• SEHSR Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

  • General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.
General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1

  • 343 posts
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  by Bob Roberts
 
Literalman wrote: Sun Mar 28, 2021 3:35 pm "Charlotte to Raleigh Corridor": I guess that should read "Charlotte to Atlanta"?
Yea, my apologies. I was getting ready to buy tickets for my first train trip back. The post should indeed read Charlotte to Atlanta.
  by electricron
 
How many passengers will they get for passengers traveling beyond Atlanta and Charlotte? It will be extremely nice going 200 mph on a super streamlined trains between these two cities, but if you need to get to Raleigh or Montgomery you will have to transfer to a much slower diesel powered train. Even worse, take a bus, uber, or taxi to interchange between stations in Charlotte and Atlanta.
The HSR draft EIS plans on placing the HSR stations at both city's airports, not in downtown or uptown.
  by MattW
 
Considering that every route through Atlanta I've seen goes through downtown anyways, not having a station there is beyond stupid!
  by scratchyX1
 
electricron wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:48 am How many passengers will they get for passengers traveling beyond Atlanta and Charlotte? It will be extremely nice going 200 mph on a super streamlined trains between these two cities, but if you need to get to Raleigh or Montgomery you will have to transfer to a much slower diesel powered train. Even worse, take a bus, uber, or taxi to interchange between stations in Charlotte and Atlanta.
The HSR draft EIS plans on placing the HSR stations at both city's airports, not in downtown or uptown.
They seem to forget one of the appeals of rail is that the terminals can be much closer to destination that air travel.
Also see failing of Balt-DC maglev.
  by kitchin
 
The three DC-Balto maglev stations would be closer to the two downtowns than current Amtrak, and inside BWI airport rather than 10 minutes out on the shuttle. Or that's the plan.

I may have misinterpreted what you wrote, though. "Also (I) see" vs. "See also."
  by Bob Roberts
 
electricron wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 8:48 am The HSR draft EIS plans on placing the HSR stations at both city's airports, not in downtown or uptown.
I don't believe this is correct. My reading of the EIS reveals multiple mentions of the Charlotte terminus being at the downtown Gateway Station and downtown Atlanta stations are also included in the analysis.

This is from page 0-7 of the Executive Summary:
Greenfield
The Greenfield Corridor Alternative is a 274-mile route primarily on a new “greenfield” dedicated high-speed passenger rail alignment between CLT airport and Athens, GA, then following shared railroad ROW in the approaches to the Charlotte and Atlanta termini. This route serves three stations in North Carolina at Charlotte Gateway, CLT airport, and South Gastonia; two stations in South Carolina at GSP airport and Anderson; and five stations in Georgia in Athens, Suwanee, Doraville, downtown Atlanta,and H-JAIA.
Taken from here: http://www.dot.ga.gov/InvestSmart/Rail/ ... ummary.pdf

Thanks to the ARRA funded Piedmont Improvement Project trains from Atlanta could continue north from Charlotte to Raleigh at 110mph top speeds with relatively minor improvements. On the 'coming soon' S-Line I believe design speeds are intended to be 125mph capable. The NCRR does have the necessary width to build a separate set of true HSR (mostly) within the existing ROW as well.
  by David Benton
 
I guess diesels 110 mph trains could operate under the wires of a HSR system . I think this approach is suitable for the USA. There is an article in the Railway Gazette international that describes single track HSR development as well. In short , it may be better to have longer intergrated sysytems , rather than isolated Full HSR for the USA.
The French did this with the original TGV, using existing 100 mph conventional track into the cities. Vs the Japanese who went with a dedicated . isolated bullet train line. To the extent of been a different gauge to the existing system .
  by electricron
 
David Benton wrote: Tue Mar 30, 2021 6:39 pm I guess diesels 110 mph trains could operate under the wires of a HSR system . I think this approach is suitable for the USA. There is an article in the Railway Gazette international that describes single track HSR development as well. In short , it may be better to have longer intergrated sysytems , rather than isolated Full HSR for the USA.
The French did this with the original TGV, using existing 100 mph conventional track into the cities. Vs the Japanese who went with a dedicated . isolated bullet train line. To the extent of been a different gauge to the existing system .
110 mph trains running on the same tracks as 220 mph trains is a disaster in the making, assuming they are going 110 mph instead of 79 mph. How long does it take a train to go 10 miles, about the average distance between control points?
At 220 mph (your typical HSR speed), it takes 2.7 minutes to go 10 miles.
At 110 mph (your typical higher speed diesel powered intercity rail speed), it takes 5.4 minutes to go 10 miles.
At 80 mph (your typical commuter rail speed), it takes 7.5 minutes to go 10 miles.
At 50 mph (your typical freight train speed), it takes 12 minutes to go 10 miles.

At a maximum on tracks being shared with freight trains, you can only run 5 trains/hour over the track, a train every 12 minutes.
If you want the trains to go faster than approach medium speed on a typical track block signaling system, halve the trains so their is an additional track block in front of the HSR train. Now we are at a train every 24 minutes, less than 3 trains per hour. Of course, after 3 minutes your HSR train will have to proceed at approach medium speeds until the freight trains pulls over into a passing siding. There are many valid reasons why some HSR operators run their trains on dedicated tracks.

The Japanese use dedicated tracks and moving blocks signaling systems, which is how they achieve HSR trains running with headways of less than 3 minutes over the track.

That is also why HSR trains slow down to 79-110 mph on shared tracks with freight trains.
  by Bob Roberts
 
A few more details are out on the preferred Atlanta-Charlotte passenger rail corridor route. We have known for a few months that the Greenfield route was selected as the preferred alternative but no specifics were offered on exact routing at each end of the route.

Todays news from GDOT confirms that the NS ROW (On “dedicated passenger tracks”) will be used from the CLT airport station to Gateway Station (no surprise). This news indicates that speeds on this section of shared ROW will be low enough that the new tracks can be easily shared with commuter and regular intercity rail to the airport (meaning that Piedmont / Carolinian service could use those tracks at terminate at CLT rather than Gateway). After leaving CLT the new tracks will run South of Belmont to a new station in “South Gastonia” near the state line.

On the Atlanta end the greenfield route will end just West of Athens and then should follow existing CSX (and some NS) tracks into Atlanta at Howell Junction. A new ROW will be built from Howell to Hartsfield. There is still some ambiguity in the Atlanta routing east of downtown, two possibilities are being considered through Gwinnett (either along CSX or NS) In addition to an Athens stop, two stops in Gwinnett / Dekalb (these two stops depend on route selection) downtown and Hartsfield are planned. Not mentioned, there will certainly be commuter rail using the Athens-Atlanta tracks.

There was no change to planned “middle-finger” SC stops (GSP airport and Anderson)

While the route will be designed for 220 mph electric service on the greenfield portions of the route, this news indicates that they may run 125 diesel service for a while they wait for electric in a later phase of construction. While not running at 220 would certainly be a wasted opportunity, 125mph service should still create Atlanta-Charlotte travel times of well less than 3 hours.

https://www.bizjournals.com/charlotte/n ... hosen.html
  by electricron
 
Bob Roberts wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:04 amWhile the route will be designed for 220 mph electric service on the greenfield portions of the route, this news indicates that they may run 125 diesel service for a while they wait for electric in a later phase of construction. While not running at 220 would certainly be a wasted opportunity, 125mph service should still create Atlanta-Charlotte travel times of well less than 3 hours.
Along IH-85, it is 245 miles between Atlanta and Charlotte.
The average speed needed for the train to travel that far in 3 hours is 82 mph.
Amtrak's Acela trains, electric power and with max speeds up to 135 mph in New Jersey average 75 mph while traveling 225 rail miles in 3 hours.

Good luck with that!
  by daybeers
 
electricron wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 8:01 pm
Bob Roberts wrote: Tue Jul 13, 2021 10:04 amWhile the route will be designed for 220 mph electric service on the greenfield portions of the route, this news indicates that they may run 125 diesel service for a while they wait for electric in a later phase of construction. While not running at 220 would certainly be a wasted opportunity, 125mph service should still create Atlanta-Charlotte travel times of well less than 3 hours.
Along IH-85, it is 245 miles between Atlanta and Charlotte.
The average speed needed for the train to travel that far in 3 hours is 82 mph.
Amtrak's Acela trains, electric power and with max speeds up to 135 mph in New Jersey average 75 mph while traveling 225 rail miles in 3 hours.

Good luck with that!
But there are also numerous sections well below that speed, including 90, 60, 50, and even 30 mph and below sections.
  • 1
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23