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

goodnightjohnwayne wrote: 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.

hmm the European Electrics have been proven to function better than E-60 or those EMD morphedites

The SLE absolutely should have been electrified from day one of the electrification in 2000, but it still hasn't been.

Yes, it's very bad practice. The ALP-44's would be ideal, since they would be a lot cheaper than M8's and they would be able to operate to low-level platforms. Would make trains dreadfully boring to railfan on the corridor though.

still wonder why your not in charge of CDOT or MNCR ??

DutchRailnut wrote:still wonder why your not in charge of CDOT or MNCR ??

I'm too logical for the state bureaucracy. Doing what makes sense in a fiscally responsible way? Not compatible with the state of CT. Although the M8's on SLE wouldn't be nearly as bad as the $300K bathroom. At least the M8's are powerful, technologically advanced railcars. For that $300K, I would have equipped every station with luxurious blue plastic restrooms complete with hand sanitizer.

Trainer wrote:At the risk of getting political, it's because most of the media is desperate to support the current political administration and its programs, so they simply copy the press releases on these projects as if the specifics and terms used were factual.

I don't believe the media is simply copying press releases for political reasons, I believe they simply copy press releases because it is easy for them. "High Speed Rail" and what we call "Higher Speed Rail" are just filler until we get an update in the Natalie Holloway case or the investigation of some celebrity's death or other mishap.

Rip and read. No fact checking. No investigative reporting. Regardless of "politics".

justalurker66 wrote:

Trainer wrote:At the risk of getting political, it's because most of the media is desperate to support the current political administration and its programs, so they simply copy the press releases on these projects as if the specifics and terms used were factual.

I don't believe the media is simply copying press releases for political reasons, I believe they simply copy press releases because it is easy for them. "High Speed Rail" and what we call "Higher Speed Rail" are just filler until we get an update in the Natalie Holloway case or the investigation of some celebrity's death or other mishap.

Rip and read. No fact checking. No investigative reporting. Regardless of "politics".

In agreement. The mainstream press, as most of the forum already knows, is notoriously ignorant of basic railway technology (mirroring the general population as a whole), even more so regarding HSR as likely few stateside reporters or editors have ever seen, much less ridden, such conveyances. Actually, I find the WSJ reports among the most accurate regarding railway matters, but I think this is due more to its business-oriented nature rather than any political bent.

BTW: I forgot to reply to the topic!


I don't care what they call it as long as needed projects are funded. Most of the projects I'm interested in would not qualify as "HSR" in a purist's definition. They are "Higher Speed Rail" projects that get speeds of 79 today / 110 mph in a few years (maybe). Projects that ease rail congestion and perhaps provide a better route for trains. So call it what you wish ... just fund it.

I'm not sure about Chicago to Iowa - but Chicago to St Louis, to Milwaukee, to Detroit, to Toledo and Cleveland, to Indianapolis and Cincinnati. Getting trains in and out of Chicago itself. Unless one builds a new Union Station in Peotone the paths we can build today to make "higher speed rail" will serve as a building block to any future "high speed rail".

It's not driving me nuts. After 30 years of basically nonexistent investment in rail infrastructure from the Federal Government, we have a program that is about improving rail service and getting reliable (perhaps far more important than high speed) service on the ground and in many cases pushing top speeds above 100 mph.

Our family is distributed up and down the NEC, and we live in NC. Planes are fast but full of hassles and now, at the security gate, ridiculous indignities to provide the false image of security. 110 mph service between Charlotte, Raleigh and DC would be a major lifestyle amenity for us.

The trains in NC now are reliable, but not so much once traveling into VA. And they get a little faster every year. That's good.

justalurker66 wrote:BTW: I forgot to reply to the topic!


I don't care what they call it as long as needed projects are funded. Most of the projects I'm interested in would not qualify as "HSR" in a purist's definition. They are "Higher Speed Rail" projects that get speeds of 79 today / 110 mph in a few years (maybe). Projects that ease rail congestion and perhaps provide a better route for trains. So call it what you wish ... just fund it.

I'm not sure about Chicago to Iowa - but Chicago to St Louis, to Milwaukee, to Detroit, to Toledo and Cleveland, to Indianapolis and Cincinnati. Getting trains in and out of Chicago itself. Unless one builds a new Union Station in Peotone the paths we can build today to make "higher speed rail" will serve as a building block to any future "high speed rail".

I wouldn't disagree that 110mph trains are much better than 79mph trains, but at the same time, it seems like the country is tricking itself into thinking it is building a high-speed rail network, when, in reality, it is not. What this country needs is a system of true high-speed rail lines linking every major city. China is building theirs, France already has one, so why shouldn't we?

We should indeed, Of course Congress is going Republican and the New Speaker of the House from Ohio has said that He's against spending money for HSR, In China they have the second fastest Maglev around and It does 268mph(431Kph) and has run millions of passengers and millions of miles too, Yet some say It's unproven, Bah humbug I say, The Fastest Maglev in the world is in Japan and It goes 310mph(500Kph), Japan holds the record, Maglev I've read can go up to at least 500mph(804Kph) and at that speed Maglev can give an airliner a run for It's money, It means going from Los Angeles to Chicago and without the huge wait for security of about an hour or two or the wait at the other end orbiting an airport waiting Its turn to land, The train doesn't to do those, Plus any bomb snuck onboard would be too small to do any real damage as a train is at ground level and a bomb like that would depressurize an aircraft and would not have the same effect on a train, Sure It would do some sort of damage obviously, But that would be It. As to incremental, I'd rather not, We either commit to catching up in a hurry or We risk falling further and further behind here in the USA by staying exclusively with automobiles(used to called horseless carriages at one time), This country was built with trains, Autos came along later, But that's not to say that Autos don't have their place, It's just that over long distances their not much better than what Autos replaced and I don't mean the train, I mean the horse and buggy. If We want true HSR We need a permanent funding source for Passenger rail, HSR and local transit and We must dream big, Trains are the roots of our modern transportation system, Here in California, We want HSR and We are going to build the rail line for the first segments rails which will start in Borden and end at Corcoran with a station in Fresno and one in Hanford too in about one years time(I don't know the exact time as I've only read announcements and such), If DOT Grant money from Ohio and Wisconsin were redirected to California, The tracks/rails would be extended into Bakersfield and I think they'd have a 3rd station too, which would be about 85 miles of rail line, The Borden-Corcoran segment is 65 miles of course. but then this and more is mentioned on the California HSR Blog which is located Here. The segment has money($150 million) set aside to connect up to the BNSF just in case HSR is never built so that at least the Amtrak San Joaquin can move at increased speed. Trains keep us down in safe air, Airliners fly up where there's less atmosphere and hence less protection from the Suns solar radiation. Also True HSR needs to be Electric and We need to do what France did, They went Nuclear and so 80% of their energy comes from Nuclear and 20% from other sources, With very little coming from middle eastern oil, If the US Navy can do Nuclear safely for years without any accidents, then So should We civilians.

Welcome to the board, Zoom. Before everyone gets started in politely responding to your post, a few tips. Please don't take these the wrong way; what flys on another discussion board may not work here:

1. Find the period key. That is one amazingly long run-on sentence.
2. Find the return key. It will make it easier to follow your post and for others to respond.

I would respond to one point in your post: while I see your point about a train being on the ground, where there is some chance of survivial from a terrorist attack, versus in the air, where there is an infinitesimal chance of survival, you might want to consider what a well-placed bomb did in Madrid, and the terror sowed by the London Tube bombings. Combine that with the Maglev technology you discuss, that type of attack at hundreds of MPH would likely be VERY devastating.

Again, welcome to the board.

GP40 6694 wrote:I wouldn't disagree that 110mph trains are much better than 79mph trains, but at the same time, it seems like the country is tricking itself into thinking it is building a high-speed rail network, when, in reality, it is not. What this country needs is a system of true high-speed rail lines linking every major city. China is building theirs, France already has one, so why shouldn't we?

It seems as if California, Florida, Texas and the ambitious Amtrak NEC plan are the only true high speed rail lines, the last 2 of which of course haven't been funded. Now, there are questions as to whether the Tampa-Orlando line will be built. The other projects are of the incremental approach such as those in the Midwest(Chicago-St Louis, Indiana).

morris&essex4ever wrote:

GP40 6694 wrote:I wouldn't disagree that 110mph trains are much better than 79mph trains, but at the same time, it seems like the country is tricking itself into thinking it is building a high-speed rail network, when, in reality, it is not. What this country needs is a system of true high-speed rail lines linking every major city. China is building theirs, France already has one, so why shouldn't we?

It seems as if California, Florida, Texas and the ambitious Amtrak NEC plan are the only true high speed rail lines, the last 2 of which of course haven't been funded. Now, there are questions as to whether the Tampa-Orlando line will be built. The other projects are of the incremental approach such as those in the Midwest(Chicago-St Louis, Indiana).

True, but those are individual corridors, not a nationwide network of high-speed trains that can interconnect to provide a realistic alternative to air and highway travel across at least the eastern part of the country.

zoom314 wrote:... or the wait at the other end orbiting an airport waiting Its turn to land, The train doesn't to do those.

Interesting that Train 29 from DC to Rockville MD is 24 minutes and Train 30 from Rockville to DC is an hour. While not "orbiting" there is a lengthy delay waiting for an open track so the train can reach it's final destination. If the train does not arrive in it's scheduled window, that delay can be even more lengthy.

How many miles of a "true" HSR line from Chicago to New York or LA (or both ways) could be built for each mile of "higher speed rail" service currently being funded? Enough to make useful system or just enough to save riders a couple of minutes?

I'd rather have "Higher Speed Rail" from Chicago to Cleveland than "true" HSR from Chicago to the Indiana State Line (although improving access to Chicago will help improve access for long distance trains).

justalurker66 wrote:

zoom314 wrote:... or the wait at the other end orbiting an airport waiting Its turn to land, The train doesn't to do those.

Interesting that Train 29 from DC to Rockville MD is 24 minutes and Train 30 from Rockville to DC is an hour. While not "orbiting" there is a lengthy delay waiting for an open track so the train can reach it's final destination. If the train does not arrive in it's scheduled window, that delay can be even more lengthy.

How many miles of a "true" HSR line from Chicago to New York or LA (or both ways) could be built for each mile of "higher speed rail" service currently being funded? Enough to make useful system or just enough to save riders a couple of minutes?

I'd rather have "Higher Speed Rail" from Chicago to Cleveland than "true" HSR from Chicago to the Indiana State Line (although improving access to Chicago will help improve access for long distance trains).

Ok, It's not like I've had any time on a passenger train, So I didn't know about the 29 vs 30 trains.

I think 220Mph is much better than 110Mph, You aim high, Not low, Amtrak is already capable of 79Mph now, So 110Mph isn't much of an improvement and since the money can be recalled at the whim of another party out of spite, Then Why bother with 110Mph? If You want a Waste of Money, go for Incremental, Oh thats right, Emulate the NEC as up until now that is exactly what Amtrak has been forced to do and that just doesn't produce results. Incremental also does not work in Europe as they found out already, Older upgraded rail lines weren't designed with higher speeds in mind, Just lower speeds. I think You might mean hours or days, 79Mph from LA to Chicago is going to take almost two days, To get there in hours It would take nearer to 500Mph and that requires either Maglev or very advanced HSR, And Maglev is being researched in Japan.

Well going from Chicago to LA would have to be at or very near airliner speeds, Which would mean Maglev. Of course in Japan their doing research on bringing down the cost of maglev, There was a proposed Maglev from Baltimore to Washington DC which would be from a Japanese railway company(JR central maybe).

Amtrak takes 1 Day and 19 hours to go from Los Angeles to Chicago according to Google Maps right now and that's at around 79Mph, It's doubtful that passenger rail will go much faster on current rails as the rails have no super elevated curves like they used to once upon a time, As the railroads have all flattened the curves years ago for Freight hauling, So a New line would be better and while Yer at It, Build It like an Interstate, With money from the Gas Tax, Of course the Gas Tax hasn't had an increase in years for inflation and the fact that cars are now a lot more fuel efficient than they were back in the 90's and that people bought lots of cars that get good to great gas mileage. Maglev could use the freeway corridors as It can climb grades as high as 10% I've read, Normal Trains have trouble with grades above 3% I think. Oh and Freeways, Highways & Roads are subsidized as are Airports, So why not HSR? Campaign Money from some who would rather have things stay the same way, Plus a few narrow minded politicians, Need I say more?