International engineering companies are expected to bid next week on the planned Beijing-Tianjin high-speed passenger railway project, a “well-placed source” told the China Daily newspaper. But the source gave no details about their names or how many would participate. The planned 85-mile rail link between the cities is estimated to cost about $1.73 billion and speed commuters between them in 30 minutes. The project is scheduled to start construction before June and begin operating in 2007.
This dollar figure most likely does not include right of way costs being in China… However, an 850 mile HSR line from New York City to Chicago would probably cost ten times the above figure, or $17.3 billion… notice not the 100s of billions critics suggest… Travel time would also be reflected by ten times too, or 300 minutes, which is 5 hours…
Amtrak runs two trainsets on the Lake Shore Limited, and two trainsets on the Three Rivers… If you include the Capitol Limited trainsets to DC, instead of having three trains daily in each direction, with HSR the same number of trainsets could easily do twelve trains daily… literally one train every two hours…
The question remains, why are we spending a billion a year to keep an obsolete and infrequent trains service? Just along this one corridor we could have a state of the art modern system with a lot of frequency for a continuation of 17 years of inadequate current nationwide Amtrak service…
Its another 850 miles or so to Miami from DC… The same applies here… If we are going to spend federal funds, why not get the best?
It ain’t gonna happen! First, the land is not available - it already belongs to someone. Second, the topography - I’m guessing the Chinese plan is a straight flat shot. Third, high speed NY/Chi already exists - it’s called airplane.
One must view and comprehend with the future in mind… As far as New York City goes, its airports and airslots are already full…and as far as Chicago is concerned, the feds want to spend $8 billion to build another terminal and replot O’Hare’s four runways… Oh, I guess we could flatten Statten Island or the Bronx for another $10 billion + airport…
Air congestion is a major concern in both Chicago and New York City… The idea that the feds should only build more or expand existing airports is a myth in some of our largest major cities…
And as for value for price, one new rebuilt freeway intersection in Dallas, nicknamed the Dallas high five, is costing the feds over a billion dollars… yep, one intersection…
There is plenty of right of way along any number of interstates or along railroad right of way between the two major metropolitan cities… or we can easily build on new right of way… such as under major power transmission lines… similar to light rail in many cities…
Commercial air slots at both New York and Chicago are full…The decreasing On Time performance of the Airlines are representative of the fact that the airline network is at or exceeding effective capacity. The airlines only means of increacing capacity are plane such as the AirBus 580 carrying 500 or more passengers…to date the airlines are reluctant to make that investment and additionally such planes would overwhelm existing airport infrastructures without substansial additional investment.
Most oif the Interstate system is approaching or beyond the time that it needs significant investment in repairing and maintaining the system. If the Interstates were refered to in the manner of railroads, one would be talking about how much ‘defered maintenance’ exists in the Interstate System.
High Speed Rail is a viable alternative to add additional route capacity on major Origin-Destination city pairs…High Speed Rail is not for every intervening town or wayside city…just like air travel.
The difference between us & China is in China autos are scarce so the RR is the only way to go due to poor roads their are also no long distance buses. The same is true for say East Europe such as Russia which I experienced personally. That is why passenger RRs work much better theeir then here. [:D]
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark
From this web site:
International engineering companies are expected to bid next week on the planned Beijing-Tianjin high-speed passenger railway project, a “well-placed source” told the China Daily newspaper. But the source gave no details about their names or how many would participate. The planned 85-mile rail link between the cities is estimated to cost about $1.73 billion and speed commuters between them in 30 minutes. The project is scheduled to start construction before June and begin operating in 2007.
This dollar figure most likely does not include right of way costs being in China… However, an 850 mile HSR line from New York City to Chicago would probably cost ten times the above figure, or $17.3 billion… notice not the 100s of millions critics suggest… Travel time would also be reflected by ten times too, or 300 minutes, which is 5 hours…
Amtrak runs two trainsets on the Lake Shore Limited, and two trainsets on the Three Rivers… If you include the Capitol Limited trainsets to DC, instead of having three trains daily in each direction, with HSR the same number of trainsets could easily do twelve trains daily… literally one train every two hours…
The question remains, why are we spending a billion a year to keep an obsolete and infrequent trains service? Just along this one corridor we could have a state of the art modern system with a lot of frequency for a continuation of 17 years of inadequate current nationwide Amtrak service…
Its another 850 miles or so to Miami from DC… The same applies here…
Everything costs and costs seemingly always rise. Our Congress should shoulder much of the blame for where this country ISN’T regarding a viable 21st Century Transportation Plan.
In case you haven’t noticed - the pontificators spend a heck of a lot of time ensuring that “the other side of the aisle” gets blamed for virtually everything they (the opposite side of the aisle) cannot or will not move forward on. It’s absolutely frustrating when given some serious thought.
I find it amazing that we have come so far in a relatively short period of time, to lead the world in this or that - but when it comes to moving our people from place to place in a fast, reliable, safe, and economic manner - it just doesn’t happen.
When I was involved with passenger rail issues in my state (Missouri) and the talk was about the High Speed rail link being constructed between Chicago and St. Louis, many of us wondered how come Missouri wasn’t a member of the group representing the midwest states. That’s when the excuses came - and they came aplenty. Too many obstacles - too much money - too much this and too much that.
I’ve never heard of anyone or anthing being a success if the negative approach remains at center stage. Alas, Missouri does not and most probably will not have such a link between our two largest cities - St. Louis and Kansas City. “They” tell us about the numbers of rail crossings (2nd in the U.S., supposedly - behind Illinois who is moving on the system!) “They” tell us we don’t have the numbers - yet year after year, Amtrak parades their statistics before us, all showing increased ridership - but of course, decreases in revenue because of increases in operating costs.
Now we are faced with no Amtrak - which may or may not be a bad idea. I say that only if whatever emerges as a result of this latest attempt to dismantle our only national passenger rail “system” (and I question the viability of it being a “system”) can and will embrace the te
Will the Chinese have a detailed environmental impact statement prepared? Will any private land be acquired? Are there any individual states to deal with? Will any interest group file a myriad of lawsuits to stop this project? Is there an expensive workforce there who wants good wages and benefits? This is why the cost is as low as it is. That is also a part of why much industry has left these shores. This is why if it gets built her it may not be in my lifetime (I’m 43).
I have some doubts that N.Y. to CHI is a HSR-route. In Europe, the rule of thumb says HSR is competive as long as travel time does not exceed three hours.
Furthermore, it is not reasonable to exceed top-speeds of 200 mph. Energy costs are too high. I don’t see any possibility to cut N.Y. to CHI to around three hours. (this is not a safety issue: trains can run safely at 300 mph.)
If someone makes the initial investment in maglev technology are the operating costs over 200 mph still unreasonable? I am curious because China already has a maglev train operating between the financial district in Shanghai and the airport. I believe it reaches speeds of up to 260 mph.
I question if cheap labor will really reduce the costs of building a HSR line by much in China because they typically contract the construction of such a line out to a western firm with the skills and expertise. Therefore they still have to pay high salaries on many of the really skilled/technical positions.
I agree that Chicago/New York is probably not a true HSR candidate. Better to start with more reasonable city pairs like putting in true HSR between Boston and New York or LA/San Diego etc. It is the distance rather than the geography that I think is the problem. I ridden HSR in Spain between Madrid and Seville. When a mountain appears the train just goes straight through it as other rail lines in Europe do as well.
I think the real motivation for China to build a HSR line is to prove they are keeping up with other countries that are investing in HSR. Too bad we weren’t one of them.
No one had mentioned freight. I think freight should be the focus of HSR, with passenger service an added benefit. When you combine HSR with bi-modal technology, you’re talking about a system that can beat truckers dock to dock times in mid to long distances, and thats where the big profit margins lie. Plus with freight you have a pay as you go way of funding, with a surtax per box like they do in the Alameda Corridor.
As jwieczorek alludes to, we still need some significant tort reform and more reasonable environmental laws before projects of such magnitude can be realized in this day and age.
As for maglev, can it handle tonnage? If so, it could hold some promise for the next generation rail systems. If not, it would be better to stick with the steel flanged wheel on steel rail. Again, you need to be able to move freight for such a project to pay it’s worth, and you can move coal and grain over steel HSR systems as well as UPS, FedEx, and passengers, e.g. the most comprehensive market potential.
Before the rapid demise of passenger rail travel, after WW2, the New York Central had a well maintained mainline west of Albany, New York in which much of their ‘fleet’ of trains ran at approximently 100mph or more(some still with steam locomotives pulling them). The same can be said about the Milwaukee Road’s Hiawatha service, which from what I’ve read in books and magazines, routinely hit 100mph before it was well out of Chicago’s terminal limits or even suburbs, leaving towards it’s namesake or the Twin Cities. Although the Pennsy’s high speed runs were basically limited to the Northeast Corridor, where the catenary was(is), it and the New Haven Railroad provided a level of comfort and service not found in other forms of land or air transportation back then(or even now) along with speeds in excess of 100mph. Although I wasn’t born back then, just by talking to senior railroaders, I get the sense of pride of what the passenger railroad business was about, when they talk about it. Asia and Europe are far outpacing us when it comes to their commitment to their transportation infastructure investments and much of that commitment is to their respective railroads. Soon, they will also have high speed freight rail traffic as well and where will our railroads be?? Still plodding along at maybe 70mph. I remember reading an article that showed evidence that it cost more money to build a mile of blacktop roadway than it costs to build that same mile of railway and use less real estate doing it. It also costs more money to build and maintain a runway than it costs to build and maintain a mile of track. Mind you, I’m suggesting that railroad maintenance is cheap. The ballast cost money to procure, ship to where it’s needed, then have the personnel to dump it and shape it(tamp it). The same goes for equipment as well. Unlike freight equipment, passenger equipment must be maintained to a higher standard. If a freight locomotive dies and is not likely it can be repaired, most large freight railroads will just op
Three hours of flight time was the old standard, before 9-11. Now that flyers must arrive at airports two hours or more before the flight, a five hour train trip is just as effective. Get real!
Notice that the longest French HSR line has been extended southward to Marsailles, and northward into the Netherlands, plus using the Chunnel into the United Kingdom. From London there are two fast trains, if not trully TGV HSR, all the way to Scotland. The French are buiding links to the German and Italian HSR lines.
Three hours is definitely the old standard… even in Europe. With HSR grades are not significant, sharp curves are… therefore their solution to grades are tunnels and bridges… In a New York City to Chicago line, the toughest grades would be in Pennsylvania, but these grades are not the Rockies or the Alps are they?
Yes, we should build between city pairs, in my opinion city pairs of 5 million of metropolitan populations would be a good place to start… Philadelphia to Cleveland to Detroit to Chicago fills the bill. Dallas to Houston fills the bill. LA to Oakland fills the bill. Atlanta to Miami fills the bill. Chicago to Atlanta fills the bill.Then we can fill in the gaps at a later time with city pairs as low as 2.5 million in metropolitan populations, such as Atlanta to the Piedmont area of North Carolina ( Charlotte, Greensboro, and Winston-Salem ) and on to DC, Houston to New Orleans and on to Atlanta, Dallas to Kansas City to St. Louis and on to Chicago… finishing a parallegram: New York City to Atlanta to Houston to Chicago to New York City. Other branches could be built, such as Chicago to Minneapolis, Chicago to Toronto, New York City to Toronto and Montreal, Cincinnati to Cleveland, etc…
Frankly, I thought a HSR line between Tampa and Orlando is too short of a line, which would be better served with commuter or light rail instead at far less the costs.
Also the opponents were concerned about the total costs of the entire overextended network the state of Florida had dreamed, much like the concern in Texas over the extended Trans Texas Corridors.
In my opinion we would be better off starting HSR with a small network which if successful could be expanded at a later time. We are not going to build 40,000 miles of HSR like we have interstate highways in the next 10 years. However, we could build a starter network of 1,600 miles to Chicago and Miami from the NEC in the next 10 years. In other words take small steps… I suggested above building HSR at first linking cities with a metropolitan areas of 5 million or so…
In Florida they had drawn plans to build HSR to Pensacola and to Naples, cities in my opinion which are not large enough to be at the end of a line… Miami is, Orlando is, Tampa is, possibly Jacksonville is, and Atlanta is… Pensacola and Naples aren’t…
In Texas, for example, there are those who wi***o build a triangle of HSR between Dallas, Houston, and San Antonio/Austin. Then there are those who think a Texas T would serve Texas as well with half the track, a line from Dallas to San Antonio with a branch around Temple going to Houston… Temple has a misleading population number, less than 50,000, but Bell County in which Temple resides has a population of over 250,000…
The French HSR run over grades of 3,5 %, but the SNCF has only passenger, mail (plus maintenance) trains on its HSR-lines.
Freight on HSR-lines IMHO is possible, but only high-value-low-weight goods. Otherwise, it would be way to expensive to maintain the tracks.
Don’t forget the tilt-trains. Wouldn’t a diesel tilt-train be a better solution for N.Y.-Albany if you compare it with the Turbotrain? A talgo would be a great idea, but platforms in Penn Station preclude it.
martin - in the US the cost of HSR was estamined 30 million@mile. Add extra 2 million for catenary. Building diesel isn’t sensible approach then.
Also - if you don’t go over 15-17 ton axleload you can run 20000 ton trains at 200 mph… if you have the power. But - what for?
futuremodal: maglev is a pipe-dream. With mag-lev you would need to aquire ROW into the cities to succesfuly achieve what HSR could. TGVs spend about half of their time off LGV (high speed lines).
As for HSR freight - it has some sense into it - with high-value goods in bi/intermodal approach.
Door-to-door New York - Chicago by air is approximately 6 hours, and this includes 1 1/2 hours for security and check-in. Door-to-door New York - Chicago by high-speed-rail would be approximately 8 hours. Thus any trip by high-speed-rail longer than 3 1/2 hours (approximately 500 miles, would not be competitive with flying time-wise. Another point, bad times don’t last forever, eventually the need for security inspections will go away.
For Don Clark’s information the Paris-Marseille TGV line uses a separate station in Paris (Gare d Lyon) than either the Eurostar trains for London and the Thalys for Brussels and the Netherlands (gare d Nord). Since you have to change stations these are not through routes.