High Speed Rail Costs

Trains Magazine General Discussion
21

No Amtrak is a very bad idea and I think those of you who think it is a step to something better should truly be ashamed of yourselves! Why. Because it is going to hurt people, good people for whom long distance trains are essential. It is just like people saying well we will abandon the streetcars and then things will be so bad we will have to build a subway system . Sure! Milwaukee, Cincinnati, Birmingham, Indianapolis, etcx. are still waiting. And when a subway system was built, as in DC, it cost many billions, far more than upgrading their streetcar system to rapid transit incrementally would have cost. And in other places, like St, Louse, Neew Orleans, Denver, Salt Lake City, they decided that subways were far to expensive and now they are busy putting back what was ripped out, a fraction of the cost of subway systems, but still billions.

Sure Amtrak needs reform,. The reform it needs is spelled MONEY.

Then, after fixing the NEC infrastructure that is still ancient under the applied bandaids. incremental improvement can be made to existing lines with very limited new line construction to bypass really toughs spots, to bring passenger railroading into the 21st Century.

22

Deserved or undeserved, Amtrak has such an image problem with some in gov’t (and some in the public) that it may take reform to be able to loosen the gov’t purse strings.

My fear is that some “reformers” are wolves in sheep’s clothing. But, I think passenger rail has enough broad support that a reformed Amtrak might be able to do more than we have now.

23

#1616;#1616;A sensible approach would be to provide Amtrak with two billion dollars a year of dedicated funding from highway trust funds and get first the system and the rolling stock in good repair and then use funds for incremental improvements, including a very limited number of new lines around congestion and slow operations. States would have the option of adding for local requirements. Gradually the system could be brought up to reasonable 20th Century standards. And pride would return to the Amtrak railroaders, who deserve this chance in my opinion.

24

I live in Fl. and this sstate taakes four years to make a highway interchange. They want high speed from Miami,Orlando,Tampa. Then the politiciaans said vote again look what it would cost! If the dummies in this state would run a double track rail service like at Disney world, and put it between the clogged highways lanes, they would not have to buy,or condemn, more land, and they could run a bunch of trains all day long and a bunch more at night. Yes it would cost, but look at the mess in the Tampa area with new highways falling down before they are used! No we do not need 200 MPH trains, we need, 80 to 90 MPH in good repair. OH WELL maybe I am trying to use common sense-----this state does not have much of it!!!Rusty Bernt

25

The ~650 mile california high speed rail network that is in the early stages now, was projected to cost about 25 billion, and that was back in 2000-2001, so I don’t think 850 miles for 17 billion is as accurate as you’d like to think.

High speed freight will almost certainly never happen, as it comes down to axle loading. European and Japanese bullet trains have a far lighter axle load than a US freight does. faster trains damage the track quicker. The 300 mph record-setting run the SCNF did a few years ago really messed up a straight section of track, and it was just 2 power units, 2 intermediate cars, and a telemetry car. If you want more train capacity, and fewer fraight delays, the only real solution is more track miles (double/triple track) and more efficient yard operations.

The high speed rail in florida is still moving foreward, but they are less sure of themselves now I think since the voters repealed the ammendment based on Jeb’s campaign of misinformation and a poorly worded repeal text. Running rail down the highway centerline will work to a point, but it becomes an issue of curvature and intervening structures (overpasses and interchanges). LIght rail would be better suited to this. but I agree that High speed rail is viable in this country. at 200mph you could cross coast-coastin about a day.

The problem with amtrak is out west they have no ability to maintain their schedule due to freight congestion - and the only real answer to that is a dedicated passenger right-of-way double track.

Unfortunately the voters see anything dealing with rails as “subsidies” whereas airports get “grants” and airlines get “bankruptcy protection”. If the airlines in this country could get together like Luftansa (sp?) that would be something. They run medium/short distance routes as flights, but they are on trains! therefore airports make better use of runways, and the airlines do better with the larger more efficient planes.

Chernobyl

26

Chernobyl: 320 mph record run didn’t mess up anything. It was performed on a freshly built LGV - obviously, noone will risk damaging several billion of euros that didn’t even started to get depreciated…

You might refer to the 1950 something record - also by french - 200 mph with some change. That did mess up the track pretty badly…

27

Chernobyl,

Regarding axle loadings, remember that the railroad could do what the truckers already know - spread the load weight over more axles (go with tri-axle bogies or even an extra “centered” bogie) to reduce per axle weight for the same relative car gross. The current 286k on two twin axle bogies gives a max axle weight of 71,500 lbs per axle. Using two tri-axle bogies on a 315k (to allow for higher tare due to more axles) gives a max axle weight of 52,500 lbs per axle. It all depends on how low one would have to go determine the proper max axle loadings for a 200 mph ride.

28

How about something like this for high speed rail?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=93123

(The kid in the blue sweater is me!)

29

Well - the rule is simple - the less your train weighs - the better. TGVs are 17 tonnes per axle (about 37800 lb).

Also - 200mph operation would need full aerodynamic shrouding of the train.

oltmannd: been there, done that, got the t-shirt :wink: TEL proved not to work before - and nothing changed about it as of yet.

Jet-train locomotive was 4000 hp at rail at ~90 tons. TGV power car is 6000 hp (probably 7k+ short term) at 68 tonnes…

30

I just toured the FRA website specific to HSR, and their R & D efforts are focussed entirely on passenger HSR, not a peep about incorporating freight HSR. The problem of course is that for passenger HSR they’re looking at corridors of 100 to 500 miles (to compete with airlines and autos/buses), whereas a freight based HSR would be focussed on corridors over 500 miles (to compete with the dock to dock time of truckers). It just goes to show that the federal agencies (FRA, STB, et al) responsible for overseeing railroad technology in the U.S. are more than a few decades behind the comtemporary reality curve. No wonder Amtrak still operates using 1930’s logistics.

I’ll reiterate; if you want a futuristic project to be financially justified, you gotta let freight pay the overhead.

31

high-speed-freight is not only a question of axle-loads.

freight-cars need more expensive passenger-coach-like brake-systems. the brakeshoe is not acceptable. the Germans tried to establish high-speed-freight-trains, but commercial succes was too small.

I wonder whether conventional railroads - with top-speeds of 125 mph or less - would not be a better solution for short corridors like the ones in Florida or for Chicago-Milwaukee. Electric-traction - for faster acceleration - may get faster schedules than high top-speeds.

32

The FRA should require electronic disc brakes anyway for conventional freight cars, the technology already exists and is commercially available. So the evolution of freight onto HSR is not that far removed from commercial reality, if and when such a system is online.

33

Should require? From tax money? Enough to get an Amtrak subsidy out of highway funds. A legitamate case can be made for that because of the elderly, handicapped who have been short-changed by the car culture. Want to modernize the private sector freight railroads with tax dollars also? When traffic congestion gets that bad, maybe. The place to start on a free enterprise basis might be intermodal. Give the truckers piggyback with high speed service?

34

CHI-NYC door to door on HSR would be about 5 hours or so. Be that as it may do you mean to tell us that a 2 hour difference is a deal breaker when it comes to choice? The door to door scenerio via air is not a one-seat ride. It includes limo to the airport, standing in line for security, and limo to the other door. For me, and a lot of folks that’s a lot of bother. They’re using the Lake Shore as it stands now. Cut the time in half and add decent service we may have something. If it stops in South Bend I’ll be a regular.

As for the end of airport security in the future, I’m afraid it’s here to stay. There is no politician that will back it’s diminishment or removal, and the need for it will probably always exsist. On top of that security has become an industry. Complete with trade shows and conventions. Some day we’ll all be walking around with a necklace filled with ID.

Mitch

35

Why not Warp-1? How many business people really need to travel between NY and Chicago? As communications and technology advance, meetings could be held in virtual reality meeting rooms on the net. And how many people REALLY need to commute to work? Some companies have embraced telecommuting where employees actually come to work 1 or 2 days a week. IBM even implemented something called Hoteling for some departments. Instead of each employee having an office or cube, space is allocated and set up on an as-needed basis as employees are scheduled to be in the office. Another concept is decentralized regional work-centers, shared space used by employees of multiple companies located close to home. And what ever happened to flex-time? It started out well in the 70s during the oil embargo, now in many companies it means working all 10-11 hours.

36

Mitch,

This is where I’ve found your outlook and sensitivity to detail really interesting.

That it’s necessary today to, in a sense, go into battle or at minimum have a face-off to travel somewhere.

That rail could provide transportation that’s contrarian to what is accepted as transportation today, and would attract paying customers. It doesn’t have to “join 'em”.

Kind of idyllic considering the prevaling currents, but something possible. Very attractive.

Boarrddd!!!

Thanks for your comments.

37

CHi to NYC is about 800 (give or take 25) miles. At 160 average it is 5 hours. At 170 average it is 4:40.

Through train from Chi to Nyc without stops could do 190+ average that is 4:10

38

Great! I say the FRA funds it out of the highway trust fund. How about PTC while they’re at it? If the frt RRs have to pay, you’re looking at some bankruptcies.

39

As much as I would squeeze every ounce of my hope against hope we will have an intermodal high speed rail network, we can anticipate the first link to completed when pigs fly.

40

Where are you getting these avg speeds from!!!

Paris to Lyon is 244 miles. TGV schedule is 2:15. Avg speed is 108 for a train with a top speed of 186 mph.

Acela, with a 135 mph top speed and lots and lots of tangent track, can just barely avg 100 mph between Wilmington and Baltimore.

MAYBE you could avg 120 mph with a 200 mph top speed. MAYBE you could find a route that’s only 850 miles long. That yields a 7 hour trip.

I could build a lot of airports in NY and Chicago for what it would cost me to build a 850 mile, 200 mph RR between the two cities.

Now, if you want to talk about some 110 mph max, 80 mph avg, connect-the-dots service

like NY-Phila-State College, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, Chicago

or NY, Albany, Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, Cleveland, Toledo, Chicago

or Miami, Orlando, Jacksonville, Atlanta, Chattanooga, Nashville, Louisville, Indianapolis, Chicago

or Detroit, Toledo, Columbus, Cincinnati, Knoxville, Chattanooga, Atlanta

or Boston, Albany, Buffalo, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, St. Louis, KC

or Atlanta, Charlotte, Raleigh, Richmond, NEC

with spurs to places like Charleston, Birmingham, Norfolk, Scranton/Binghamton, Montreal, Charlottesville, etc.

that leveraged existing rail routes as much as possible, you’d have my attention!