No-good plan

A new plan for high-speed rail - Baltimore Sun
Subtitled "Require freight rail carriers to offer passenger service again"

When the creation of Amtrak relieved the freights from their collective capital drain, the carriers proudly asserted their status as private sector enterprises able to raise capital for infrastructure development on their own. For a while this was true, and they acted in accord with this assertion. But now that has changed. The freight lines acknowledge they need federal assistance and various public/private partnerships to meet the basic infrastructure needs imposed by clearly foreseeable freight traffic growth. The freights are competing with the would-be high speeders for federal rail infrastructure assistance.

Thus, the government is now faced with two parallel rail infrastructure demands. But in reality, they are only different versions of the same need. Except for certain metropolitan-to-metropolitan corridors (like the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington) America is far too large and widely dispersed to even consider building a hugely expensive duplicative passenger-only rail infrastructure. Prudence calls for a shared approach to rail infrastructure and technology development between the freights and would-be high speeders. Let's include America's real rail experts, the freight operators, in both the planning and operation of that improved, shared rail infrastructure.

That strikes me as a very harebrained idea. There's no way that fast passenger service can easily mix with typical freight service. Those two are also two distinct kinds of business, and I think that passenger service ought to be provided by specialists in that, like Amtrak.

A more appropriate policy would be to use the freights' rights of way when building a separate line would be too awkward and expensive, but with adding additional tracks for fast passenger service.

The author seems to not understand that in many cases a true high speed infrastructure won't fit into the existing freight right-of-way. There are many miles of existing tangent freight track where an HSR track could be successfully built next to the freight tracks. But many of the existing freight lines, because they were built 100+ years ago, won't allow for parallel HSR because of the numerous curves that will require low speeds for safe operation of the passenger trains. HSR requires miles and miles of straight, tangent track to attain and maintain high speeds, plus a good amount of money to build the infrastructure. Sometimes the problem is geometry and geography, not politics.

Agree with both posts above. The fact is, HSR is a very different creature from North American freight railroading, which relies on a business model which emphasizes super heavy and long trains moving at relatively slow (but consistent) speeds for long distances. HSR on the other hand, models operation on very high speed, lightweight trains running on schedules involving high acceleration and in some cases frequent braking on medium length routes between city pairs. Therefore, all the infrastructure (track geometry, signaling, right of way specs. etc.) is built for accomodating such method of operation(whether hvy frt or HSR). The general public (or your average reporter) doesn't know this, and thinks all trains can run on the same track, as long as the gauge is the same.

kaitoku wrote:Agree with both posts above. The fact is, HSR is a very different creature from North American freight railroading, which relies on a business model which emphasizes super heavy and long trains moving at relatively slow (but consistent) speeds for long distances. HSR on the other hand, models operation on very high speed, lightweight trains running on schedules involving high acceleration and in some cases frequent braking on medium length routes between city pairs. Therefore, all the infrastructure (track geometry, signaling, right of way specs. etc.) is built for accomodating such method of operation(whether hvy frt or HSR). The general public (or your average reporter) doesn't know this, and thinks all trains can run on the same track, as long as the gauge is the same.

That's because the average public and reporters all look to the Northeast Corridor and proclaim that as the bar that all high speed rail here should be set too ( pretty low bar in my opinion ). I'd think most who look beyond that understand that a high speed rail network would be separate from that of the network of heavy freights ( slow freights can't really coexist with high speed trains over the same network ). Signaling at high speeds doesn't accomplish much( can't react when traveling at 270+ km/hr ), you need computerized train control systems ( much like that of Japanese HSR ), that separates trains accordingly. Track would have to be straight and level ( well as level as geographically possible ) in order to provide for true high speed service ( specialized high speed train sets can be built for specific regions IE: snowplows... ).

Initial construction would have to be done by the government as is the case around the globe. However, a successfully built high speed network can be privatized and earn money. I envision a regional network under the auspices of the North American Railroad Group ( a network of for profit high speed rail operators ), it would be divided by region ( Northeast, Great lakes, Mid Atlantic, Southeast Atlantic, Southeast Gulf of Mexico, Pacific Northwest, Northern Great Plains, Southern Great Plains, Southwest, California ), each would be interconnected where possible ( although it's not going to be feasible for a NY- LA rail trip ).

The reason for a lack of a REAL plan for high-speed rail in the US, is because no one wants to take the time and see what it really entails.

The truth is, except for a few key corridor routes, HSR must move at a minimum of 500mph. Its simple physics & logistics. An aircraft moves at roughly 750mph. To compete, you must plan a train trip that takes the same amount of time. At approximately 500mph, the train can compete due to the BS associated with air travel.

At 500mph, the only known technology capable of working is a maglev with a wrap-around that locks the train to the rail. This means that true HSR must be separate from the US freight system, and will require enormous sums of capital, probably on the order of 10-20x that needed to build the railroad system in the first place (accounting for inflation).

A solid loop around CONUS, at 10million/mile (assuming ALL costs aside from stations and rolling stock are averaged per mile) it would cost 64billion, 500million to construct. And that leaves out a direct maglev connection to many major US cities. I chose a route that created a loop that got within shooting distance of most major cities, without creating any major turns in the track, assuming a minimum turning radius of 50 miles. This leaves out a direct link to NYC as well as southern Florida, both available by HrSR connections via the NEC @ DC. This route also leaves a vast stretch of the interior of the US unconnected as well. The loop's route could be made smaller, decreasing the distance from the loop to interior cities, at the cost of most of the major cities I got close to. Its all a trade off.

My Loop: Washington DC -> Chicago: 700mi --- Chicago -> Minneapolis: 400mi --- Minneapolis-> Portland: 1,700mi --- Portland -> Victorville: 950mi --- Victorville -> Dallas: 1,350mi --- Dallas -> Atlanta: 750mi --- Atlanta -> Washington DC: 600mi

Vincent wrote:Sometimes the problem is geometry and geography, not politics.

Are you saying the Tsar of all the Russias was less than infallible when he drew a straight line and said "build the railroad here"?

jgallaway81 wrote:The truth is, except for a few key corridor routes, HSR must move at a minimum of 500mph.

Even if you're just talking about North America I'm sure there are many who want to debate your 500mph minimum. And there are quite a few far less than 500mph lines throughout the world which many consider to be successful.

It's clear from his choice of words that the author of the original comment has a mental picture of the rail industry stuck back in the Sixties, with the usual watery sentiment layered on. Not even enough backgropund to address the constraints imposed in the wake of the Chase accident, which happened in his own backyard.

To say that "What we got here is a failure to communicate." would be the understatement of the year.

HSR must move at a minimum of 500mph

No, it mustn't. It should move at a speed appropriate to the route and market. Engineering has been described as the art of compromise. There are no absolutes in design. It is very unlikely that a network of magLev can be afforded anywhere in the world (unless in somewhere like Saudi Arabia where they don't care what anything costs).

In all the countries where there is high speed rail there is a period of continuous design and incremental improvements lasting at least 60 years.

Patrick Boylan wrote:Even if you're just talking about North America I'm sure there are many who want to debate your 500mph minimum. And there are quite a few far less than 500mph lines throughout the world which many consider to be successful.

Many are successful, yes, but how many intend to contend on a scale of a national network the size of the COntinental United States (CONUS)?

george matthews wrote:No, it mustn't. It should move at a speed appropriate to the route and market. Engineering has been described as the art of compromise. There are no absolutes in design. It is very unlikely that a network of magLev can be afforded anywhere in the world (unless in somewhere like Saudi Arabia where they don't care what anything costs).
In all the countries where there is high speed rail there is a period of continuous design and incremental improvements lasting at least 60 years.

It should move at a speed appropriate to the route and market. -> The "market" is the entire United States. The route is the length of the continent. Those two dictate a minimum operating speed of 500mph. Without such a speed, there are very few locations in the US (the aforementioned select "corridor" routes) that can successfully compete against Air Traffic. Consider this, at times reaching speeds in excess of 100mph, the Lindbergh Special managed to succeed, only because it had onboard processing facilites for the film. The Aircraft-delivered films still needed processing. Had the old piston planes been capable of preparing the film for deployment, the engine would never have made history.

The point I'm trying to make with all my statements of "must" and "minimums" is to illustrate the need to develop a train system that will meet the needs of the people most people expect to use HSR. The only people who it won't matter to are those like me who refuse to take air travel again until the TSA is disbanded. If you don't make it faster than an aircraft, you'd have to drop the price so low that it couldn't have a prayer of breaking even, much less a profit. And if you expect to foot the bill on the taxpayers for a permanent subsidy... take a look at the budget talks in DC now. You think they are going to be willing to sign on to willingly spend billions of dollars a year? When they already need to find that same money to repair & upgrade roads?

I have never travelled by air in the US. I do have to cross the Atlantic.But once I have arrived I usually travel by train. I have no desire to go at 500 mph.

jgallaway81 wrote:It should move at a speed appropriate to the route and market. -> The "market" is the entire United States. The route is the length of the continent. Those two dictate a minimum operating speed of 500mph. Without such a speed, there are very few locations in the US (the aforementioned select "corridor" routes) that can successfully compete against Air Traffic. Consider this, at times reaching speeds in excess of 100mph, the Lindbergh Special managed to succeed, only because it had onboard processing facilites for the film. The Aircraft-delivered films still needed processing. Had the old piston planes been capable of preparing the film for deployment, the engine would never have made history.

The point I'm trying to make with all my statements of "must" and "minimums" is to illustrate the need to develop a train system that will meet the needs of the people most people expect to use HSR. The only people who it won't matter to are those like me who refuse to take air travel again until the TSA is disbanded. If you don't make it faster than an aircraft, you'd have to drop the price so low that it couldn't have a prayer of breaking even, much less a profit. And if you expect to foot the bill on the taxpayers for a permanent subsidy... take a look at the budget talks in DC now. You think they are going to be willing to sign on to willingly spend billions of dollars a year? When they already need to find that same money to repair & upgrade roads?

You have a valid point about how large the USA is. Even in Europe, you will not find HSR trains running from Moscow to Paris, nor Naples to Paris. You'll generally find city pairs that are much closer together.

HSR in America doesn't need to nor should it be required to compete in the Los Angeles or San Francisco to Chicago or New York markets. At best, New York to Chicago distance of 959 rail miles is the most we should plan for. That's approximately 1,000 miles.

Let's assume the goal for such a long trip is 4 hours. The train needs to average 250 mph to meet that goal. No train in the world achieves that high an average speed. At 5 hours, the train needs to average 200 mph. Again, no train in the world achieves that high an average speed. So being realistic for what's achievable, the goal should be 6 hours, averaging a speed of 166 mph. You'll need a train capable of 200 mph top speeds to meet the 166 mph average speed.

With 6 hours as our goal for 1,000 miles, will HSR trains compete against jet airliners? I predict it will attract some airline passengers, certainly not much more than half, not enough to put airlines out of business on this route. But that doesn't mean it could compete and provide a service people will take. At over 1,000 miles I believe the distances and therefore the elapse travel times are just too great for HSR to be effective. At 1,000 miles, I think HSR might be much too expensive to build, maintain, and operate.

My point is that at a certain distance, HSR lines shouldn't be built. I'm not sure where that statistic should be placed, but certainly a one seat ride on HSR from the west coast to the east coast isn't going to ever work.

There is a rule of thumb out there that high speed rail lines are viable for journey times that are 3 hours or less- anything longer and you're getting into airliner territory.* All this talk of 500mph trains seems to overlook the fact of HSR'S one advantage over air travel- the ability to serve intermediate cities. Not all journeys will be end to end, heck many passengers will get on and off without ever reaching the end points. And to serve those intermediate markets, you need slower trains, that may not even top 125mph, due to the fact that accelerating and slowing down are big factors (few HSR services cruise for any extended time at their top speeds).

*an example from Japan- you can take a single-train shinkansen service from Tokyo to Hakata, a distance of 1069km (664 miles), a journey that takes about 5 hours. Few passengers take the whole journey (most fly), but many do take the train for some of the distance, such as from Tokyo to Shin Osaka, or Shin Osaka to Hakata.

And here is why HSR won't happen.

Whats the point of building HSR if it isn't going to be useful?

jgallaway81 wrote:And here is why HSR won't happen.

Whats the point of building HSR if it isn't going to be useful?

It would be useful if built in the Northeast, California, and Midwest. All three regions have the population density and proven ridership on conventional trains to make such an investment worthwhile. It's a shame that the Acela can hit 150, yet it averages about 70 on the NEC.

By that reasoning, why build *anything*?

The fact is that the smaller corridors, done correctly, beat the pants off of flying.

It looks like you want a NY-LA HSR just because you like trains versus planes. When you hear officials from the high-speed railroads atalking about how, once you get past 250MPH, the energy costs start to skyrocket for more speed, you start to see what the *practical* limitations of HSR are.

HSR should not be replacing planes "just because". They should compete and/or replace planes where they make more sense.