Hey all,
I’ve developed an odd fascination with trains lately and after I discovered a cool new map plotting tool from Google, I couldn't help but dream up a midwest HSR network. My goal was to be as efficient and realistic as possible, only planning routes that would be viable in the real world. I used existing plans from the Obama HSR initiative and then modified and expanded based on my own research into the populations of the metropolitan areas throughout the region and the implementation of HSR in countries like France, Germany and Sweden.
I took my lead from Europe in terms of how viability would be defined. For example, some HSR lines would be such an attractive alternative to flying that they would capture the majority of the total air+rail market and could actually be cash cows for the network. Other routes might not currently be viable for full HSR, and might not even be able to recoup their capital costs even using a slower and cheaper “higher speed rail” solution on mostly legacy track, but are justified nonetheless because from a relatively low startup cost they can develop the market and can be iteratively improved with new tracks and grade crossings piece by piece to be faster. As they get faster, and as people and the regional economies begin to adapt to the availability of HSR, they will become profitable. After the market matures they would be an easy conversion over to full HSR.
I imagined that this HSR Network would form the backbone of a regional rail network, so connections to cities that would likely be popular Regional Express service hubs were given a slight "bonus" that might push them over the edge into being granted an HSR stop even if its metro population was of borderline size.
I imagined 3 tiers of high speed service, modeled after Germany
The highest tier, Intercity Express (ICE), denoted in red, would be full 220mph max speed rail on mostly purpose-built dedicated lines with full grade separation.
Intercity Lines (ICL), denoted in purple, would be 130mph max speed tilting trains designed to make the most out of a mix of legacy and purpose built track, contending with a manageable amount of slower traffic.
Interregional Express (IRE), denoted in blue, would also be tilting trains, possibly the same models maxing out at 130mph, but would generally be a lower-investment and slower speed service with average speeds somewhere between ICL and Regional Express lines. As in Germany, the distinction between ICL and IRE is blurry, but in general IRE has some combination of (1) a greater frequency of stops, (2) a greater proportion of legacy track and at-grade crossings, (3) more slower-speed traffic on the line, and (4) a ridership pattern that is more compatible with a distance based regional fare system versus a revenue management based intercity fare system.
The routes that I'm most conflicted about are the Illinois and Indiana IRE lines. My reasoning for including them is that (1) Peoria, Champaign-Urbana, and Fort Wayne, are all populous enough to warrant a connection to HSR and I would have definitely included stops at them had they fallen on any of the other routes, (2) I already knew that a high speed spur from Battle Creek through MI state capitol Lansing and sizable metro area Flint was warranted to connect those cities to their west, and (3) the connections the Illinois and Indiana Lines make improve the viability of travel between southern Illinois / Missouri and Indiana / Ohio. Even covering those motives, the lines might only have run from Peoria through Indianapolis to Fort Wayne, but it seemed logical at the time to connect them to the nearby lines rather than leave them in dead ends. I'm thinking that the whole "partial circle line" that they form might not be viable.
The luckiest city on my map is Angola, IN. Population under 20,000 but it manages to lie directly on the intersection of 2 lines.
I really know nothing about trains and I would appreciate any feedback on the viability and value of this plan. I'm not considering the sad state of passenger rail regulation and infrastructure investment in this country, those are huge artificial barriers that could be fixed with a little political will. I'm thinking more along the lines of, "if we had the rail regulations and infrastructure investment levels of, say, Sweden, which is an unbelievable case of proving profitability of HSR lines through hundreds of miles of sparsely populated land, would my proposal make any sense?"
I’ve developed an odd fascination with trains lately and after I discovered a cool new map plotting tool from Google, I couldn't help but dream up a midwest HSR network. My goal was to be as efficient and realistic as possible, only planning routes that would be viable in the real world. I used existing plans from the Obama HSR initiative and then modified and expanded based on my own research into the populations of the metropolitan areas throughout the region and the implementation of HSR in countries like France, Germany and Sweden.
I took my lead from Europe in terms of how viability would be defined. For example, some HSR lines would be such an attractive alternative to flying that they would capture the majority of the total air+rail market and could actually be cash cows for the network. Other routes might not currently be viable for full HSR, and might not even be able to recoup their capital costs even using a slower and cheaper “higher speed rail” solution on mostly legacy track, but are justified nonetheless because from a relatively low startup cost they can develop the market and can be iteratively improved with new tracks and grade crossings piece by piece to be faster. As they get faster, and as people and the regional economies begin to adapt to the availability of HSR, they will become profitable. After the market matures they would be an easy conversion over to full HSR.
I imagined that this HSR Network would form the backbone of a regional rail network, so connections to cities that would likely be popular Regional Express service hubs were given a slight "bonus" that might push them over the edge into being granted an HSR stop even if its metro population was of borderline size.
I imagined 3 tiers of high speed service, modeled after Germany
The highest tier, Intercity Express (ICE), denoted in red, would be full 220mph max speed rail on mostly purpose-built dedicated lines with full grade separation.
Intercity Lines (ICL), denoted in purple, would be 130mph max speed tilting trains designed to make the most out of a mix of legacy and purpose built track, contending with a manageable amount of slower traffic.
Interregional Express (IRE), denoted in blue, would also be tilting trains, possibly the same models maxing out at 130mph, but would generally be a lower-investment and slower speed service with average speeds somewhere between ICL and Regional Express lines. As in Germany, the distinction between ICL and IRE is blurry, but in general IRE has some combination of (1) a greater frequency of stops, (2) a greater proportion of legacy track and at-grade crossings, (3) more slower-speed traffic on the line, and (4) a ridership pattern that is more compatible with a distance based regional fare system versus a revenue management based intercity fare system.
The routes that I'm most conflicted about are the Illinois and Indiana IRE lines. My reasoning for including them is that (1) Peoria, Champaign-Urbana, and Fort Wayne, are all populous enough to warrant a connection to HSR and I would have definitely included stops at them had they fallen on any of the other routes, (2) I already knew that a high speed spur from Battle Creek through MI state capitol Lansing and sizable metro area Flint was warranted to connect those cities to their west, and (3) the connections the Illinois and Indiana Lines make improve the viability of travel between southern Illinois / Missouri and Indiana / Ohio. Even covering those motives, the lines might only have run from Peoria through Indianapolis to Fort Wayne, but it seemed logical at the time to connect them to the nearby lines rather than leave them in dead ends. I'm thinking that the whole "partial circle line" that they form might not be viable.
The luckiest city on my map is Angola, IN. Population under 20,000 but it manages to lie directly on the intersection of 2 lines.
I really know nothing about trains and I would appreciate any feedback on the viability and value of this plan. I'm not considering the sad state of passenger rail regulation and infrastructure investment in this country, those are huge artificial barriers that could be fixed with a little political will. I'm thinking more along the lines of, "if we had the rail regulations and infrastructure investment levels of, say, Sweden, which is an unbelievable case of proving profitability of HSR lines through hundreds of miles of sparsely populated land, would my proposal make any sense?"