Is all this fake high-speed rail driving anyone else nuts?

kato wrote:

jamesinclair wrote:The highest speed limit for cars in the country is 80mph, but in most urban areas, speeds top out at 65mph.

Yeah, but that's only the USA again. If i tell someone in Germany that a train moves at 80 mph, they'll shrug their shoulder and say "so what, that's just the same speed as i get on the Autobahn - when i drive slow".

The term "high speed" has a bit of a disconnect between Europe and America due to the difference in options.Talking about it being "high-speed" is a bit of a misnomer from a European perspective.

Yes, I mentioned that.

Why should the local 10pm news care about the option in Europe? Once again, "high speed" doesnt mean anything. You could have a high speed turtle race in which the turtles move at 5 times their regular speed.

Heres another way to put it. Talking about "high-speed" is a bit of a misnomer from an AIRLINE perspective. Whats 220mph when planes reach 550mph every day....?

jamesinclair wrote:"High speed" is relative. It's a subjective term.

Most americans are familiar with car speeds and have no idea at what speed trains move.

The highest speed limit for cars in the country is 80mph, but in most urban areas, speeds top out at 65mph.

So anything faster than that is "high speed" because the speed is indeed higher than the comparable surface transportation option.

Also, most people's experience with trains is waiting 5 minute while a freight train moving at 7mph crosses the street. I think if you tell someone that most amtrak trains reach 79mph they will be surprised and impressed. The general perception is that american trains are always slower than cars, which most people attribute to speed and not the route.

So with the perception that trains move at 30mph and cars max out at 65-80mph, I think it is perfectly reasonable to consider 90mph high speed and certainly 110mph.

It doesnt matter what China or France is doing, most americans will never ride those trains or take the time to read up on them. When using a subjective term you must always rely on what people know, not what exists.

What if the terms were
High speed = 90mph
Higher speed = 125 mph
Highest speed = 170mph.

Would the OP be upset about this?

No, I think the problem is just the opposite. They hear about Acela going 150 from Boston to Washington, and then wonder why they can't get between Boston and NYC or NYC and Washington in 2 hours. They don't understand that it doesn't really do 150mph most of the time. I'm not sure a lot of Americans really think about our rail network, and think that many tracks are not as active as they actually are, but I don't think that applies to the speed of trains.

On the other hand, they are looking at the newspaper and seeing articles about China and wondering "gee, why don't we have one of those, they look kinda cool".

And no, I would not be happy with that. If a Gennie and Bomb coaches can do it, it's not high speed anything. That's a commuter train, plain and simple. So that takes us to at least the 125 speed to call it high-speed, and I'm not even a fan of having toasters considered high speed. I love them toasters, but they just don't go that fast, even though technically they are.

I would say there should be three classes of high-speed (these seriously need better names though):

1. regular passenger train high-speed. It's a toaster and Amfleets with ATC on the appropriate track. They do 125.

2. mixed-use track true high-speed. It's Acela using ACSES, but on shared, mixed-used track.

3. modern high-speed. It runs mostly on an LGV, except for city terminal access at the major cities. It's top speed is 220, but it is likely limited to 125 on shared track since it wouldn't be tier II compliant.

george matthews wrote: It's a measure of how far the US has to catch up with other industrialised countries. Ten years ago I was slightly shocked by the low quality of the train I took from Bridgeport to Waterbury - third world, really; and the Shoreline East from New Haven to Old Saybrook was very old fashioned.

Really? I'm curious - old fashioned in what way? To be honest, I was surprised by the low quality of the train that runs through my brother's town over on your side of the pond! (He lives in Harrogate, which is served by tired old DMU trains - I believe Northern Rail is the operator.) Granted, that's a commuter line, and the parallel East Coast Mainline between York and Leeds is more indicative of the norm. (I also rode the Settle to Carlisle route, and while certainly scenic, the rolling stock is nothing spectacular.)

Really? I'm curious - old fashioned in what way? To be honest, I was surprised by the low quality of the train that runs through my brother's town over on your side of the pond! (He lives in Harrogate, which is served by tired old DMU trains - I believe Northern Rail is the operator.) Granted, that's a commuter line, and the parallel East Coast Mainline between York and Leeds is more indicative of the norm. (I also rode the Settle to Carlisle route, and while certainly scenic, the rolling stock is nothing spectacular.)

That's an area with Pacers. This was a train originally designed round a bus body in the 1970s, when someone in British Rail and someone else in British Leyland (a car and van manufacturer) thought it would be a good idea. They made far too many of them. I assume thyey were cheap. It seems impossible to scrap them and replace them. But the Waterbury train was really dirty. And SLE was pulled by a diesel under the wires with very old carriages. It was nasty in a quite different way to Pacers.

Pacers are quite rare now. I am only aware of their presence in Yorkshire and the south west.

george matthews wrote: But the Waterbury train was really dirty. And SLE was pulled by a diesel under the wires with very old carriages. It was nasty in a quite different way to Pacers.

I'll give you that SLE is terribly antiquated to be running diesel under the wire, and that is a big issue that they are trying to tackle by getting the M-8 cars, but the current cars on there are pretty darn nice for a commuter train.

GP40 6694 wrote:
I'll give you that SLE is terribly antiquated to be running diesel under the wire, and that is a big issue that they are trying to tackle by getting the M-8 cars, but the current cars on there are pretty darn nice for a commuter train.

Yeah, those ex-VRE cars have only been around for a few years. A decade ago, he probably rode the de-powered SPV2000 cars.

Matt Johnson wrote:

GP40 6694 wrote:
I'll give you that SLE is terribly antiquated to be running diesel under the wire, and that is a big issue that they are trying to tackle by getting the M-8 cars, but the current cars on there are pretty darn nice for a commuter train.

Yeah, those ex-VRE cars have only been around for a few years. A decade ago, he probably rode the de-powered SPV2000 cars.

Oh ok, I didn't catch that part. Quite true.

george matthews wrote:

Really? I'm curious - old fashioned in what way? To be honest, I was surprised by the low quality of the train that runs through my brother's town over on your side of the pond! (He lives in Harrogate, which is served by tired old DMU trains - I believe Northern Rail is the operator.) Granted, that's a commuter line, and the parallel East Coast Mainline between York and Leeds is more indicative of the norm. (I also rode the Settle to Carlisle route, and while certainly scenic, the rolling stock is nothing spectacular.)

That's an area with Pacers. This was a train originally designed round a bus body in the 1970s, when someone in British Rail and someone else in British Leyland (a car and van manufacturer) thought it would be a good idea. They made far too many of them. I assume thyey were cheap. It seems impossible to scrap them and replace them. But the Waterbury train was really dirty. And SLE was pulled by a diesel under the wires with very old carriages. It was nasty in a quite different way to Pacers.

Pacers are quite rare now. I am only aware of their presence in Yorkshire and the south west.

About 30 years ago, there was an attempt to export a couple of British railbuses to the United States. Needless to say, there represented a major safety risk as far as crossing gate accidents and weren't fit for service in North America.

British Railways tended to keep many lines open despite a lack of patronage, much in the same way that the New Haven did. Incidentally, the New Haven also experimented with bus bodies, albeit briefly. In both cases, such marginal passenger services should have been abandoned.

In recent years, the CDOT coaches aren't especially old or shabby and it doesn't make any sense to electrify low traffic density routes.

British Railways tended to keep many lines open despite a lack of patronage, much in the same way that the New Haven did. Incidentally, the New Haven also experimented with bus bodies, albeit briefly. In both cases, such marginal passenger services should have been abandoned.

In recent years, the CDOT coaches aren't especially old or shabby and it doesn't make any sense to electrify low traffic density routes.

The problem with the Pacers is that they are often very crowded - whenever I have seen them.

The Shoreline is an electrified route, served by diesels that don't move off it. That's bad practice.

The railbus concept wasnt because of low patronage , on the contrary it was to replace ageing dmu's at a low capital cost . they suffered gearbox problems in the beginning , but the 150 class dmu was quickly introduced when it was obvious the railbus couldnt keep up with the demand for seats . the 150 was based on the same car body as the sleeping cars now used in Canada ( albiet the mk3 not the mk4 , and was very successful .
you would have to measure the railbus against the old dmu's they replaced , less room , but noise and ride quality were similiar .
Anyway they ensured service continued when there wasnt alot of capital avaliable for replacement stock . (thatcher ) .

george matthews wrote: The Shoreline is an electrified route, served by diesels that don't move off it. That's bad practice.

Maybe they could acquire a few of NJ Transit's surplus ALP-44's.

the SLE trains do get off the shoreline, some trains make a round trip on MNCR waterbury branch.

[Maybe they could acquire a few of NJ Transit's surplus ALP-44's.]

no SLE does not need old NJT junk, even NJT says their engines need a $1 million overhaul on top of purchase price.

DutchRailnut wrote: no SLE does not need old NJT junk, even NJT says their engines need a $1 million overhaul on top of purchase price.

I think that's bs to justify buying the 46a's. The newer 44's only date back to 1997. The Arrow III's were last rebuilt in '93, and they're still going with no replacement on the horizon.

I am sure the chief mechanical officer at NJT had to justify his cost, a railroad board just does not spend millions just by making a statement.

george matthews wrote: The Shoreline is an electrified route, served by diesels that don't move off it. That's bad practice.

Well there was some talk about M8 EMUs equipped for AC. In any case, the service in question started as a temporary expedient during roadwork on I95.

As far as running diesels under the wires, it's a common practice, and not altogether inadvisable considering the cost and unreliability of imported European electric locomotives, compared to the durability and longevity of American diesel electrics.