stimulus funds for high speed rail?

Matt Johnson wrote:

miamicanes wrote:IMHO, here's the most sensible strategy for FDOT to follow right now:

1. Take the federal funds, and use them to build a double-tracked HSR corridor from Tampa to Orlando. Ensure that the track's geometry is adequate for 180mph, but skip the electrification for now. Seriously. It'll be years before there are really enough trains running to justify the capital cost of electrification, and nobody in Florida cares about carbon emissions anyway. Jetrain is good enough for now. It can always be electrified later.

Better yet, buy the Rohr Turboliners for next to nothing! Amtrak's got 'em for sale... They're capable of 150 mph, and wouldn't be required to meet FRA Tier II specs on a dedicated ROW.

let them go .

Actually, it would make sense if they were in fact looking to go the gas turbine route, but I don't think that's the plan.

why would it make sense ?. its dead technology . the only possible way of using it i can see would be to run it constantly in a hybrid locomotive . But then , why not just run a high speed diesel .?

The previous poster suggested Jet Train as a way to save on initial costs. The Rohr Turbos would be even cheaper. Neither is gonna happen, but as I understand it, the efficiency isn't bad at the upper end of the speed range.

> Neither is gonna happen

Actually, I did some more research over the weekend. It appears that JetTrain is, in fact, still FDOT's #1 choice... precisely because it doesn't require electrification, and it can pull Acela-type cars. As far as I can tell, FDOT's "day one" goal is still a train per hour in each direction. At that level of relative non-usage, electrification would be positively insane. You just don't spend millions of dollars electrifying a train line for use by a paltry dozen or two trains per day. You obviously want to have a plan for electrifying it someday, but there' no good reason it has to be done on day one besides touchie-feelie-greenie political correctness. Ironically, they'd probably get more popular support from Floridians if they quit the make-believe-environmentalism that they themselves don't believe, and instead pitched the JetTrain to the taxpaying public as a big, powerful, uniquely-American muscle car of a train... which, basically, it is.

Bombardier might have put them on hold after Florida temporarily lost interest in HSR back in 2004-05, but that was only BECAUSE Florida was their only major customer for them at the time. If the project roars back to life, you can bet Bombardier will have them back on their website and be ready to take orders for them. Even moreso if Illinois & the other midwestern states start asking about them, too. The fact is, for bootstrapped HSR that MUST integrate seamlessly (for the conceivable future, anyway) with existing freight tracks to increase their network's reach beyond the shiny, new HSR mainline itself, they're just about ideal -- both politically and logistically.

By the way, do Acela's cars have a proper name besides "Acela-type cars"? As in, a name given to them by Bombardier and used in its own literature to describe them? Or are they literally just referred to as "Acela-type cars" for lack of a better name?

Actually, I did some more research over the weekend. It appears that JetTrain is, in fact, still FDOT's #1 choice... precisely because it doesn't require electrification, and it can pull Acela-type cars.

Obsolete technology.

miamicanes wrote: Actually, I did some more research over the weekend. It appears that JetTrain is, in fact, still FDOT's #1 choice... precisely because it doesn't require electrification,

Odd, because all their recent documentation assumes electrification, and even the last time around, they were quite candid that they didn't want the thing.

The current speed being touted in Florida exceed the capabilities of it, anyway. Which aren't as high as Bombardier claims (more below).

At that level of relative non-usage, electrification would be positively insane.

The signal system costs more than the electrification does - let's ditch that, too, if we're so concerned about saving money...

But, the IDEA of high speed trains in Florida is insanity. There's nothing to support it, no market demand, and it's been tried 2 or 3 or 4 times already and gone nowhere. overseas consultants have even said as much, but there's some political faction that seems to think that Florida somehow needs a high speed rail system, as opposed to, you know, actual mass transit. Not that regular transit's gone anywhere in Florida either - Trirail's a joke, Miami's subway moves itself and little more....

and instead pitched the JetTrain to the taxpaying public as a big, powerful, uniquely-American muscle car of a train... which, basically, it is.

In Florida's typical environment, JetTrain has about as much power as P-42. The simple reality is high inlet temperatures - and Florida's pretty warm most of the time - absolutely murder the power output of a gas turbine - early jetliners had problems with it, too. I don't have the ST-40's chart near me, but IIRC, the power output fell off fast above 85 or so degrees (inlet). And that's assuming an unrestricted inlet - guess what that silencer on the JetTrain does to the efficiency and output?

It's a far cry from the 9 to 17 megawatts a real HST has. It's also got the disadvantage of being obscenely heavy, a fuel hog, and based on a chassis that can't handle sustained high speed running. So, yeah, it pretty much is like an old musclecar

Even moreso if Illinois & the other midwestern states start asking about them, too.

They've already selected the Talgo. Wisconsin's buying them, they'll be assembled there. Talgo's been working that area for years, the technology's amazingly well proven, and they've got 125mph performance in the bag.

The fact is, for bootstrapped HSR that MUST integrate seamlessly (for the conceivable future, anyway) with existing freight tracks to increase their network's reach beyond the shiny, new HSR mainline itself, they're just about ideal -- both politically and logistically.

Outside of the Shinkansen, there's very few HSR systems that don't integrate with normal lines. JR built the Shinkansen as a totally isolated one because standard gauge was a requirement for the speeds planned. There's even a few instances (I believe no longer, due to track upgrades), of TGVs being pulled over jointed track by diesels, as regular, scheduled service.

By the way, do Acela's cars have a proper name besides "Acela-type cars"? As in, a name given to them by Bombardier and used in its own literature to describe them? Or are they literally just referred to as "Acela-type cars" for lack of a better name?

I think there was some silly name like United States Incremental High Speed Rail Train or something like that. I like 'technical failure', because that's pretty much what they are. Though 'newly manufactured antique' is a good runner-up, or LRC-II, since they're just LRC cars buttressed to withstand the FRA's silly Tier II stuff.

The signal system costs more than the electrification does - let's ditch that, too, if we're so concerned about saving money...

Both are expensive, but signaling is an expense that's legally required for any operation faster than 79mph, while electrification is an expense that can be deferred with no permanent and few short-term penalties of real consequence. Even if we assume 150mph is pure marketing fantasy, the real-world difference between 125mph and 180mph for an 80-mile line whose longest uninterrupted run is approximately 25-30 miles is basically less than the margin of error and random delays due to passenger stupidity.

Talgo's been working that area for years, the technology's amazingly well proven, and they've got 125mph performance in the bag.... (snip) ....
Outside of the Shinkansen, there's very few HSR systems that don't integrate with normal lines.

But the million-dollar question... can they legally share tracks with freight trains in America, and do 125+mph on non-electrified tracks? German ICE trains might share tracks with freight, but they'd never be allowed to do it in America under current regulations.

they're just LRC cars buttressed to withstand the FRA's silly Tier II stuff.

FRA Tier II is silly, but it's a fact of life that's unlikely to change in our lifetimes.

OK, it looks like the Talgo XXI family does, in fact, include a trainset with diesel locomotive and passenger cars that are capable of 125mph operation and expected to get its official FRA crashworthiness certification sometime before summer. And yes, they DO appear to be an improvement over Acela.

Awesome. It's great to see that there are at least two viable diesel options for higher-speed trains capable of both running on dedicated high-speed track and legally limping on legacy track shared with freight trains.

There's an interesting blog entry I've discovered:

California High Speed Rail Blog » The Method to the HSR Stimulus Awards?

From this New York Times article,

According to an E&E analysis, the passenger rail lines that received stimulus cash go through more than 40 percent of all congressional districts, including those represented by a number of powerful lawmakers that will play a key role in finding the tens of billions of additional dollars thought to be needed to complete the work.

When looked at as a whole, the grants can be seen as an attempt to entice lawmakers to continue to spend on a massive public works project that is still very much in its infancy, even at a time when Washington has one eye firmly focused on the growing national deficit.

40% seems a bit much; I'd like to see the count.

But that may not be a great overestimate when one considers how widely distributed the lines are.

I agree that that's good politics to distribute the money as widely as possible while still constructing some reasonable approximation of HSR. Amtrak has survived nearly 40 years because it is so widely distributed -- it runs though most Senators' and many Representatives' districts.

miamicanes wrote:OK, it looks like the Talgo XXI family does, in fact, include a trainset with diesel locomotive and passenger cars that are capable of 125mph operation and expected to get its official FRA crashworthiness certification sometime before summer.

IIRC, Talgo currently holds the world record for a diesel train, at better than 150mph...

lpetrich wrote:40% seems a bit much; I'd like to see the count.

Congressional districts are drawn to have approximately equal population. Running through a heavily populated area it would not be hard to run through many congressional districts. Including oddly shaped ones (gerrymandered) where the line may only be in that district for a city block before passing out the other side. I'm surprised that it is only 40%.

California Congressional Districts (Wikipedia)

Nasadowsk wrote:

The fact is, for bootstrapped HSR that MUST integrate seamlessly (for the conceivable future, anyway) with existing freight tracks to increase their network's reach beyond the shiny, new HSR mainline itself, they're just about ideal -- both politically and logistically.

Outside of the Shinkansen, there's very few HSR systems that don't integrate with normal lines. JR built the Shinkansen as a totally isolated one because standard gauge was a requirement for the speeds planned. There's even a few instances (I believe no longer, due to track upgrades), of TGVs being pulled over jointed track by diesels, as regular, scheduled service.

That is exactly why the Japanese Shinkansen is the model for HSR projects being developed, being that it is a stand alone high speed passenger line. Older lines have been converted ( to standard gauge )for Shinkansen service as well, with train sets specialized for those lines ( namely being narrower due to station and other physical constraints ). There's even a gauge change train being developed for future use to bring service to narrow gauge lines.

As for signaling, it's completely useless in high speed operation, as there's no time to react to the signal being passed ( before reaching the next signal ). Never mind not being able to actually read the signal itself. Again the Shinkansen being the model here, relies on ATC ( which provides the pertinent information to the engineer, and keeps the train running at an appropriate speed ), and CTC to control train movement ( maintaining proper spacing and speed of trains ).

In order to have as little impact as possible, existing networks should operate independently alongside HSR networks, and only be intertwined at various station points ( again on separate platform levels ). The Japanese model of HSR is exactly what should be done for HSR in America, yet it's not what's being done by the current administration.

> The Japanese model of HSR is exactly what should be done for HSR in America, yet it's not what's being done by the current administration.

That's partly because a train that goes directly from origin to destination will get more business than a passenger train that forces one or more transfers, even if the connecting service is slightly faster. Every time you make passengers get off a train, wait, and board a different train, you lose a HUGE part of your (American) customer base. As a practical matter, not even HSR is literally end-to-end faster than flying more than a hundred miles. A big part of rail's appeal is comfort & convenience... it might not be (much) faster, but it can be several orders of magnitude nicer & more pleasant. Compare three hypothetical trips between Miami and Orlando:

Case 1: Drive for 2 hours. Stop, use the bathroom, drive another 2 hours.

Case 2: Drive to MIA. Park. Run like hell to get to the check-in desk at least 45 minutes before departure. Run like hell to get to security, then wait in line 25 minutes. Scramble to remove shoes, unpack laptop, dump everything into 3 or 4 plastic bins, nervously watch them go through as you negotiate personal checks, reclaim stuff at other end, put shoes back on, run like hell to departure gate, then wait 15 minutes to board. Stand in line 5 minuets, then spend 10 minutes doing a metaphorical conga line to get to your seat. Fight for overhead space. Spend 10 minutes in limbo waiting to take off. Wait another 10 minutes before you can use your laptop. Use it for 20 minutes, then be forced to put it away as the plane prepares for landing at MCO. Stare into space for 20 minutes as the plane lands. Wait another 20 minutes to get off, then fight your way through the terminal to the rental car desk. Arrive at your destination ~3 hours after arriving at MIA, completely fried and burnt.

Case 3: Drive to Miami's upcoming train station. Park. Walk to the platform, show your ticket (printed online), and board. The train's waiting for you, because Miami is its origin. Go eat breakfast, noticing at some point that the train has left the station and is on its way. Boot your laptop, tether to your phone, and do something fun for a couple of hours. Go eat lunch. Head back to your seat, play with your computer for a while longer, then get off in Orlando ~5 hours, 2 meals, and some quality computer-time later. Grab your rental car and drive away.

Case 2 is the fastest, but the least pleasant and worst overall experience. Few people who own cars would ever choose Case 2, costs and travel time be damned. Case 1 is the norm. It's ~4 hours, but they're 4 totally wasted, boring hours spent doing nothing besides drive. Case 3 is slower than either one, but the most pleasant overall. If Case 3 were faster than case 1 it would be even better, but someone with the discretion to choose between the 3 will probably go with #3 if the price is halfway reasonable, and service is at least as frequent as current flights between the two cities.

On the other hand, suppose you built a Shinkanshen-like train from Tampa to Orlando with no direct service to Miami, and had another train running from Miami to some point in between, where users had to transfer trains. At that point, you've just made the trip by train from Miami to Orlando by train LESS appealing by introducing the stress of having to transfer along with delays, disruption, and basically trashed the last 40-60 minutes of the trip.

At the end of the day, Tampa is about 80 miles from Disney. The trip's going to take a half hour, give or take 7 minutes, regardless of whether the train runs at 125mph, 150mph, or 180mph, because the biggest single factor will be the number of minutes it has to spend in Lakeland (and possibly Auburndale, if passengers to and from Miami have to change trains at the point where the lines cross). Given that reality, it would be outrageously insane to build a Shinkanshen-like train that can't directly service other corridors, because Florida would spend an outrageous amount of money to build what WOULD then literally be a high-speed shuttle to Disney from Tampa & MCO. Gambling everything on the possibility of future HSR service all the way to Miami is dangerous, because frankly a Shinkanshen-like train running Tampa-Disney-Orlando would fail so spectacularly, it would jeopardize the entire future of passenger rail in Florida.

miamicanes wrote:> The Japanese model of HSR is exactly what should be done for HSR in America, yet it's not what's being done by the current administration.

That's partly because a train that goes directly from origin to destination will get more business than a passenger train that forces one or more transfers, even if the connecting service is slightly faster. Every time you make passengers get off a train, wait, and board a different train, you lose a HUGE part of your (American) customer base. As a practical matter, not even HSR is literally end-to-end faster than flying more than a hundred miles. A big part of rail's appeal is comfort & convenience... it might not be (much) faster, but it can be several orders of magnitude nicer & more pleasant. Compare three hypothetical trips between Miami and Orlando:

That's exactly what rail service is like in just about every part of the world. Whether it be the Shinkansen, ICE, Eurostar..., they all only connect major destination cities. From that cities rail station ( usually a grand structure ) you can transfer to either subway ( inner city travel ), local rail ( travel to the outskirts of the city ), bus, and taxi. This design makes high speed rail faster than air travel, and provides a convenient and easy central location to catch other services. No different from the hub & spoke practice by many airlines. You'd lose few if any customers, as rail stations like airports are giant shopping malls ( can get your favorite newspaper or magazine, and a bite to eat all in one place ).

It's also the current setup for U.S. rail services as well, and a prime example of this would be Pennsylvania Station in New York City. From that station you can catch Amtrak, New Jersey Transit, Long Island Railroad, New York City Subway, New York Buses, and taxi services. As for customers, the only thing that has impacted ridership was the economy, and even then some services have reported increases in ridership IE: Amtrak in regard to the Northeast Corridor.

I find a high speed rail line in Florida a huge misappropriation of funding, when it would be more prudent to build a dedicated HSR network between the BOS-WASH corridor, and only connecting major cities. This corridor is the most profitable and a has a proven customer base.