No-good plan

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

Indeed. 500 mph makes no sense.

Regrettably, gentlemen, I have to point out once again that this entire thread demonstrates the general public's pitiful lack of familiarity with available rail and "quasi-rail" (i. e: maglev) technology as it relates to the HSR issue. Two generations ago, when a much larger proportion of a somewhat-smaller population was more familar with the realities of rail operation, the gap would be nowhere near as great.

The coming summer is going tp provide another painful demonstration of the fact that the impending end of the Age of Petroleum is going to put a severe limit not only upon American economic growth in general, but upon the auto-centric culture that the majority of us have come to recognize as symbolic of the good life at its best. Entrepreneurship, which is the driving force behind all human progress, will address that as it always has, by attempting to deliver the most prominent component of that lifestyle (read that: personal, or at least family-centered mobility) at minimal cost. "Collective mobility" in the form of mass transport planned by somebody else, will take a back seat. as it has since the days of Ford, and always will at some point determined by the sum total of our choices and limitations and free human interaction.

And within those constraints, the surest path toward the emergence of rail transportation as an attractive alternative to the increasingly-smaller, incresingly-uncomfortable and likely increasingly-expensive auto would be the extension of suburban rail systems further into the exurbs, and improvements in speeds, (which most certainly are feasible with current, and proven, technology). As the exurban systems expand, they would grow closer together, and through service would eventually become practicable.

The fantasy offered in the original article was typical of the unworkable ideas aimed at impressionable "swing" voters, fueled by the dangerous idea of confiscating lawful property which the owners, in most cases, restored to economic health through their own foresight, with public participation used only as a bridge to undo years of mismangement. Too many of the posts within this thread are too far afield of the realities and limitations imposed in a post-industrial world to merit serious consideration.

I do agree with 2nd trick's call for improving existing sububan/exurban transportation, as it is an essential part of a balanced transportation policy, and serves to enhance the viability of a connecting HSR system, should it be built. And as 2nd trick mentions, it is these achievable, incremental improvements that will have immediate value. Unfortunately, these kind of projects lack the glamour of HSR or maglev, and Americans are by nature inclined to be dazzled by popular mechanics/disneyesque concepts like maglev or vacuum rail (?). As far as rail technology, you gotta learn to walk before you run, and right now in terms of international standard passenger rail technology and operations, the U.S. is in the toddler stage (after being a track star 60 some years ago). Now maglev may have practical application in markets where the volume and demand could support it. Whether such a market exists in the U.S., I don't know. The under construction maglev line in Japan is intended to relieve pressure on the already at capacity Tokaido Shinkansen Line (3 min headways in some sections).

I think Americans should pay far more attention to successful rail systems in the rest of the world. For example, there is a great deal of research into the best speeds, and the ultimate speeds of steel wheel on rail. (I don't have links to it but I am sure there are experts here who could point us to the research). There is no need to have fantasies about 500 mph or undersea tunnels. The work has been done, though mostly I would guess not in the US. Cultures which become isolated from the world, such as 16th century Japan until the "Black Ships", stagnate. US rail industry and planners would do well to take into account others' work and not to pretend they already have "the best in the world".

george matthews wrote:I Cultures which become isolated from the world, such as 16th century Japan until the "Black Ships", stagnate. US rail industry and planners would do well to take into account others' work and not to pretend they already have "the best in the world".

Countries that stagnate are ones that cut themselves off from the world, not adopting widespread HSR does not isolate a nation physically or culturally. Additionally, a nation well known for accepting immigrants is not culturally deficient.

Any such HSR plan as you have mentioned benefits only those within the corridor routes selected, yet it will take tax money from all across the continent for those corridors to be developed. Why should the farmers of central Iowa have to suffer yet another tax increase just so the NY-DC route can be upgraded to a few more mph?

Only a comprehensive, nation-wide plan which encompasses the entire nation is morally justifiable.

As for those who scoff at 500mph maglev... just remember, there where those who scoffed at steam locomotives, gasoline automobiles, steam ships, the airplane, the space rocket, high-speed trains in the first place.

ANYTHING is fully possible to a people who are willing to put forth the dedication and commitment and the technological research to back it up.

As for "the US should catch-up with the rest of the world" that completely misses the point. As I did mention previously, HSR makes sense in certain corridor routes. The problem that faces both HSR tomorrow and Amtrak today, how to connect the corridors? Those who scoff at my description of HSR as a 500mph maglev need to remember, you can't force people to use the train except by outlawing commercial aircraft, and that ain't gonna happen. Unless the train is fully capable of benefiting the potential passengers, they will choose to continue to use personal automobiles and commercial aircraft. Unless standard TGV-like HSR is provided free of charge, few people will choose to use it because of the time needed to get to destinations.

A maglev system such as I described, operated by a single interstate agency, with at least one station in every state (yes, I know I listed only a few cities, but the truth is that the maglev would need to be accessible via each state) with standard steel-wheel TGV-like HSR controlled by "local" state agencies for the purpose of shuttling people to and from the primary maglev stations would the perfect solution to the continental US needs.

I'm not trying to develop a system that makes the US equal to other countries. My goal is to design a system that both accomplishes the same goals, and meets the needs and expectations of the American people. Why build a system that requires people to conform to it, when the other way around is perfectly possible?

As for maglev not being a tried and true technology at this time, thats true. But only because there hasn't been a dedicated & concerted effort put into production of the product. The science is simple. The technology is capable of being produced. The only variable is can our current technology produce a product capable of the punishment of continual service with as low a failure rate as would be acceptable to the agencies involved? Again, R&D monies would need to be allocated for final technological development.

Maglev by design has an increased safety factor for train operations over standard rail in that the power system can be created to provide positive separation between trains. If the trains are designed such that the magnets actually levitate by picking the cars up (opposed to repelling them away from the track) the train can never derail except through intentional sabotage of the track structure. Picture a "T" shaped rail-cross-section with the train car wrapping around the horizontal portion of the rail. The magnets are underneath and attract the cars' undercarriage up, causing the car bodies to lift away from the rail.

If people wont use HSR because it is too slow , how do you explain 30 million people a year using Amtrak ???

I think what George was trying to say is , dont reinvent the wheel developing hsr technology , use what is already avaliable overseas . No reason why it can't be built in the USA , i think the American manufacture requriemts for new rolling stock are ok , but it does fly in the face of free trade agreements the USA has with many countries .

jgallaway81 wrote:Any such HSR plan as you have mentioned benefits only those within the corridor routes selected, yet it will take tax money from all across the continent for those corridors to be developed.

This is not quite true. I haven't noticed any of your posts outside of this thread, but you seem to tend to state partial as absolute, for example your prior post where you said the market is the continental US, while some consider the HSR market to be certain city pairs. You may of course think that I'm just nitpicking.
Those within the routes will probably benefit more than those who don't but to say an HSR plan benefits only the local yokels is just as wrong as saying a road benefits only the locals.
I have visited New York, Boston, Chicago, Baltimore, Washington DC, Florida, Texas, California, and a bunch of places in between. I got benefit while visiting from whatever infrastructure those areas had, regardless of its funding source.

Even if I had not visited I got benefit from whatever probably impossible to measure lesser price, due to using hopefully the best transportation choice, it cost me to purchase goods and services produced there. If the delicatessen dishwasher could ride the Los Angelese subway to work, and therefore the studio's assistant to the 3rd junior prop master could buy their lunch for a few pennies less than otherwise and so I was able to see 'Real Housepets of the San Fernando Valley' with 15 seconds fewer commercials and more actual programming, then I got benefit from the Los Angeles subway. In fact one could argue that I unfairly did not contribute my local share, some of which came from Los Angeles and California taxpayers.
I hope one can see that this example should apply to high speed rail routes that are not near me, just as they would to any other task done for the common weal.

David Benton wrote:If people wont use HSR because it is too slow , how do you explain 30 million people a year using Amtrak ???

I think what George was trying to say is , dont reinvent the wheel developing hsr technology , use what is already avaliable overseas . No reason why it can't be built in the USA , i think the American manufacture requriemts for new rolling stock are ok , but it does fly in the face of free trade agreements the USA has with many countries .

If we want to buy up-to-date aircraft we go to those people with expertise: Boeing and Airbus, with perhaps a nod to Russia. For railway expertise we go to those countries with a well-established industry with Research and Development teams. Japan, Germany and France have those skills and the capital behind them. (Alas, Britain which invented railways abandoned the industry after privatisation when the skills of the British Rail research centre were dispersed.)

jgallaway81 wrote:Any such HSR plan as you have mentioned benefits only those within the corridor routes selected, yet it will take tax money from all across the continent for those corridors to be developed. Why should the farmers of central Iowa have to suffer yet another tax increase just so the NY-DC route can be upgraded to a few more mph?

Why am I paying taxes in New Hampshire for the highway projects all over the country?

jgallaway81 wrote: Only a comprehensive, nation-wide plan which encompasses the entire nation is morally justifiable.

I believe that was Obama's intent when he spoke of making HSR available to 80% of the nation.

jgallaway81 wrote: As for those who scoff at 500mph maglev... just remember, there where those who scoffed at steam locomotives, gasoline automobiles, steam ships, the airplane, the space rocket, high-speed trains in the first place.

In each of those cases - EVERY SINGLE ONE except the original high-speed trains - there did not already exist a methodology to do what the 'new thing' did. Nothing could match steam locomotives compared to the horse and wagon. Gas cars beat the horse on a more individual scale once Ford revolutionized the industry. Steamships did what no sail-vessel could (move without wind). Nothing could do what airplanes did. The same with rocketry. The first high-speed trains (Japan's Shinkansen) were to replace what was falling apart with something new and better.

Maglev is a solution looking for a problem. Mind you - I *love* the idea of maglev but the rice tag is prohibitive AND there's already something out there that does the job fast than maglev can - the airplane. I can fly from Manchester NH to Tampa FL nonstop in 3 hours for $130. A 500 MPH maglev won't do that. It won't skip Boston, New York, Philly, Baltimore, DC, Richmond, the Carolinas, Savannah, Jacksonville, Daytona Beach and Orlando to get me to Tampa.

Maglev could expand the HSR "range" of competition versus the airplane, but at a cost that boggles the mind. HSR can give us MOST of that for a comparative pittance.

Even building completely new rural right-of-ways shows where HSR beats maglev. HSR can get into downtown by connecting with existing right-of-ways. Maglev can't. Maglev needs 100% new right-of-ways. Even Amtrak's "Blue Sky" plan for a new inland route for the next generation Acela would use the South Station approach tracks when it pulls into Boston!

jgallaway81 wrote:As for maglev not being a tried and true technology at this time, thats true. But only because there hasn't been a dedicated & concerted effort put into production of the product. The science is simple. The technology is capable of being produced. The only variable is can our current technology produce a product capable of the punishment of continual service with as low a failure rate as would be acceptable to the agencies involved? Again, R&D monies would need to be allocated for final technological development.

The Transrapid just hasn't been able to be competitive. The Germans abandoned their plans to blanket the country with new maglev and the Chinese cancelled their plans once they got experience with the Shanghai airport connector that they bought form the very same Germans.

If there were some kind of technological breakthrough - like when people kept thinking of room temperature superconductors in the 1980s - that made maglev more competitive then, yeah, maybe. Until then? Pipe dream.

Expanding on kaitoku's point, I've estimated the maximum distance of Shinkansen coverage. From Kagoshima to Aomori, it is about 1300 mi / 2100 km (Shinkansen) or 850 mi / 1370 km (great-circle). It will be extended even further by construction to Hakodate, and eventually to Sapporo, in Hokkaido, a few hundred mi / km more. But it works because there are several big cities along the way.

In Europe, the longest HSR corridors are
Amsterdam - Marseille: 800 mi / 1300 km
London - Marseille: same length
Barcelona - Seville: 700 mi / 1100 km
Turin - Naples: 600 mi / 900 km
Lots of cities along the way.

Allowing for some gaps between France and Spain and Italy, there are some even longer ones:
Amsterdam - Seville: 1700 mi / 2700 km
Amsterdam - Naples: 1400 mi / 2200 km

Keeping in mind that HSR lines ought to go to as many big cities as possible along a route, here's a possible NYC - LA one:

NYC - Philadelphia - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Toledo - Chicago - St. Louis - Kansas City - Denver - Salt Lake City - Las Vegas - LA
3200 mi / 5200 km
But while NYC - KC and LV - LA are reasonable HSR lines, KC - LV isn't.
NYC - KC is still impressively long: 1400 mi / 2300 km


The FRA's chronology of high-speed-rail corridors

I would like to remind everyone that the latest and greatest technology isn't always the best solution economically. Just look back at the airlines experience with SSTs. Although twice as fast, they also cost twice as much to operate and maintain, their economic advantages were non existent.

Remember this when discussing meglev, faster doesn't always mean more profits.

Patrick Boyland wrote:Even if I had not visited I got benefit from whatever probably impossible to measure lesser price, due to using hopefully the best transportation choice, it cost me to purchase goods and services produced there. If the delicatessen dishwasher could ride the Los Angelese subway to work, and therefore the studio's assistant to the 3rd junior prop master could buy their lunch for a few pennies less than otherwise and so I was able to see 'Real Housepets of the San Fernando Valley' with 15 seconds fewer commercials and more actual programming, then I got benefit from the Los Angeles subway. In fact one could argue that I unfairly did not contribute my local share, some of which came from Los Angeles and California taxpayers.
I hope one can see that this example should apply to high speed rail routes that are not near me, just as they would to any other task done for the common weal.

"Real housepets of the San Fernando Valley"? Heh.

But this sums it up quite well. The benefits of commonwealth, that is the pooling of financial resources, aren't always immediately obvious nor direct, but are very real and ultimately the real reason for having democratic government. The idea that it is somehow immoral just doesn't hold up.

electricron wrote:

george matthews wrote:I Cultures which become isolated from the world, such as 16th century Japan until the "Black Ships", stagnate. US rail industry and planners would do well to take into account others' work and not to pretend they already have "the best in the world".

Countries that stagnate are ones that cut themselves off from the world, not adopting widespread HSR does not isolate a nation physically or culturally. Additionally, a nation well known for accepting immigrants is not culturally deficient.

But countries that wish to continue relying solely on aircraft and cars which rely on oil, will, sooner or later put themselves at a disadvantage to other countries whose transport systems can rely on nuclear or wind power. The Chinese, for example, are playing the long game with the development of their high speed rail systems - the 820 mile journey from Beijing to Shanghai will take 4 hours 48 minutes with trains restricted to a maximum speed of 186mph. And let's not forget the line is engineered for 236mph trains, so the schedules can be easily accelerated.

People are unwilling to think about oil, and the immense changes its scarcity and high price are going to bring. I am glad I am on an electric rail line up to London (from Poole). And I am glad I have solar water heating, at least for the summer, as it is saving me more money now than when I had it installed 11 years ago. I expected gas to go up in price, and it has. I just wish it would benefit me in the winter when the cost is very noticeable.

Without a car I have been all over Europe from Narvik to Hungary and down to Italy (mostly on electric lines). You can't do that in the US.