Higher speed rail- 125mph will put GE at disadvantage

[David Benton]

you could probably count the number of cars using each grade crossing , come up with a $ value per crossing , decide most of them lose money and shut them down .
oh wait , that only works for rail passenger service .

[goodnightjohnwayne]

you could probably count the number of cars using each grade crossing , come up with a $ value per crossing , decide most of them lose money and shut them down .
oh wait , that only works for rail passenger service .

In reality, complete grade separation requires a relatively high volume of rail traffic, most likely at least 1 train per hour, about same traffic prerequisite as electrification. Grade separation is a very expensive solution and it isn't a matter of closing crossings to highway traffic, but providing an overpass or underpass for highway traffic.

[David Benton]

No , but you could close lightly used grade crossings , if there was an alternative crossing nearby . all charge the regular users full cost for the underpass , i think if they are charged $ 100 or so per trip they made use an alternative route .
ideally , several low use rural crossings could be closed for one grade seperated crossing .

[Fan Railer]

Oh wait ,it only does 100 mph in diesel mode

And there's no reason to believe that it can't hit 125 mph in diesel mode. The drivetrain past the transformer is no different in either mode. Most likely, it is electronically limited for other purposes.

[goodnightjohnwayne]

No , but you could close lightly used grade crossings , if there was an alternative crossing nearby

Easier said than done, since it would impact local property owners, several levels of government, and might even contravene the original 19th century railroad charters.

. all charge the regular users full cost for the underpass , i think if they are charged $ 100 or so per trip they made use an alternative route .

What? Really? Can you imagine the level of public outrage from that sort of proposal?

ideally , several low use rural crossings could be closed for one grade seperated crossing .

And many remaining grade crossings can't be simply or cheaply replaced. Spend some time riding the Hudson line and you'd be surprised by the number of grade crossings which can't be closed or combined.

[David Benton]

Oh wait ,it only does 100 mph in diesel mode

And there's no reason to believe that it can't hit 125 mph in diesel mode. The drivetrain past the transformer is no different in either mode. Most likely, it is electronically limited for other purposes.

Stick another 2000 hp engine in it and it might(already got 2 ) . but it already weighs 130 tonne ...

[amtrakowitz]

Sure, they certainly do. But any line that adds electrification anymore is likely to be grade-separated as well (as electrification makes the most sense at higher speeds), and there's no commercial DMU in the US.

Why would it be "likely"?

Since we're talking 125 mph, neither electrification nor grade separation would be necessarily considered.

Grade separation at crossings would be necessary for all practical purposes because not one foolproof pre-approved at grade crossing safety device exists. The costs to make one and get it approved will probably be higher than building a grade separated crossing.

Much of the St. Louis to Chicago (Alton to Dwight) track refurbishment is already updated on Google Earth. You can take a bird's eye view of the entire route if you so desired. While it might be practical to grade separate most of the crossings within city and town limits, it certainly wouldn't be at most of the rural crossings. And the cheapest way to grade separate most of the city and town crossings will be to elevate the tracks over the streets, that action would certainly cause a rise in opposition from the locals. It'll be easier politically to grade separate the rural crossings.

Let's face reality, as long as the rail corridors are owned by the railroad companies making all their profits with freight operations, you're not going to get faster than 110 mph passenger trains on shared tracks. And I would suggest that the freight railroad companies would prefer a maximum of 90 mph. You're only going to see greater than 90 mph trains on tracks owned by government agencies, with the St.Louis to Chicago corridor being the sole exception. Therefore, buying new diesel locomotives capable of speeds over 110 mph is unnecessary.

No, this and other regulations are the reality that makes it more expensive to increase speeds on existing tracks. It's not because of anything draconian out of the "railroad companies" but all due to the FRA.

Amtrak just tested their Acela Express at speeds up to 170 mph (a new record for that trainset) on tracks that are presumably Class 8 (by the FRA's rather ephemeral standards, no faster than 160 mph in day-to-day use). That would speak to the relative safety of other "lower" track classes at higher speeds (especially since there is no difference between min/max track gauges between Class 6 to Class 8, and Classes 4 and 5 are identical).

[dowlingm]

What frequency would the service run at? If I could have hourly 110mph, I'd take that in a second over 2-hourly @ 125, for example. On a net basis of average headway and average speed the traveller gets there faster.

[neroden]

The problem is that short of spending billions on grade separation projects on couple of current non-grade separated 110 MPH regional corridors, there is absolutely nowhere to run a 125 MPH locomotive,

(You mean a 125 mph diesel, of course. Plenty of electric 125mph territory.)

North Carolina's planned S-line restoration -- fully grade-separated as planned -- will be good for 125 mph IIRC.

It would be a great lack of foresight to have standardized the fleet on something unsuitable for that. Locomotives last quite a while and it is good to have them capable of slightly faster travel than the current tracks -- particularly in an era of expanded trackworks such as we are in now.

[neroden]

In reality, complete grade separation requires a relatively high volume of rail traffic, most likely at least 1 train per hour, about same traffic prerequisite as electrification.

However, the demands of car drivers and general safety paranoia mean that complete or near-complete grade separation is quite common in the construction of new lines and the reconstruction of lines on disused ROW.

[neroden]

Grade separation at crossings would be necessary for all practical purposes because not one foolproof pre-approved at grade crossing safety device exists. The costs to make one and get it approved will probably be higher than building a grade separated crossing.

Some groups in Michigan are developing them anyway. At private expense. So I wouldn't bet *against* the development of a foolproof pre-approved at-grade crossing safety device *before* the new 125mph locomotives need to be replaced.

Let's face reality, as long as the rail corridors are owned by the railroad companies making all their profits with freight operations, you're not going to get faster than 110 mph passenger trains on shared tracks. And I would suggest that the freight railroad companies would prefer a maximum of 90 mph. You're only going to see greater than 90 mph trains on tracks owned by government agencies, with the St.Louis to Chicago corridor being the sole exception. Therefore, buying new diesel locomotives capable of speeds over 110 mph is unnecessary.

Your "therefore" does not follow. There are going to be lots of tracks owned by government agencies, and some of them (particularly North Carolina) will probably be 125 mph capable, but not electrified.

[electricron]

Your "therefore" does not follow. There are going to be lots of tracks owned by government agencies, and some of them (particularly North Carolina) will probably be 125 mph capable, but not electrified.

NCDOT has no plans to upgrade their corridor to 125 mph. No corridors are, not even those owned by Amtrak.
Therefore, my earlier therefore is still the truth.

[Tommy Meehan]

NCDOT has no plans to upgrade their corridor to 125 mph.

This is apparently true, 110 mph is the limit.

High speed rail in the southeast will mean top speeds of 110 mph and average speeds between 85-87 mph. - Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor Project

http://www.sehsr.org/history.html

However for grade crossings, I see some misinformation was posted here previously. Or some confusion, that might be a better way to put it.

This is what the FRA is saying-

The FRA’s goal for high-speed grade crossings is to achieve an acceptable level of grade crossing risk. Regulatory requirements for high-speed grade crossings are:

For 110 mph or less: Grade crossings are permitted. States and railroads cooperate to determine the needed warning devices, including passive crossbucks, flashing lights, two quadrant gates (close only 'entering' lanes of road), long gate arms, median barriers, and various combinations. Lights and/or gates are activated by circuits wired to the track (track circuits).

For 110-125 mph: FRA permits crossings only if an "impenetrable barrier" blocks highway traffic when train approaches.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/217.shtml

.

[Tommy Meehan]

It's interesting reading the FRA directives on crossing safety for trains operating 110-125 mph. Obviously "impenetrable barriers" are desired because of the extreme danger to train crew and passengers should a train hit a car at speeds of 110 mph or more. That possibility has to be reduced to an absolute minimum. To be effective -- because careless/reckless automobile drivers are (sad to say) relatively common -- the engineer must be provided with a signal that the crossing barrier is deployed and the crossing is clear:

Disadvantages : Barriers must close well in advance of train arrival to confirm crossing is clear and permit train to stop if necessary...

How far in advance? I don't know, I'm sure it's stated somewhere on the FRA site but I didn't see it. But the signal would have to be located well in advance of the crossing to allow the engineer to be able to bring a train moving 110+ mph to a safe stop if the crossing barrier DID NOT deploy or the crossing was NOT clear.

I guess that's why the barrier has to be impenetrable. If the gates activate when the train is barely in sight you just KNOW a lot of drivers will think, "Screw this, I can make it." If there's anyway possible for cars to go around the gates there's people that will do it. And that's something you DON'T want to see when you're moving 125 mph

.

[amtrakowitz]

Why would there be a danger to the train at faster speeds? The faster a train goes, the greater the force it would hit any object with; that is a far greater danger to an automobile than to a train.