New York-Chicago

FRN9 wrote: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.

I highly doubt we're going to be able to make steel wheel trains 325 mph; the friction forces, air resistance, etc. start to get crazy. The AGV test they did at 574 km/h was on highly specialized tracks, and even then there was a ton of arcing electricity. Reliability using overhead wires begins to fall off once you start getting past 225-250 MPH since the wiring and the catenary begin to just grind each other down.

I don't think Maglev has much of a future either since it has very limited freight applications, insanely high costs, and can't be used in combination with other technology. I think we need to look into a mixed option for NYC to Chicago since a lot of sections of the line are simply too costly to expand today. I would like to see two dedicated HSR tracks from Chicago-Cleveland built to 225 mph standards, which you can build adjacent to much of the current ROW, then you switch over to the current tracks (which you would install overhead wires over) from Cleveland to Pittsburgh, and similar for Pittsburgh to Harrisburg (rebuilding the 4th track that the PRR used to have there). The idea is that you have trains going 225 MPH in areas where it's easiest to upgrade and that balances things out.

The New York-Philadelphia section could be upgraded to probably 150 or even 175 MPH simply by upgrading catenaries. For that section, the "the NEC is too curvy for true HSR" argument is basically false. That argument is only really true for the areas north of NYC and a few bits south of Philadelphia. The biggest barriers to running trains at 150 mph or more in that section are:
1. Failure to develop alternate freight corridors and/or operating options - there are several suitable lines that could be used by freight trains besides the NEC. Alternatively, you could run freight trains only during certain hours such as only at late night so you have only passenger trains on the line during peak hours. Since functionally it would be a dedicated passenger line, trains running during those times of the day where freight trains were outright banned could go at speeds in excess of 150 MPH.

2. No dedicated HSR track. Regional trains are usually on the middle two tracks, which slows down Acela trains. Granted, the Regionals often use the outside tracks when there aren't commuter trains, if you can add more crossovers or even add a 5th or 6th track for some sections (difficult but not impossible for a few 1-3 mile stretches) you could easily end up with two dedicated HSR tracks. This could also be done by upgrading all Amtrak trains to be 150+ mph-capable and adding center platforms at the stations they use. Or even by adding Acela service, eliminating Regional trains outright, and then coordinating with commuter lines for local stops ("code-sharing" with SEPTA, NJT, and MARC).

3. Complacency on the part of Amtrak. Acela is only a few minutes faster on the DC-NYC section than the old Metroliners, and it's quite possible to upgrade the line to be capable of handling 225-MPH trains with minimal work. The issue is that Amtrak doesn't seem to want to go out and ask for any funding for it, despite the fact that it would be perfectly reasonable and justifiable.

As for the Philadelphia to Harrisburg section, at least some of the same things apply. I'm very disappointed that Amtrak hasn't tried to expand its code-share with Continental to include Harrisburg, since it would be essentially a perfect test case for the type of niche Amtrak can really excel in; replacing regional airlines by connecting major airline hubs to smaller regional airports that receive some limited airline service. Also, there are definitely at least a few sections that could be upgraded for much higher speeds. 125 MPH is a start, but I think they need to start talking about whether more can be done.

Finally, Pittsburgh to Philadelphia is a pretty big mess in terms of speed increases, but I don't think it would be impossible to bring large chunks of it up to at least interstate speeds. Or they could try and build passenger only tunnels that bypass some of the biggest curves.

drewh wrote:

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.

I want at least two daily round-trips. 4 trainsets gives you spares early on but allows expansion.

george matthews wrote:

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

But those plans emerged much later. The TGV had been operating for just over a decade when the EU was formed in 1993, Spain had recently opened its first HSR line, and several other countries were getting in. The plans revolve around trying to unify existing systems that are already either unified or close to it anyways.

But those plans emerged much later. The TGV had been operating for just over a decade when the EU was formed in 1993, Spain had recently opened its first HSR line, and several other countries were getting in. The plans revolve around trying to unify existing systems that are already either unified or close to it anyways.

The Trans-Europe Express network began in the 1950s. I remember it being featured at the 1958 Brussels Exposition/Tentoonstelling. That consisted of fast trains at a premium price for business travellers, many of them across frontiers. The current state of the networks is an evolution of that network. Of course 1950s fast trains were only one or two a day, and the speed was made in the traditional way by clearing the track ahead, just as the 1930s Flying Scotsman had been achieved. Nevertheless, the idea of a fast network was there from that time.
The European Community began in 1956 with the Treaty of Rome.

Batman2 wrote:

FRN9 wrote: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.

I highly doubt we're going to be able to make steel wheel trains 325 mph; the friction forces, air resistance, etc. start to get crazy. The AGV test they did at 574 km/h was on highly specialized tracks, and even then there was a ton of arcing electricity. Reliability using overhead wires begins to fall off once you start getting past 225-250 MPH since the wiring and the catenary begin to just grind each other down.

I don't think Maglev has much of a future either since it has very limited freight applications, insanely high costs, and can't be used in combination with other technology. I think we need to look into a mixed option for NYC to Chicago since a lot of sections of the line are simply too costly to expand today. I would like to see two dedicated HSR tracks from Chicago-Cleveland built to 225 mph standards, which you can build adjacent to much of the current ROW, then you switch over to the current tracks (which you would install overhead wires over) from Cleveland to Pittsburgh, and similar for Pittsburgh to Harrisburg (rebuilding the 4th track that the PRR used to have there). The idea is that you have trains going 225 MPH in areas where it's easiest to upgrade and that balances things out.

The New York-Philadelphia section could be upgraded to probably 150 or even 175 MPH simply by upgrading catenaries. For that section, the "the NEC is too curvy for true HSR" argument is basically false. That argument is only really true for the areas north of NYC and a few bits south of Philadelphia. The biggest barriers to running trains at 150 mph or more in that section are:
1. Failure to develop alternate freight corridors and/or operating options - there are several suitable lines that could be used by freight trains besides the NEC. Alternatively, you could run freight trains only during certain hours such as only at late night so you have only passenger trains on the line during peak hours. Since functionally it would be a dedicated passenger line, trains running during those times of the day where freight trains were outright banned could go at speeds in excess of 150 MPH.

2. No dedicated HSR track. Regional trains are usually on the middle two tracks, which slows down Acela trains. Granted, the Regionals often use the outside tracks when there aren't commuter trains, if you can add more crossovers or even add a 5th or 6th track for some sections (difficult but not impossible for a few 1-3 mile stretches) you could easily end up with two dedicated HSR tracks. This could also be done by upgrading all Amtrak trains to be 150+ mph-capable and adding center platforms at the stations they use. Or even by adding Acela service, eliminating Regional trains outright, and then coordinating with commuter lines for local stops ("code-sharing" with SEPTA, NJT, and MARC).

3. Complacency on the part of Amtrak. Acela is only a few minutes faster on the DC-NYC section than the old Metroliners, and it's quite possible to upgrade the line to be capable of handling 225-MPH trains with minimal work. The issue is that Amtrak doesn't seem to want to go out and ask for any funding for it, despite the fact that it would be perfectly reasonable and justifiable.

As for the Philadelphia to Harrisburg section, at least some of the same things apply. I'm very disappointed that Amtrak hasn't tried to expand its code-share with Continental to include Harrisburg, since it would be essentially a perfect test case for the type of niche Amtrak can really excel in; replacing regional airlines by connecting major airline hubs to smaller regional airports that receive some limited airline service. Also, there are definitely at least a few sections that could be upgraded for much higher speeds. 125 MPH is a start, but I think they need to start talking about whether more can be done.

Finally, Pittsburgh to Philadelphia is a pretty big mess in terms of speed increases, but I don't think it would be impossible to bring large chunks of it up to at least interstate speeds. Or they could try and build passenger only tunnels that bypass some of the biggest curves.

http://www.zefiro.bombardier.com/
this train is capable of 380 km/h (238 mph).
i would like to see this train on this route.

I wonder if it is possible to find a conductible metal that would not grind down as much at very high speeds. Being able to reach 300MPH could radically change the value offering for rail for distances under 1000 miles.

Fan Railer wrote: http://www.zefiro.bombardier.com/
this train is capable of 380 km/h (238 mph).
i would like to see this train on this route.

Yeah, now let's see it reach production. Skepticism about Bombardier aside, if you have a train that can get up to 240 mph, then that would be a revolutionary change for the NY-CHI route; even if you only reached 240 MPH for that section of the route, and only then got the average speed for it up to 200 MPH, you're still talking about 70 minutes. If half the route were operated at an average speed of 200 mph, the average speed for the rest of the route could still be 46 MPH and the total trip time would be 12 hours. So if you literally had half a high-speed line and the rest as it is now (maybe even slightly worse), you're still talking about something that could definitely gain something like 5-10% market share (mainly by capturing auto travel and leisure trips).

Although the Zefiro is a concept that will likely die for lack of buyers, if it did somehow succeed, and if the entire US government suddenly said "hey, this whole anti-rail policy was just an elaborately planned practical joke on the railroad people, here's $30 billion for true HSR between Chicago and New York. Also, feel free to talk to the states about funding tunnels and other stuff, we'll make sure to match funding." and we had a true HSR line between NYC and CHI, the Zefiro would allow an average speed of something like 225 mph for a non-stop train (maybe you'd run one or two daily non-stop trains geared at business travelers). Such a line would likely be something like 50-75 miles shorter than the current route, meaning a 850-875 mile route that a 225-MPH train could cover in under 4 hours. That would basically kill the airline market, since it would be a comparable price service with, to some extent, better travel time.

Batman2 wrote:

Fan Railer wrote: http://www.zefiro.bombardier.com/
this train is capable of 380 km/h (238 mph).
i would like to see this train on this route.

Yeah, now let's see it reach production. Skepticism about Bombardier aside, if you have a train that can get up to 240 mph, then that would be a revolutionary change for the NY-CHI route; even if you only reached 240 MPH for that section of the route, and only then got the average speed for it up to 200 MPH, you're still talking about 70 minutes. If half the route were operated at an average speed of 200 mph, the average speed for the rest of the route could still be 46 MPH and the total trip time would be 12 hours. So if you literally had half a high-speed line and the rest as it is now (maybe even slightly worse), you're still talking about something that could definitely gain something like 5-10% market share (mainly by capturing auto travel and leisure trips).

Although the Zefiro is a concept that will likely die for lack of buyers, if it did somehow succeed, and if the entire US government suddenly said "hey, this whole anti-rail policy was just an elaborately planned practical joke on the railroad people, here's $30 billion for true HSR between Chicago and New York. Also, feel free to talk to the states about funding tunnels and other stuff, we'll make sure to match funding." and we had a true HSR line between NYC and CHI, the Zefiro would allow an average speed of something like 225 mph for a non-stop train (maybe you'd run one or two daily non-stop trains geared at business travelers). Such a line would likely be something like 50-75 miles shorter than the current route, meaning a 850-875 mile route that a 225-MPH train could cover in under 4 hours. That would basically kill the airline market, since it would be a comparable price service with, to some extent, better travel time.

Just think if the Chicago-New York Air Line electric railroad had been built to New York instead of ending up in a field in Indiana now part of which is under the Tollway.

I think more generally we have to ask why US mainline railroad electrification never got very far. I understand that the Pennsylvania Railroad contemplated electrifying from Harrisburg to Pittsburgh, but had not had enough money to do so, for instance. But that's more properly a subject for another thread.

Well, here's a link to a post (by Ms. Bly on pg. 4 of the "BNSF Electrification" thread) that raises a lot of technical issues; throw in a few dispatching and signalling constraints (Anyone notice how much the northernmost portion of the NEC has been modified in recent years, or how often the plans to eliminate the last couple of manned towers have been put on hold?) and the growing aversion to mixing passenger and freight traffic, and you can understand the huge gap between grandiose plans and simpler realities which might be achievable within a shorter time frame.

http://www.railroad.net/forums/viewtopi ... a&start=45

Political constraints, and the ever-growing importance of the energy issue arising from the increasing recogonition of the limitations on all fossil-fuel use, make it a certainty that the private rail industry has no hope of insulating itself from increased public-sector oversight/interference (take your pick). My personal recommendation would be for the freight rail industry to "un-concentrate" itself, and make some sort of peace with "open access" and the encouragement of new forms of entrpreneurship within the industry. Within that sort of framework, development of a corridor-based system, with a gradual upgrade to a true HSR, and the possiblity of development of mainline dual-service electrification as an "ace in the hole" might all be possible.

Judging by the current lack of reaction to the acquisition of BNSF by Berkshire Hathaway, the public is not presently aroused on this issue, but the winds of public opinion can shift quicky, the destruction-by-regulation of the auto industry is a disturbing paralell, and the rail system, by its nature, cannot develop the mobility which allowed the steel indstry to re-invent itself. A possible strategy of "sauve qui puet" (Save what you can!) has to be formulated before it's needed on relatively short notice.