minneapolis, Mn, - Madison, WI, - Chicago,Ill, - Kalamazoo, MI,- Ann Arbor, MI, - Detroit, MI, - Toronto, Ont, - Montreal, Ont.
2) Grand Rapids, MI, - Lansing, MI, - Ann Arbor, MI, - Toledo, Oh, - Cincinatti, Oh,.
3) Denver, Co, - Omaha, Ne, - Des Moines, Ia, - Chicago, Il, - Elkhart, In, - Toledo, Oh, - Cleveland, Oh, - Pittsburg, Oh, - Washington, D.C.
Back in the mid-1960's when the Metroliners were being designed as one of the first high-speed rail concepts, consideration was given to building a bypass around Philadelphia to improve speeds and times for through trains. The idea was rejected based on property acquisition costs and the fact that Philadelphia is a major traffic source.
So why would you want to bypass a huge traffic source like New York City?
Aggree,
The Airline Route, should have been used, Amtrak looked at it, but was overruled. It was the route of "The New England Limited", AKA "The Ghost Train", a joint venture of the New York & New England with the New York, New Haven and Hartford. In the 1880s/90s, without bridges yet built in Saybrook and New London, the overland route was the fastes line to Boston. In the Amtrak era, Washington wanted the Northeast Corridor built by way of New London CT. The New London area is the home of the U.S. Coast Guard Academy, the North Atlantic Submarine Base (Groton), and the Electric Boat Div. of General Dynamics (builder of Nuclear Submarines).
The line was "cut", not by choice, but by the 1955 Hurricane that took out bridges and right of way. As it stands now much has been converted to a "Rail Trail".
Boston to Franklin, welded rail, concrete ties, commuter rail.
Franklin MA to Putnam CT tracks gone.
Putnum to outsde Willimantic tracks and bridges gone.
Willimantic to Portland Ct tracks gone.
Portland to New Haven heavy freight service.
New Haven to New York is the Northeast Corridor.
CSSHEGEWISCH wrote:Back in the mid-1960's when the Metroliners were being designed as one of the first high-speed rail concepts, consideration was given to building a bypass around Philadelphia to improve speeds and times for through trains. The idea was rejected based on property acquisition costs and the fact that Philadelphia is a major traffic source.
Consider the potential of the Trenton Cutoff as a passenger route, as well.
I would take a map and a compass, draw a 500 mile ring around NYC and run high speed sevice to every city of more than 100,000 people in that ring, with intermediate stops as appropriate to each market.
Then I would do the same thing around DC Then around Atlanta, then around Chicago.
Where rings overlap, connect them.
I'm sure people from western USA can pick cities for the same treatment.
Unrelated suggestion. What if the Feds sold Amtrak and used the money from the sale to put in a national rail system with rail traffic control and charged a toll to use it. Then anyone who can afford an engine and a few cars could start a passenger rail service. The competition might improve the offerings. Making it more like the other transportation systems. How many trucking companies and bus lines do you think we would have if each one had to build and maintain their own roads?
Dave
Lackawanna Route of the Phoebe Snow
My suggestion falls under option I.
Every locale in the country could benefit from high speed rail. The train has a limited capacity, maybe 1000 people max. Every big city connection probably exchanges 1000 people between another single big city per day. The number is probably much greater than that. Ideal time-distance for a 200 mile an hour train is 600 miles and 3-4 hours. Where in the country would it be easiest to build and cover such distances (between big cities)?: The southwest, or across Kansas (wide open and flat, with a straight as an arrow line running from Kansas City to Denver-650 miles)
This would be a great place for a federally subsidized demonstration development that could test the technology, analyze the impact, and study for application elsewhere. The rail corridor along I-70 is not that heavily used. Since this will cost a lot of money anyway, and have limited capacity in its early development, why not across Kansas? People traveling there will have the opportunity to outpace all highway traffic and for all practical purposes outpace the airlines: a flight from Kansas City to Denver takes 1.5 hours in the air and an hour on the ground. That's 2.5 hours which translates to an average travel speed of about 260 miles an hour in the air. High speed rail comes close enough to that for all practical purposes to make all things equal because of the point-to-point connection from city-center to city-center. Kansas City's airport is about 20 miles out of town, and Denver's is at least the same. Business travelers would avoid airport waste time, ground transportation costs and nightmares, the discomfort, weather delays, and all the other crap that goes along with flying the friendly skies.
Right now, at 79 miles an hour, it is quicker to travel between Chicago and Kansas City by rail than by air, except for those lucky few who live within the armpit of the international airports in these cities.
Of course bypass New York to serve the Boston to Philadelphia Batlimore Washington market. But also retain the present level of service for New York to Washington High Speed and New York to Boston High Speed via the present route. There would be across the platform transfer at New Haven between the Boston Washington Super Acela and the Boston New York Acela, so even Providence and New London to Baltimore and Washington passengers would gain, and Boston - New York passengers willing to change at New Haven could also save a half hour.
The reason for bypassing New York for the Boston Washington service is the absolute impracticality of making the New Haven - New Rochelle Metro North line truly high speed.
That is the reason, and it is a very good reason.
The new Poughkeepsie Bridge super high speed line might well use the West Trenton alignment to Philadelphia instead of the route through Elizabeth, New Brunzwick, Trenton, and Frankfort Junction.
First off, I wouldn't quite call people living next to the airports lucky - People in Chicagoland have been suffering the noise and traffic for years, and now they're failing to prevent a 3rd airport from being built (many there say we need high-speed trains - the maglevs are silent!), contributing to light, sound and air pollution. One family member I have lives near LaGuardia Airport (I know, it's NYC), and whenever I'm there it's not even worth looking up to see one of man's greatest inventions (besides trains, of course).
How many people travel from Kansas City to Denver anyway? Wouldn't a flat trip from southern Kalifoonia to Nevada have much more traffic, and save the globe a little bit more? LA is so car-oriented it's almost disgusting - but that's only because everything is so spread out, and none of the other modes of transport are even near satisfactory or efficient. Honestly, they'd need supertrains to get around town! If there was a formidable system, such as BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) or light rail, coming to one termini like they do in Rome (say, Union Station), and then there was a high-speed route between Las Vegas and San Francisco, then the world would be saved form global warming hands down.
The Acela works well, but read this over and over again as you may, America will NEVER abandon their cars (they'll convert to the Toyota Prius "Hey, I'm helping!") and their über-fast airplanes. It might not make sense, but talk to someone with no knowledge of trains and see how much they care about trains.
Travel websites: How would you like to travel? By car, or by airplane?
Gavriel609 wrote: First off, I wouldn't quite call people living next to the airports lucky - People in Chicagoland have been suffering the noise and traffic for years, and now they're failing to prevent a 3rd airport from being built (many there say we need high-speed trains - the maglevs are silent!), contributing to light, sound and air pollution. One family member I have lives near LaGuardia Airport (I know, it's NYC), and whenever I'm there it's not even worth looking up to see one of man's greatest inventions (besides trains, of course).How many people travel from Kansas City to Denver anyway? Wouldn't a flat trip from southern Kalifoonia to Nevada have much more traffic, and save the globe a little bit more? LA is so car-oriented it's almost disgusting - but that's only because everything is so spread out, and none of the other modes of transport are even near satisfactory or efficient. Honestly, they'd need supertrains to get around town! If there was a formidable system, such as BRT (Bus Rapid Transit) or light rail, coming to one termini like they do in Rome (say, Union Station), and then there was a high-speed route between Las Vegas and San Francisco, then the world would be saved form global warming hands down. The Acela works well, but read this over and over again as you may, America will NEVER abandon their cars (they'll convert to the Toyota Prius "Hey, I'm helping!") and their über-fast airplanes. It might not make sense, but talk to someone with no knowledge of trains and see how much they care about trains.Travel websites: How would you like to travel? By car, or by airplane?
Gavriel,
I need to clarify a few of my comments about HSR in my original message. The reference to the "lucky few", was blatant sarcasm.
The proposal for HSR across Kansas was a practical notion, based on ridership capacity on a single train unit, the ease of building and avoidance of a lot of crossing nightmares, the avoidance of lawsuit dilemmas when terraforming drastically changes the infrastructure landscape, and related considerations.
Secondly, I don't think this is going to happen, anywhere, soon; 15+ years from now? maybe. Kansas City, like every major city sends 10 flights a day to Denver and vice-versa; the Boeing-Chevrolet 737 (more sarcasm) packs 150 sardines into a flying hot dog with wings; 10 flights moves 1500 people between these two points, and most "deplane upon arrival." I'd rather "detrain."
Kansas Citians take great pride in their cars. This is the excuse for why KC exists in the most backward tier of major cities fighting tooth-and-nail against a light rail system over the most trivial crap anyone has ever heard; e.g. "well, you'll still have to drive 5 blocks to a park and ride, so why not drive (the other 28 miles)?" or, (great pride) "Kansas City ranks 85 in traffic congestion, that's a good thing". Kansas Citians love their cars.
So I just threw out the flatland prairie HSR mostly for kicks. I'm not so invested in it as just reestablishing passenger rail service directly between Denver and Kansas City. It has nothing to do with the wisdom of putting HSR in a less densely populated region, or that it wouldn't work well; rather it was just my notion for a test bed system across a former ocean bed. However, if there was a scientific approach to determine whether this is a good thing or practical thing, such a point-to point-system would certainly reveal the ridership potential over a distance, based on regional population, without critics throwing monkey wrenches into the analysis based on certain questionable-mitigating claims.
I'd go for a Midwest System.
The NorthWest leg Chicago-Milwaukee-StPaul. Branches to Madison & Green Bay.The NorthEast leg thru Gary-Kalamazoo-Detroit. Branches to Grand Rapids, Lansing, Flint,Toledo.
The SouthEast leg to Indianapolis. Branches to Cincinnatti & Louisville.The SouthWest leg to St Louis & Kansas City. Branches to Peoria, Decatur, etc.
The Chicago Rail Plan would be implemented so it dosen't take an hour to get from CUS to the city limits. O'Hare would get a decent passenger station with connections to the NW leg & Milwaukee Mitchel Field.
I agree with this approach. I think it covers the opportunity best of all. I think, too, that including several cities rather than points will make it more attractive if slower.
alphas wrote:If the Country was ever to build a truely long-distance high-speed rail outside the NEC, which it never will because of the cost and the environmental impact, the logical choice would be direct NYC to Chicago running through central/northern PA, and continuing on to O'Hare, with two intermediate stops--one in NE Ohio to serve Cleveland/Akron area and one in NW Ohio to serve Detroit/Toledo area (with connecting rail transit from high-speed stations to major poulation areas served by the 2 stops). Dreaming on, you could even have a cross-platform high-speed connection at NE Ohio to serve Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, and St. Louis (continuing on to Lambert). And to complete the dream you could have a 3rd stop/high-speed connection somewhere in Central PA (nothing of importance really there except the State College area so station would basically be just a transfer point) to service Washington, DC with a stop at Frederick, MD area where passengers could do a cross-platform change for high-speed to Baltimore. Unfortunately for rail fans, a dream is all it will be.
There used to be a train that ran from Hoboken, NJ (which is right across the Hudson River from Manhatten) to Chicago via Scranton, PA, Binghamton, NY, Elmira, NY, Buffalo, NY, Erie, PA and Cleveland. The Erie Lackawanna Train #1 Known as the Phoebe Snow. It was discontinued in November 1966 because of lack of riders.
The Phoebe Snow was a Hoboken - Buffalo day train. Possibly when the Lackawana reduced service, its name was transferred to the other (night) train that carried through cars for the Nickel Plate for Chicago. And at times it also carried through coaches and sleepers for Chicago. But the train was never known as the Phoebe Snow while on the Nickel Plate.
After consolidation with the Erie, the Erie Lackawanna ran one through train. It ran via Scranton instead of Port Jervice (the Erie's route) and split at Hornell with one part going to Buffalo and the rest west to Chicago. It was named the Lake Cities. The Buffalo section was discontinued several years before the Chicago section. Rode Hoboken - Chicago some time before the train was discontinued completely. Excellent late dinner leaving Hoboken, comfortable night in the roomette, but the sleeper off at Youngstown, the diner off at Huntington, and an all coach and head end train into Dearborn Station.
Sorry, but that is not correct. The AEM-7 out-accelerates the P42DC by leaps and bounds, especially due to the instant availability of electricity from the overhead wires for traction. A single P42DC, in addition, would never be able to haul the same length of train as a single AEM-7 with DC traction, never mind AC traction (the AEM-7AC reputedly can haul twelve to fourteen cars with a single unit, at speed, including handling all of the HEP needs).
Motor gearing relates solely to acceleration. Horsepower is needed for the top end.
For the record, the Phoebe Snow under Erie-Lackawanna ran for three years (63 to 66), via the Erie from Corning westward to Chicago Dearborn.
blue streak 1 wrote:your acceleration high speed trlates to motor gearing. The higher the ratio for the same horsepower the slower the acceleration. An AEM7 accelerates about like a p42. tqice as much horsepower twice as much speed same acceleraton
Locomotive gear ratio is almost completely irrelevant to acceleration on a train. The magic number is HP.
power = force X distance / time
force = mass x acceleration
substituting:
power = mass x acceleration x distance /time
So acceleration is directly proportional to horsepower.
If you put a GP40-2 with 65 mph freight gearing and an F40PH-2 with 103 mph passenger gearing on the same train (and HEP on the F40 turned off), and had them race from 30 mph to 60 mph - it would be a tie.
What would be different is the volts and amps out of the traction alternator. The passenger geared loco would be operating at lower voltage and higher amperage.
-Don (Random stuff, mostly about trains - what else? http://blerfblog.blogspot.com/)
The above is correct up to a point. Exceptions:
1. The current and voltage comparisons are somewhat modified, with less differences, because of different speeds of transition (series to parallel, field shunt insertion), with transition occuring at lower speeds on the freight locomotive than on the passenger.
2. The passenger locomotive will develop full horsepower to a higher speed than the freight locomotive and thus will reach a higher speed, even if speed limits (how fast can the motors' rotors be allowed to rotate) aren't considered.
3. The freight locomotive will be able to start a heavier train because of limits on the amperes the motors can handle.
daveklepper wrote: The above is correct up to a point. Exceptions:1. The current and voltage comparisons are somewhat modified, with less differences, because of different speeds of transition (series to parallel, field shunt insertion), with transition occuring at lower speeds on the freight locomotive than on the passenger.2. The passenger locomotive will develop full horsepower to a higher speed than the freight locomotive and thus will reach a higher speed, even if speed limits (how fast can the motors' rotors be allowed to rotate) aren't considered.3. The freight locomotive will be able to start a heavier train because of limits on the amperes the motors can handle.
That's why I said "almost"
Your 3 items are definitely gear ratio related, though I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "even if speed limits (how fast can the motors' rotors be allowed to rotate) aren't considered." on #2.
...and neither GP40-2s nor F40PHs have transition.
oltmannd wrote:...and neither GP40-2s nor F40PHs have transition.
Are you sure about that? I know that the later SD's had alternator transition, where the two sets of windings would be connected in parallel at low speeds and in series at high speeds. Don't know about the GP's and the F's.
erikem wrote: oltmannd wrote: ...and neither GP40-2s nor F40PHs have transition.Are you sure about that? I know that the later SD's had alternator transition, where the two sets of windings would be connected in parallel at low speeds and in series at high speeds. Don't know about the GP's and the F's.
oltmannd wrote: ...and neither GP40-2s nor F40PHs have transition.
GP40-2s are straight parallel, all the time. Better diodes allowed it (higher voltage rating)
SD40-2s still had motor transition, but no field shunting. SD50s were the first with alternator transition - which was wonderful because you didn't have to drop the load all the way to zero in order to make transition.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.