What did you think of the article on European HST’s in the November TRAINS? - a.s.
Al,
It was a great article shows what can be done when when the majority agree. Same is true for the proposed California HSR which goes to the voters in November. So far it looks as if it might pass 60%. Spend 40 Billion on the HSR system over the next eight years or 128 Billion to widen the existing highways that need it over the same period of time. So far and for the first time the Highway Lobby has remained silent. Not much you can say when everything points to $5.35 per gallon gasoline next year.
Al - in - Stockton
With all the debt that CA has, how can it do anything major right now? Or do all the voters think the Feds are going to give them the money? Also, $40B sounds low to both construct and equip the HS rail system I’ve seen talked about for CA considering all the US restrictions in regards to environment, safety, etc. that Europe generally doesn’t have.
As an outsider, I suspect the highway lobby feels its going to get its share no matter what and that the state will probably end up basically doing both. Especially since the presumption is that Congress will provide huge highway infastructure spending next year no matter who wins the Presidency, the only assumed difference being it will be much higher under Obama then McCain.
The one thing that most caught my attention in the Trains article about Europe is that HS rail works up to a travel limit of approx. 4 hours. Given that HS in Europe is mostly constructed in flat terrain and the distance between major cities in much of the US, that excludes many areas of the USA from HS. Plus Europe already had extensive rail commuter lines to tie into the HS rail terminals which many US cities currently lack. Finally, the author mentioned that London to Paris is about the same as Chicago to Saint Louis–but forgot to mention the huge difference in population between the end points in Europe vs. the end points in the USA. The Chicago area population is large enough to sustain frequent HS rail but is the St. Louis area? (And I doubt there’s anywhere near the vacation travel between these 2 cities as there is between London and Paris.)
One thought about the high cost of HS rail that I have wondering over: after the success of the Erie canal many of the then existing states began to spend big bucks building canals. None of these were f
[quote user=“alphas”]
With all the debt that CA has, how can it do anything major right now? Or do all the voters think the Feds are going to give them the money? Also, $40B sounds low to both construct and equip the HS rail system I’ve seen talked about for CA considering all the US restrictions in regards to environment, safety, etc. that Europe generally doesn’t have.
As an outsider, I suspect the highway lobby feels its going to get its share no matter what and that the state will probably end up basically doing both. Especially since the presumption is that Congress will provide huge highway infastructure spending next year no matter who wins the Presidency, the only assumed difference being it will be much higher under Obama then McCain.
The one thing that most caught my attention in the Trains article about Europe is that HS rail works up to a travel limit of approx. 4 hours. Given that HS in Europe is mostly constructed in flat terrain and the distance between major cities in much of the US, that excludes many areas of the USA from HS. Plus Europe already had extensive rail commuter lines to tie into the HS rail terminals which many US cities currently lack. Finally, the author mentioned that London to Paris is about the same as Chicago to Saint Louis–but forgot to mention the huge difference in population between the end points in Europe vs. the end points in the USA. The Chicago area population is large enough to sustain frequent HS rail but is the St. Louis area? (And I doubt there’s anywhere near the vacation travel between these 2 cities as there is between London and Paris.)
One thought about the high cost of HS rail that I have wondering over: after the success of the Erie canal many of the then existing states began to spend big bucks building canals.
The magazine hasn’t quite made it over the Atlantic yet, but the mention of it has made me look forward to a good read. While Trains is unashamedly an American magazine I always enjoy the articles on European railroading, particulalry those that are not simply hagiographies. Or in simpler terms everything isn’t perfect here.
As for the number of hours a journey must be for rail to have a majority share there are a couple of things to bear in mind. Business travellers need to get there as quickly as possible. So virtually everyone I know at work travels to Brussels by train; at 2hrs it’s no contest. Everyone coming down for business from Edinburgh or Glasgow (four and a half hours on the train) will fly unless they want to stay the night, and nights away for business are now not fashionable. 4 hours is really at the top end of the timeframe for business travellers, though the ability to use laptops, and the hassle of airports have pushed the time limit upwards. For the leisure market timings are rather more elastic. 6 hours is increasingly the limit, especially with direct trains or a trustworthy system of connections.
European High Speed rail is not entirely built on the flat. True there’s hardly a hill from Paris north to Amsterdam, and very little east from Amsterdam to Russia, but that is the exception. Elsewhere hill, and in some cases mountains are the rule. Maybe not like the Rockies, but the Alps are significantly higher than the Appalachians. Spanish High Speed lines burrow like moles and soar like Eagles. Much of Italy is hilly, for example the new high speed line from Bologna to Florence will be 78km or which about 73km will be in tunnel. The oldest of the lines there headed from about 100ft to over 2000ft, and back to about 100ft in around 60 miles. 2% gradients matter. As a final example the German Cologne to Frankfurt high speed line has gradients exceeding 3%.
Population of itself is only part of the equation. Population dens
If this gets deleted for being “political,” so be it, but STOL’s reminded me of VTOL’s, and that if the amount of money the military has p***** away on the Osprey could be recovered, it would double Amtrak’s budget for almost five years.
Or so 60 Minutes implied – did they really mean $5 billion for Osprey over the years?? - a.s.
PS: I checked a couple of websites and the consensus seems to be at least eleven Ospreys at $170 million apiece or more. So, more like $2billion than five, but almost enough to double Amtrak’s budget for two years.
From a separate post “Not TGV”: "Did anyone else notice the misidentified train in the Left-hand photo on page 36 of the Nevember 2008 Trains Magazine. The photo identifies the left-hand train as a TGV and comments on how similar it is to the Eurostar alongside it. Actually the train on the left is a “Regional” or “North of London” Eurostar set, while the one on the right is known as a “Three Capitals” Eurostar intended for service between London and Paris or Brussels. The Regional Eurstar trains were intended to operate from Birmingham and Manchester to Paris and Brussels. After the trains were built but before that service started, Eurostar decided they couldn’t make money on that service, and it wasn’t economical to use these shorter trains . . . "
Well, in the last analysis, I think TRAINS did a great job on a wide-ranging article that was not intended to be comprehensive, and I am grateful to them for that. Who knows? Might even spur subscriptions in the EC countries [:D]. - a.s.
For sure scratch safety from your list. All the Western European countries have train safety systems on the vast majority of their lines that would have prevented the Metrolink collision. They don’t believe that building a tank is the best path to safety.
[quote]
As an outsider, I suspect the highway lobby feels its going to get its share no matter what and that the state will probably end up basically doing both. Especially since the presumption is that Congress will provide huge highway infastructure spending next year no matter who wins the Presidency, the only assumed difference being it will be much higher under Obama then McCain.
The one thing that most caught my attention in the Trains article about Europe is that HS rail works up to a travel limit of approx. 4 hours. Given that HS in Europe is mostly constructed in flat terrain and the distance between major cities in much of the US, that excludes many areas of the USA from HS. Plus Europe already had extensive rail commuter lines to tie into the HS rail terminals which many US cities currently lack. Finally, the author mentioned that London to Paris is about the same as Chicago to Saint Louis–but forgot to mention the huge difference in population between the end points in Europe vs. the end points in the USA. The Chicago area population is large enough to sustain frequent HS rail but is the St. Louis area? (And I doubt there
My apologies for misidentifying that French train in the photo caption.
I appreciate all of the comments made here about my article and European trains in general.
I think what amazed more than the high-speed trains alone was the ability to connect so easily between systems that tapped different markets.
The high-speed trains were one part of an interlocked network of streetcars, subways, commuter trains, etc. Every connection added value to the rail system as a whole.
It’s true Chicago-St. Louis is not on the same par as London-Paris. I think the real challenge in America is how to make rail travel easy from the spread-out suburbs where many people live. If you have to begin your trip in a car and drive too long to reach a train station, chances are you’ll just forget the train and make the whole trip by car, particularly if your destination is a far-flung suburb as well.
I’m eager to see what will happen with California’s high-speed proposal.
Matt Van Hattem
Senior Editor
Well said Matt: look forward to you turning these ideas into an article in due course.
Since everybody is talking about Europe’s high speed, here’s a presentation video from Spain’s RENFE, concerning the Madrid to Barcelona high speed line.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmbMYTJpAAM
Throughout the movie, the terrain difficulties are perfectly visible - after leaving Madrid, just after Guadalajara, the line crosses a series of ‘sierras’ after wich enters the Aragon plains, with other hills being overcomed right after Zaragoza. It is possible to see that despite the difficult terrain, the line was engineered to the highest standards possible, with a top operational planned speed of 350 Kmph. Due to technical reasons related with the ‘ERTMS’ ATP system however, it is being operated at ‘only’ 300, but with intentions to raise it as soon as teething problems related with the novelty of the system get solved. Despite that, nonstop trains cover the distance between the two cities, wich is about 415 miles, in just 2 hours and 38 minutes. Talk about Scorching the ties.
And it has proven to be a success. Since the opening of the line, local airline Iberia as lost some 60 % of the market share to RENFE in the route(and believe me, it was a busy airbridge, with a plane every 15 minutes at rush hour periods). Consequently, RENFE was forced to launch more train services.
That link doesn’t work
Change to http://www.cahighspeedrail.ca.gov/gallery.aspx
Sorry Al - in - Stockton
I tried to do it by simple ‘copy/paste’, but the link doesn’t apppers active. Does anyone knows how to place an ‘active’ link. In alternative it is possible to copy and paste the link on a new window. Like that , at least, works.
Thanks for the warning
That seems to be a neat project.
But I wonder, since nowadays railroadd have the same gauge, something that doesn’t happens in all of Europe’s countries, if it wouldn’t be possible to use existing stations as depart/arrival poinnts for these new trains. Since those ‘older’ stations are normally conveniently situated, that is one of the big advantages of high speed, the ability to get far much better travel times from city centre to city centre, something that in most cases is not possible with airports. One of the stations that immediately caome to my mind was LAUPT. Of cours that also brought another thought. Since high speed trains operate in electrified lines, wich require different height cleareances, compatibilising it with the existing bilevel commuter trains will be almost impossible. The only solution will be to have dedicated trains, but that restrains the stations capacity. That is only one of the defiances one will have to meet.
Also a thing that I found out to be fun in the presentation video. The ‘fleet’ of trains seemed to be a mix of european TGV2N (bilevel TGVs) and the most recent Shinkansen trains. It is true that both models operate under 25 Kv AC wire and in the same gauge, but all the rest is quite different technically speaking. Was that done only for the movie, or trains are yet to be chosen ? One must not forget that some new models of this type of trains are to be launched in the near future - New high Speed Talgo, Alstom’s AGV, and maybe more.
Mario,
California’s High Speed trains will operate at sustained speeds of 200 to 220 mph. Not putting the cart before the horse so to speak the bond on the November ballot comes first.
Their have already been talks with the Germans, French and Japanese regarding the system and initially it will use existing stations but they will be replaced by stations as seen in the video clips in more suburban settings in the years to come. It won’t solve all of California’s transportation needs but it is definitely a big step in that direction.
I personally attended many of the hearings on the proposed High Speed Rail in the Central Valley and it will certainly bring many construction jobs to the region and the Port of Stockton is where the Cement for the project will land. The amount of Re-Bar alone for the project is staggering. The tunnel boring machines already exist and work on the nine tunnels could begin as early as next spring if the Bill passes by a simple majority. Even though the system will pass through earthquake faults so does the system in Japan and they have had no trouble at all since they first started constructing their HSR. The system will be built to withstand an 8.5 earthquake and California has never had one of that magnitude. This is the same standard adopted by the Japanese.
One of the first parts to be constructed will be incorporated with the existing commuter corridor along the west bay, in fact 950 million is allocated for this alone. Additional tracks will be built alongside the existing commuter tracks and they also will be upgraded for faster commuter trains between San Francisco and San Jose. This additional right of way has already been quietly purchased over the last few years under the guise of a quiet zone next to the commuter rail tracks.
There are already plans that if Proposition 1A passes in November to begin the acquistion of the additional land’s needed will take place as fast as possib
Most of those who support high speed rail (HSR) appear to overlook its cost or only make an oblique reference to it. I wonder how many of the people who support HSR are aware of its true cost (capital and operating) and how it will impact them as taxpayers?
California has one of the highest state income tax rates of any state in the union. It ranges from 1 per cent on taxable income of $6,287 to 9.3 per cent on taxable income of $44,819. In 2006 the median family income in California was $64,563. It is likely that at least half the families paid the maximum tax, except for those with a taxable income of more than $1 million, who pay a 1 per cent surcharge. Adding $40 billion to the state budget, less what can be obtained from the federal government, plus operating subsidies will probably increase the pressure on state officials to raise taxes, unless they can find cuts to offset the state’s share of funding HSR.
Fares are another subject that has not been discussed. How much will it cost to ride on the high speed system? The fares for the Acela provide a clue. The average cost to ride the Acela from Washington to New York is approximately 74 cents per mile, whilst the average cost from Philadelphia is approximately $1.39 per mile. These fares, together with the regional fares, don’t cover the complete cost of the NEC. It would take another 16 to 23 cents per mile to recover the other charges (interest, depreciation, etc.) applicable to the NEC, depending on the percentage of these charges worn by the NEC.
The average cost to fly commercially from Washington to New York is approximately 54 cents per mile, whilst the average cost to fly from Philadelphia to New York, which very few people do except when they are connecting to another flight, is approximately $1.84 per mile.
The average cost to drive my Corolla is 31.5 cents per mile. If the cost of gasoline rose to $6 per gallon, the cost t
[quote user=“Samantha”]
Most of those who support high speed rail (HSR) appear to overlook its cost or only make an oblique reference to it. I wonder how many of the people who support HSR are aware of its true cost (capital and operating) and how it will impact them as taxpayers?
California has one of the highest state income tax rates of any state in the union. It ranges from 1 per cent on taxable income of $6,287 to 9.3 per cent on taxable income of $44,819. In 2006 the median family income in California was $64,563. It is likely that at least half the families paid the maximum tax, except for those with a taxable income of more than $1 million, who pay a 1 per cent surcharge. Adding $40 billion to the state budget, less what can be obtained from the federal government, plus operating subsidies will probably increase the pressure on state officials to raise taxes, unless they can find cuts to offset the state’s share of funding HSR.
Fares are another subject that has not been discussed. How much will it cost to ride on the high speed system? The fares for the Acela provide a clue. The average cost to ride the Acela from Washington to New York is approximately 74 cents per mile, whilst the average cost from Philadelphia is approximately $1.39 per mile. These fares, together with the regional fares, don’t cover the complete cost of the NEC. It would take another 16 to 23 cents per mile to recover the other charges (interest, depreciation, etc.) applicable to the NEC, depending on the percentage of these charges worn by the NEC.
The average cost to fly commercially from Washington to New York is approximately 54 cents per mile, whilst the average cost to fly from Philadelphia to New York, which very few people do except when they are connecting to another flight, is approximately $1.84 per mile.
The average cost to drive my Corolla is 31.5 cents per mile. If the cost of gasoline rose to $
[quote user=“oltmannd”]
[quote user=“Samantha”]
Most of those who support high speed rail (HSR) appear to overlook its cost or only make an oblique reference to it. I wonder how many of the people who support HSR are aware of its true cost (capital and operating) and how it will impact them as taxpayers?
California has one of the highest state income tax rates of any state in the union. It ranges from 1 per cent on taxable income of $6,287 to 9.3 per cent on taxable income of $44,819. In 2006 the median family income in California was $64,563. It is likely that at least half the families paid the maximum tax, except for those with a taxable income of more than $1 million, who pay a 1 per cent surcharge. Adding $40 billion to the state budget, less what can be obtained from the federal government, plus operating subsidies will probably increase the pressure on state officials to raise taxes, unless they can find cuts to offset the state’s share of funding HSR.
Fares are another subject that has not been discussed. How much will it cost to ride on the high speed system? The fares for the Acela provide a clue. The average cost to ride the Acela from Washington to New York is approximately 74 cents per mile, whilst the average cost from Philadelphia is approximately $1.39 per mile. These fares, together with the regional fares, don’t cover the complete cost of the NEC. It would take another 16 to 23 cents per mile to recover the other charges (interest, depreciation, etc.) applicable to the NEC, depending on the percentage of these charges worn by the NEC.
The average cost to fly commercially from Washington to New York is approximately 54 cents per mile, whilst the average cost to fly from Philadelphia to New York, which very few people do except when they are connecting to another flight, is approximately $1.84 per mile.
The average cost to drive my Corolla is 31.5 cents per mile. If the cos