Tadman wrote: ↑Tue Jan 28, 2020 4:15 pm
Not necessarily.
A rail solution could be say 10-30% slower than car and still work provided users got their safer or easier. Given the 20+ daily flights you cited, and 80% of the metro area is closer by car than air, quite a few people are okay with hacking trafic for 1-2 hours, 1 hour at airport dead time, 45 minutes in air, and cab ride to hotel. What's wrong with a 6 hour train ride? It's solid work/play time that could result in high-dollar beverages being sold and gambling machines operating once you're in Nevada state lines.
Which is it, 10% or 30% slower than by car?
Travel Map suggests the driving time between Los Angeles and Las Vegas is 4 hours and 57 minutes.
Amtrak's Southwest Chief takes 3 hours and 51 minutes to travel 156 rail miles between Los Angeles and Barstow. It's another 157 miles between Barstow and Las Vegas. The Chief averages 40.5 mph for that initial 156 miles, the worse case could assume the same time and average speed over the last 157 miles? A total elapse time time of 7 hours and 42 minutes. Let's assume a better case of a 10 mph increase in average speeds over the last 157 miles, using the tracks basically as they are today. Some math follows: 157 miles / 50.5 mph = 3 hours and 6 minutes. 3 hours and 6 minutes + 3 hours and 51 minutes = 6 hours and 57 minutes. Worse case compared to highways = 7 hours and 42 minutes / 4 hours and 57 minutes x 100 = 462/297 = 155% Better case compared to highways = 6 hours and 57 minutes / 4 hours and 57 minutes x 100 = 417/297 = 140% To even reach a goal of being 30% slower, the train would have to average 60.7 mph over the last 157 miles. More math = 397 x 1.3 = 386 minutes total or 6 hours and 26 minutes. 386 minutes (LA-LV) - 231 minutes (LA-Barstow) = 155 minutes (Barstow-LV) or 2 hours and 35 minutes. 157 miles/ 155 minutes x 60 minutes /hour = 60.7 mph. Basically another increase of average train speed of 10 mph over the last 157 miles between Barstow and LV, making it the best case. Could a train going at maximum allowed speeds make that 157 miles at an average 60.7 mph? Per
http://www.trainweb.org/brettrw/uprr/ci ... masub.html
20 mph around 3.4 miles
30 mph around 1.3 miles
40 mph around 14.5 miles
45 mph around 2.5 miles
60 mph around 24 miles
70 mph around 100 miles
Another 15 or so miles the trains are either allowed to accelerate or decelerate between posted speed limits.
Keeping it simple, let's assume all those 15 miles are above 60 mph but not 70 mph, so an average of 65 mph.
20 x 3.4 = 68
30 x 1.3 = 39
40 x 14.5 = 580
45 x 2.5 = 112.5
60 x 24 = 1440
65 x 15 = 975
70 x 100 = 7000
60 x 160.7** = 9642
Note ** = sum of estimated miles for allowed speeds (not actual distances)
9642-7000-975-1440-112.5-580-39-68 = -572
That negative number means trains going as fast as allowed can not achieve 60 mph average speeds over the Barstow to LV route. A final positive result would have meant they could.
Passenger trains are often slowed by freight train congestions, so there is little chance this train could maintain the maximum speeds allowed over the entire route. So a slow train between LA and LV over existing UP tracks can not achieve speeds within 30% lower than by driving by car. So do you still think it could be competitive?
I strongly believe for trains to be competitive with planes it has to have an elapse time of 3 hours or less (75% market share). At 4 hours, trains can achieve 50% market share with planes. At 7 or 8 hours, can the train get a significant market share against driving at 5 hours?