The Spanish are planning to raise the line linit on the Madrid - Barcelona line from 186mph (300km/h) to 217mph (350km/h) in the Autumn.
However the Chinese have got there before them - the new Beijing - Tianjin High Speed Line opened yesterday with a maximum speed of 217mph, the first commercial conventional rail service travelling at more than 200mph (previous fastest LGV Est 320km/h or 199mph).
The train covers the 75 mile journey in 30 minutes:
although I support HSR I have found that the ability to sight see is severely limited at those speeds on the trains I have ridden. Rode the Madrid - Barcelona route that was upgraded but not HSR because equipment was still dual gage that was changed about 1/2 way between the two cities as the part near Barcelona did not have new ROW finished.
This brings up philosophical question when marketing rail service(s). Here in America we have been told that train riding is way to “see” America whle flying over is the way to get there. And this must change if, indeed, we decide passenger rail service is needed to move people quickly, effeciently, and safely and not just a daisey picker’s trot between towns or over tourtist routes.
I agree. It’s a case of extending the Acela approach across the rest of the US passenger network.
The Chinese are operating both Japanese (CHR2C) and German (CHR3) designs on their new line which would have potential on an upgraded NEC, FRA pernitting, if Amtrak were given funds for new trains.
What do you mean by “upgraded NEC”? The Northeast Corridor will never be turned into a dedicated high-speed rail line. There may end up being some more 150-mph segments (which would result in some respectable triple-digit average speeds) as well as improved tilt-train operation around the curves, but never the (rather unnecessary, in this market) super high speed that the dedicated corridors see. Also, the dedicated corridors do not (for the greater part) use tilt trains.
henry6: actually both concepts are needed. As usual i chose brevity but there is no reason a conventional speed train with many stops cannot run on a HSR route.
But just as on the Amtrak Northeast Corridor, with local commuter trains, ‘regular’ Acela and Acela Express, and on railroads in general with freight vs passenger, one must provide for ways to get the slower, or lower priority, trains out of the way of the higher priority trains.
And then one hears the complaint “Amtrak dispatchers always delay SEPTA Trenton trains”. The time I rode the Sunset Limited Houston to Los Angeles, my seatmate complained that we always got delayed because Southern Pacific would hold us up to let one of their freights go by. I’m not saying that doesn’t ever happen, but on that trip I made a point of mentioning to him every time we passed a stopped freight train, and not once during waking moments did I notice us stopped to allow a freight to go through.
200 mph conventional rail will take a phenonenmal amount of HP to achieve. Other than bragging rights it is totaly impractical with the cost of energy. It would be interesting to see an economic and engineering analysis of where the best practice (read most economical) lies on a graph where increased HP crosses the cost line. I suspect that aything above about 100 MPH is a net negative.
The Europeans with a lot of experience feel that the breaking point is about at 220 mph (350 - 360 kph). If it really was as low as 100 mph, flying would be a no-no. They are gradually refining the aerodynamics of trains to reduce drag. With a totally separate ROW trains could be lightened in this country to perform similarly to trains elsewhere in the world. It won’t happen until flying gets so expensive that only the wealthy can fly.
Just to clarify for our readers, the reason for Northeast Corridor speeds of under 150 is not that the line is not dedicated to and segregated for high-speed service, but because of limiting curvature, even with tilt technology.
Secondly, I noticed a considerable amount of movement of the hand-held camera in the video. The train certainly was rockin’ & rollin.’ Unfortunately this could indicate surface and line that will need maintenance soon and often to maintain 217 mph. Authorities may decide this is not commercially sustainable and reduce the maximum allowed speed somewhat - maybe to 199 or 186 mph.
I heard that the catenary was not set up for 150 MPH except for the new part north of New Haven. The existing catenary would need revamping.
Based on the relationship between scheduled speed and peak speed, the NEC must have more in the way of speed restrictions through tunnels, bridges, terminal areas, etc than the purpose-built HSR lines. That kind of restriction is hard to remedy with tilt technology or track and signal improvements – it would require line relocation.
Don’t assume that “rockin’ and rollin’” has to do with surface and line. The steel wheel on the steel rail with a solid axle is susceptible to dynamic instability that depends entirely on the forward speed, rail and wheel profile, the truck wheelbase along with all of the spring rates and moments of intertia of the truck and vehicle it supports along all axes. This dynamic stability is something that the Japanese looked to control with their pioneering Bullet Train and something that makes HSR more of a rocket science than people realize.
