New York-Chicago

mikeydc03 wrote:

As the High Speed Rail buzz continues around the United States, has anything really started to happen?

In this case, Amtrak connecting Chicago-New York via Higher Speed rail seems to grow more feasible with government funding. Keep in mind that this is not a non-stop connecting only one end point train. The train greatly reduces the travel time to New York from Chicago, and ultimately 4-8 trains a day would run from Chicago to New York, but that is not the only service to be operated on the route.

Again, this would appear to be a case of big dreams running up against hard reality. With last winter's enthusiasm for the new Administration rapidly unraveling, and the health-care impasse serving as a constant reminder of what can happen when partisan politics enters the fray, I would not look for any major movement on HSR development at the Federal level.

The economic stagnation also appears to be worsening; the root causes seem to be more readily identified with international issues/global competition which will be difficult to address, and as was demonstrated back in 2008, any substantial recovery will likely bring a resurgence in the price of petroleum, an automatic damper on any serious growth.

So with some of the strongest deterrents readily identified, how do we proceed? My suggestion would be to concentrate the efforts in those states where redevelopment of conventional rail service has been underway the longest --- New Jersey, California and, to a lesser extent, Illinois. Two of those states are proven "end points" for a larger system, but no one knows how much money, effort and, above all, time ---- would be needed to fill in the gaps.

The idea here is that any addditional funding is more likely to be directed toward actual improvements, rather than the usual "initialization" activities --- studies which are often subject to political interference and the usual nepotism. If adjoining states have a sincere interest, form a joint venture, but make it clear that the expertise of the senior partner will be used, rather than duplicating a previous effort or, worse still, trying out an untested approach.

If, as appears increasingly likely, we must develop a larger, rail-based system primarily for reasons of energy efficiency rather than borrowing one developed for the societal structure of the Old World, then it would appear that restoring and, where possible, expanding suburban and exurban systems in those areas where they previously existed would pay the largest dividends, in the shortest amount of time, and with the smallest risk of (albeit public-sector) capital.

Now more than ever, we need to get the biggest (potential) "bang" for the smallest amount of bucks.

"Pioneering Don't Pay" (Henry Ford)

The goal would be to have a train with high reliability (at least 90% on-time performance) that can leave one end maybe an hour after the normal workday ends (so around 6-ish) and then get to the other end at around 7-8:30 AM the next day. It'd be very easy to price the trip below the hotel+airfare cost for the specific city pair in question since New York and Chicago both have very few cheap hotels downtown, especially once you're trying to book less than 3 weeks in advance. You'd need to be able to sell a roomette at no more than around $300 each way (which is a savings compared with a $200 each way plane ticket and a $150/night hotel room). Notice that in order to do this you'd be talking about a 13-14 hour trip time, which is within striking distance even without electrification and/or major track work.

If you want a 14-hour trip time, you would need an average speed of about 65 mph, and if you want a 12-hour trip time you need an average speed of 77 mph. Both of those are at least 10 MPH lower than the average speed for Acela, and I know that several current corridor routes have average speeds just shy of 60 MPH despite having no sections of track with a max speed greater than 79 mph (Hiawatha and Saluki both are at about 59 mph). So just getting down to 14 hours for CHI-NYC only requires maybe 200 miles of 90 mph track. As I see it, upgrading the NS Chicago Line from Chicago to Cleveland for 110 MPH passenger use would basically be the only track work you need for a 14-hour NYC-Chicago passenger train.

You'd need to have an aggressive ad campaign targeted at businesses and business travelers, and that would be a challenge for Amtrak, which just recently seems to have begun targeting the leisure market more (at least outside the NEC). And the big capital cost for the line would actually be rolling stock; you'd need a new sleeper car with more roommettes, as I see it you could adapt the Viewliner for use on the line with the following (admittedly heavy) modifications:
1. 200 mph capable (so that if you upgrade the line the rolling stock can stay)
2. closed passages between cars (like the Acela).
3. A modified sleeper layout with all roomettes.
4. A coach car with 40-45 inch seat pitch.
5. Another modified sleeper layout with all bedrooms.
6. A dining car and a lounge car.

As I see it, you would operate the trains push-pull with the following layout:
Engine--Baggage--Roomette--Roomette--Roomette--Full bedroom--Dining car--Lounge car--Coach car--Coach car--Coach car--Engine

Essentially you'd be taking a Viewliner shell with a few modifications near the ends (so the middle 80 feet of the shell goes essentially unchanged), redesigned trucks, shocks, and suspension, and a redesigned interior. If you wanted to save money, you could have only the roomettes, bedroom, dining car and lounge car be semi-permanently coupled, with the coach cars being Amfleets or a "Viewliner III" coach with the only changes being a new set of wheels (for 150+ mph service) and coach seating. If you can get the round-trip time down to 14 hours, you only need 4 trainsets for once-daily service. That comes out to 40 train cars and 8 engines, and at least initially you could either use P42s or HHP-8's with an engine swap at Harrisburg (though that would chew up some time, it would also be a good spot for a crew change). So really the minimum cost of a 14-hour CHI-NYC train is no more than $3 billion in track work, 24 redesigned viewliners (roomettes, bedroom, diner, and lounge cars), and reallocating about 20 cars which Amtrak may or may not have (depending on whether you pick a Viewliner-based coach or amfleets), and I'd say the total cost would be no more than $3.5 billion, which isn't so bad.

If you can get the round-trip time down to 14 hours, you only need 4 trainsets for once-daily service.

Why do you need 4 sets unless you are provisioning for maintenance? The set that would arrive in NYC in the morning can be turned back to Chicago for the evening run - hence only 2 sets are required along with some spare equipment on both ends to cover maintenance/break-down swaps.

youd be looking at more than one train a day though to make it worthwhile .
When the british hsts were introduced in the SEVENTIES , some of them were on 20 hour diagrams , and clocking up 1/2 a million miles a year ( not to sure on that fiqure i thought it was a million miles a year , but that would have them averaging 114 mph 24 hours a day ) . anyway the point is , you dont have one fast train a day , thats not going to attract much custom , and its not going to go anywhere near paying for the costs of the improvements .

David Benton wrote:youd be looking at more than one train a day though to make it worthwhile .
When the british hsts were introduced in the SEVENTIES , some of them were on 20 hour diagrams , and clocking up 1/2 a million miles a year ( not to sure on that fiqure i thought it was a million miles a year , but that would have them averaging 114 mph 24 hours a day ) . anyway the point is , you dont have one fast train a day , thats not going to attract much custom , and its not going to go anywhere near paying for the costs of the improvements .

The goal isn't to pay the costs of the capital programs; I know for a fact neither the Interstate nor the airlines have made enough profit over the course of their respective existences to make up those costs on top of operating costs.

I think that when you're talking about a 12- to 14- hour trip time, it makes little sense to operate day trains. That said, I do see the logic behind running several evening departures; maybe you could have a 6 PM train, a 7 PM train, and a 9 PM train to allow more flexibility and capacity. Once trip time is down to 10 hours I could see maybe 1 day train with a schedule opposing the sleeper trains.

well your looking at endpoint to endpoint only . there are several city pairs inbetween .

David Benton wrote:well your looking at endpoint to endpoint only . there are several city pairs inbetween .

Obviously you'd have day trains operating the shorter city-pairs (Chicago-Cleveland, New York-Pittbsurgh, and Cleveland-Pittsburgh being the three biggest of these). The goal of the sleeper train would be to capture a decent share of the New York City-Chicago travel market. Presumably corridor trains would be emphasizing shorter corridors; the sleeper train would mainly supplement those trains and compete with autos, buses, and airlines (the latter to a rather limited extent).

With increased average speeds to 70mph+ or so, viable day routes could include CHI-CLE-PIT, and CIN-COL-CLE (connecting CLE east/west) to either the night NY-CHI or CHI-WAS trains, or to the day trains. Were it still possible, without a reverse move in Detroit, CHI-DET-TOL or CHI-DET-TOL-CLE could work.

David Benton wrote:youd be looking at more than one train a day though to make it worthwhile .
When the british hsts were introduced in the SEVENTIES , some of them were on 20 hour diagrams , and clocking up 1/2 a million miles a year ( not to sure on that fiqure i thought it was a million miles a year , but that would have them averaging 114 mph 24 hours a day ) . anyway the point is , you dont have one fast train a day , thats not going to attract much custom , and its not going to go anywhere near paying for the costs of the improvements .

They paid for themselves by a huge increase in passenger miles. Indeed, they saved the whole long distance market by increasing speed, reducing time that is.

The French have hundreds of TGV sets.

Once there are many fast trains a day between any two points the market will appear.

FRN9 wrote:I really don't see the attraction for sleeper service when flights are so cheap.
.

I'm going Chicago to Buffalo on Friday. I got last bedroom on the train. And that was days ago. Plus this is the off season. The sleeper space has been sold out for days.

PassRailSavesFuel wrote:

FRN9 wrote:I really don't see the attraction for sleeper service when flights are so cheap.
.

I'm going Chicago to Buffalo on Friday. I got last bedroom on the train. And that was days ago. Plus this is the off season. The sleeper space has been sold out for days.

I guess the question I have is how many bedrooms per day are sold versus how many seats on flights from Buffalo to Chicago. I am sure there is a market for a select group of people that like this service, but it would be akin to the number of people who would want to take overnight trains from Paris to Marseilles vs. a TGV train.

So what I think we can agree on is the Amtrak's current trains from Chicago to NY are pretty booked almost all of the time. What Amtrak needs to do is add a second daily freqency, adding one more trainset and decreasing turn around times would allow this train to be operated successfully. Run the train 12 hours off the origonal train, or slide it a bit to make convenient arrival and departure times, but run it for 6 months, see if ridership increases, if both trains run full, add another train 6 hours between the two trains, and then 6 months later add another train 6 hours after the 12 hour trains. So essentially this route will see a train every 6 hours. The bookings will contiune to come in because service on this route is in demand.

This is how highspeed rail started in Europe, it didn't happen overnight like people here want it to. As the demand manifests, higher speed projects will come on line getting the average speed up to 75mph. As the higher speed comes online, more demand will arrive, and more trains will need to be added along the route, and then the faster the trains the more demand. This will get us to the 200mph service in about 10 years, which is faster than Europe got there, but it's a phase in method that will make the costs more bearable. All the while trains will be generating revenue on the route while construction goes on.

mikeydc03 wrote:This is how highspeed rail started in Europe, it didn't happen overnight like people here want it to. As the demand manifests, higher speed projects will come on line getting the average speed up to 75mph. As the higher speed comes online, more demand will arrive, and more trains will need to be added along the route, and then the faster the trains the more demand. This will get us to the 200mph service in about 10 years, which is faster than Europe got there, but it's a phase in method that will make the costs more bearable. All the while trains will be generating revenue on the route while construction goes on.

That's also the case for HSR lines -- they've been gradually built out.

There's now almost continuous high-speed-rail line between Malaga, Spain and London, about 2700 km / 1700 mi (Google Maps highway distance); the remaining big gap is Avignon - Barcelona. But there was never any big master plan to connect Malaga and London; it grew out of lines between relatively nearby cities.

Likewise, a NYC-Chicago high-speed line would likely grow out of lines west from NYC and east from Chicago.

But there was never any big master plan to connect Malaga and London; it grew out of lines between relatively nearby cities.

There are such plans. The European Union has guidelines for creating a high speed network uniting all member states (not Malta and Cyprus, of course).
I am too idle to look for links but search the EU official web sites. Look for the European Railway Agency.
Try this: http://ec.europa.eu/transport/rail/index_en.htm

It all seems pretty straight foward.

Chicago to cleveland could be made to the highest tgv specs possible. And same with philly to Pittsburg. Then it's simple to connect Philly to Cleveland. Tightening up NYC to philly to make it more tgv friendly could be harder.

The one thing to remember is that AGV technology is 225mph today, but it could be 325mph in 10 years, while Airplanes won't speed up from 550mph. So NYC to Chicago by train could be faster than flying someday.