General US High Speed Rail Discussion

I would argue the opposite. We don't *need* 79 mph rail. Outside of the gravitational fields of very large cities 79 mph trains will never amount to more than a marginal share of intercity traffic. It's nice to have, it's more comfortable than the bus, and it might in best cases be time-competitive with the car, sure, but it's not terribly attractive to many people, and if the 79 mph intercity network we have went away hardly anyone would notice. In a country the size of the US, if rail is to ever be a 'need,' something to replace as many car and air trips as is reasonable, than it needs to be fast, frequent, and reliable in a way that the legacy system has been unable to deliver since the age of the streamliner.

Its the average speed that counts , no point going 125 mph in places and 20 mph in others. Thats why the NEC would not considered to be high speed in Europe . I believe its fastest schedules average about 75 mph . You really want 100 mph average to be in the running. If you look at 400 miles in 4 hours , that makes some nice city pairs. you can average 100 mph with 125 mph top speed , if there are few slow spots and stops. If there are slow sections , you'd need 150 -180 mph top speed to average 100 mph.

bdawe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 5:14 pmIn the authors discussion the blue lines (upgraded legacy lines <125 mph or so) they specify that they could have included the michigan line and many other such lines, but did not for clarity.

Clarity of what? The map is plenty cluttered in some areas (SC, MA/CT, WI), one more line wouldn’t change it.

justalurker66 wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 9:46 pm Well at least he put Chicago to Toledo along the Michigan state line instead of through Fort Wayne.

We don't need 250 km/h high speed rail. We need reliable 79 mph rail (and where possible 125 mph rail).

Why not via Ft Wayne? It’s a cheaper, more populated route than the ex-NYC or a Turnpike median build, and adds a trivial amount of distance.

I agree with Mr. Dawe that 79 mph is not enough; we need to reach at least 60 mph average (at bare minimum, 90 mph MAS sustained for 50+ miles at a time) to effectively eat away at auto travel.

I agree with Mr. Dawe that 79 mph is not enough; we need to reach at least 60 mph average (at bare minimum, 90 mph MAS sustained for 50+ miles at a time) to effectively eat away at auto travel.

I also agree that 79 mph maximum on some of these lines is not good enough to be a competitor against cars and buses. The Milwaukee Road's Hiawathas went over 100 mph on a daily basis, and the Lake Shore Limited (previously the 20th Century Limited) had a faster traveling time than the present day Lake Shore Limited, and the same goes for most of Amtrak's long distance trains. Amtrak's trains should not be limited to the not-so-positive train control limits of 79 mph when it is possible for them to run at 90+ along most of their trackage. Double tracking would also help in some of these areas since some of the regions in which they are traveling on only have one or two tracks when there used to be two or even 4 tracks!

bdawe wrote: ↑Tue Apr 28, 2020 10:19 pm fast, frequent, and reliable

Emphasis on the frequent, as far as I'm concerned. Take the CNIC corridor. Which would be better: having eight or nine trains a day making the 135 mile trip in around 2/2.5 hours as now, or having two trains a day that would make CHM-CHI in an hours? For most times that you might want to depart, the frequency would help more than the speed. I'm guessing that the capital and operating expenses needed to run 4x the number of corridor trains would be a lot less than the cost of doubling the speed.

If you really want to get people to ride the train, it needs to feel almost as flexible as driving (where "almost" might vary based on how unpleasant driving downtown is).

Yes, Japan and parts of Europe have very high speed trains for top-end long-distance travel. But they also have very frequent slower local trains on many lines, and those trains probably carry more people.

If you want to take the French example, the vast majority of passengers are on Transillian, which is essentially the extended paris commuter rail network ["except in the gravitational fields of very large cities"]. The next largest share of passengers are TER passengers, which are mostly commuter trains outside of the Metropole. The next largest category is TGVs. Only after TGVS, do you get the Intercites, or conventional intercity trains which amount to less than half of TGV passenger traffic. In terms of Passenger - km, the TGV is more than half of SNCF's business.

see report, page 15 https://www.autorite-transports.fr/wp-c ... glaise.pdf

mtuandrew wrote: ↑Wed Apr 29, 2020 9:23 amWhy not via Ft Wayne? It’s a cheaper, more populated route than the ex-NYC or a Turnpike median build, and adds a trivial amount of distance.

How are you skewing population? Are you continuing to count South Bend and Elkhart when the closest station would be in Plymouth? One might as well count all of Fort Wayne's population as served by the Waterloo stop. In Indiana it would be a population trade, not a population increase. If one is padding the numbers by counting the number of people who live within X miles of a station then adding all the intermediate towns as stations one is creating a line with enough stops that it is no longer high speed rail. Every stop cuts in to the overall running speed of the train.

The northern Indiana issue highlights the biggest problem we have with HSR in this country. It seems than no one can design or build a line that doesn't follow a path drawn by a late 1800's railroad. How about serving South Bend/Elkhart and Fort Wayne? Sorry, can't do that. There isn't a historical railroad to follow and while a few virgin soil or realigned railroads exist it is a short list. Freight trains travel Chicago to Elkhart and from Elkhart through Fort Wayne (some pass the Elkhart Yard) but no one would consider that path for HSR.

These days, it's almost impossible for anyone in an HSR corridor to build anything on a new ROW.
The amount of legal expense and difficulty in taking land, even with eminent domain, makes
it very difficult. The country is long past the stage where people can lay down much rail
in rural or unpopulated areas, at least in HSR corridors.

trainhq wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:01 pm These days, it's almost impossible for anyone in an HSR corridor to build anything on a new ROW.
The amount of legal expense and difficulty in taking land, even with eminent domain, makes
it very difficult. The country is long past the stage where people can lay down much rail
in rural or unpopulated areas, at least in HSR corridors.

I agree. Look at the problems Texas Central is having building an all new line from Dallas to Houston. Every farmer, rancher and NIMBY is up in arms and lawyered up to fight it. The days of laying railroads across the country in the 1800's or bulldozing the countryside and cities for Interstates in the 50's and 60's are over.

Given the frequency of grade crossings, why not build on a viaduct over the existing freight row

RRspatch wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:01 am

I agree. Look at the problems Texas Central is having building an all new line from Dallas to Houston. Every farmer, rancher and NIMBY is up in arms and lawyered up to fight it. The days of laying railroads across the country in the 1800's or bulldozing the countryside and cities for Interstates in the 50's and 60's are over.

How much of that lawyery is because fairly few greenfield railroads have been built in the last 90 years, and all the case-law needs to be resettled, and thus we would expect the lawsuites to be more limited for future projects?

Texas is a special case when it comes to zoning and such... property rights are heavily protected against restrictive zoning and such. Learned that on an episode of "How the States Got Their Shapes".

David Benton wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 3:08 am Given the frequency of grade crossings, why not build on a viaduct over the existing freight row

$$$,$$$,$$$,$$$ times infinity.

RRspatch wrote: ↑Fri May 01, 2020 1:01 am

trainhq wrote: ↑Thu Apr 30, 2020 3:01 pm These days, it's almost impossible for anyone in an HSR corridor to build anything on a new ROW.
The amount of legal expense and difficulty in taking land, even with eminent domain, makes
it very difficult. The country is long past the stage where people can lay down much rail
in rural or unpopulated areas, at least in HSR corridors.

I agree. Look at the problems Texas Central is having building an all new line from Dallas to Houston. Every farmer, rancher and NIMBY is up in arms and lawyered up to fight it. The days of laying railroads across the country in the 1800's or bulldozing the countryside and cities for Interstates in the 50's and 60's are over.

And yet, people seem fine with interstates, i guess as they assume they may drive that mega road, one day?