Don,
Right now, where in the US or Canada can reliable 80-85mph average speed be delivered with convenience and comfort without massive, additional investment? Should those places be made the focal point to grow from?
The railroads managed to adopt Westinghouse air brakes when pressured. They managed to adopt knuckle couplers when pressured. They managed to adjust to standard guage when pressured. I guess they can adopt the EDB without too much hassle. How do they pay for it? Out of their profits, if indeed MWH’s latest column regarding rail ROI’s vs McDonald’s and the S & P’s is not an example taken out of context.
Intrestingly - TGV to Lyon has 2 stops on that route. Non-stop train to Brussels from Paris manages 130 mph average - but it has to slow down on the switches at Lille. It would do 140+. Intrestingly most of time is used on getting out of Paris and into Brussels where those trains operate on the traditional lines.
Also - Japanese Shinkansen still hold the record of 165 mph average on the Hiroshima-Kokura racetrack. That is 120 miles in 44 minutes. That service is 186 mph. Extrapolating to 200 mph - that would ~175 mph average - and that is just 120 miles!
The projected Chi-Ny route would be built from 150+ mile segments. With 200mph trains you can expect 150+ mph averages there - depending how many stops you make.
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/cursortrail.html
According to this distance chart (don’t blame me - its the first one that Google spewed out) NY-Chi is 719 miles. Allow 15% overhead - its 826 miles.
http://www.hm-usa.com/distance/usa.html
according to this - shortest highway distance is 795 miles.
In the first case - 150 mph avg yelds 5:30 in the second it is 5:18
Now - the “airplane style” Chi-NY route - no stops, high speed all they way - at distance of 825 miles. We miss 40 miles in 30 minutes to get out of Chicago and into NY - and to get to 200 mph top speed - where the train travels.
That is: 3:55 hour trip at 200 mph and 30 minutes
Tomtrain…Thanks for your kind remarks.
It’s not a question of idyllic, but a questio of quality of experience. I’ve had 5 hour train rides that seemed to go in a matter of 2, and I’ve had 2 hour flights that seemed to last a day. Sometimes hours and dollars saved are not the only measuring stick.
I’v mentioned this before as an example. I’ve shaved with a straight razor for 40 years now. It takes me 20 minutes longer than if I used one of those silly, vibrating Mach 3s and a can of cake decorating foam. But the results, and the way I feel after it are worth it. But I’m not alone. I belong to a group, on Yahoo, of folks that use straight razors. Last year there were only a few hundred members. Now we have over 1600. There are straight razor manufacturers that are improving their product and expanding their lines. For something that’s considered by many as “old fashioned” or “quirky.” But it goes to the quality of experience issue just like HSR vs. air travel. Shear “I can prove it’s better by running the numbers” doesn’t always cut it. I can show you hundreds of paintings done by artists with all the right credentials, all the right reviews, all the right galleries, and Norman Rockwell still out sells them, and he’s dead. And Norman wasn’t neccessarily loved by the experts. It’s what’s inside that counts.
And now off
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator
Intrestingly - TGV to Lyon has 2 stops on that route. Non-stop train to Brussels from Paris manages 130 mph average - but it has to slow down on the switches at Lille. It would do 140+. Intrestingly most of time is used on getting out of Paris and into Brussels where those trains operate on the traditional lines.
Also - Japanese Shinkansen still hold the record of 165 mph average on the Hiroshima-Kokura racetrack. That is 120 miles in 44 minutes. That service is 186 mph. Extrapolating to 200 mph - that would ~175 mph average - and that is just 120 miles!
The projected Chi-Ny route would be built from 150+ mile segments. With 200mph trains you can expect 150+ mph averages there - depending how many stops you make.
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/cursortrail.html
According to this distance chart (don’t blame me - its the first one that Google spewed out) NY-Chi is 719 miles. Allow 15% overhead - its 826 miles.
http://www.hm-usa.com/distance/usa.html
according to this - shortest highway distance is 795 miles.
In the first case - 150 mph avg yelds 5:30 in the second it is 5:18
Now - the “airplane style” Chi-NY route - no stops, high speed all they way - at distance of 825 miles. We miss 40 miles in 30 minutes to get out of Chicago and into NY - and to get to 200 mph top speed - where the train travels.
MWH did not talk about ROI, he talked about stock value appreciation.
Railroads, as a whole, make tons of money in their “golden era” and were able to do large capital improvement projects. RRs, as a whole, right now, are still not revenue adequate. This means, they are slowly going out of business - yes - really! (ever wonder why RRs don’t own many frt cars anymore?) Now, in 2004, they MAY have reached the revenue adequacy level - it’s not known for sure yet. So, there may be some hope for the future.
However, there is not one nickel extra to be invested in large discretionary capital projects. And, what small amounts of discretionary capital they can support spending goes to support targeted growth (particularly in intermodal) and improving capacity bottlenecks.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by uzurpator
Intrestingly - TGV to Lyon has 2 stops on that route. Non-stop train to Brussels from Paris manages 130 mph average - but it has to slow down on the switches at Lille. It would do 140+. Intrestingly most of time is used on getting out of Paris and into Brussels where those trains operate on the traditional lines.
Also - Japanese Shinkansen still hold the record of 165 mph average on the Hiroshima-Kokura racetrack. That is 120 miles in 44 minutes. That service is 186 mph. Extrapolating to 200 mph - that would ~175 mph average - and that is just 120 miles!
The projected Chi-Ny route would be built from 150+ mile segments. With 200mph trains you can expect 150+ mph averages there - depending how many stops you make.
http://www.angelfire.com/md2/timewarp/cursortrail.html
According to this distance chart (don’t blame me - its the first one that Google spewed out) NY-Chi is 719 miles. Allow 15% overhead - its 826 miles.
http://www.hm-usa.com/distance/usa.html
according to this - shortest highway distance is 795 miles.
In the first case - 150 mph avg yelds 5:30 in the second it is 5:18
Now - the “airplane style” Chi-NY route - no stops, high speed all they way - at distance of 825 miles. We miss 40 miles in 30 minutes to get out of Chicago and into
32 million per mile over 800 miles is $25.6 billion…higher than $17.3 billion… but still acceptable… I am not interested in replacing jet aircraft, I’m interested in providing another means of travel comparable to jet aircraft, which in many places are already maxed out… Whether its 4 hours or 5 hours or 6 hours to Chicago from New York City, there will still be better service in places like Cleveland, which today only sees passengers trains at night and a 16-17 hour trip…
The HSR right of way is no larger than a two lane highway, 40 feet wide…not a divided 4-6 lane highay and 150 plus feet wide. Frankly, there is enough right of way along the interstate highways already, or alongside current or former railroad right of way… we could built the HSR lines in most places astride one side of an interstate highway, reaching stations by diverting off the interstates near the stations inside the major cities using whatever right of way…
Paris like London has plans to build a tunnel to create a HSR hub… London is building theirs as we discuss this on this forum… Eventually the rail lines will be linked in Europe… and they haven’t finished building theirs yet…
Will we be better off building a HSR of the 21st century, or are we better off to continue to spend a billion or two a year maintaining our obsolete 19th century railroad…that is the question? I am convinced that any HSR line at whatever speed will compete with the airliners in a New York City to Chicago and Miami run… as long as it doesn’t require an overnight trip…as today…
My company considers a flight a day…time wise… Train travel should be the same, the technology is here to do so in America east of the Rockies…
I live in the Dallas Fort Worth area. From DFW airport I can fly to Las Vegas in less than 3 hours, yet if I wanted to fly to Reno instead, the best time is 8 hours, as there is no non stop flight from DFW to Reno…
Permit me to ask if we build this HSR line CHI-NYC, what would be so bad about having an evening departure, with morning arrival, that had sleeping space? If the evening trip took 10 hours and was, in essance, a rolling hotel, couldn’t we fill that train? We do it now with what we got.
But even without the overnighter, I think the CHI-NYC HSR idea is great. I guess it is time to move into 21st Century railroading.
Mitch
oltmannd:
noone says that the route should have only two stops. A wise investor would build the route that accomodates as many cities as possible - with speed in mind.
Imho the best route would be:
NYC ↔ Philly ↔ Pittsburgh ↔ Cleveland ↔ Toledo ↔ Fort Wayne ↔ Chicago (optional) Milwaukee.
From Toledo also include “branch” to Detroit.
Overall about 700-750 miles of track and a few million people to serve.
NYC-Philly would be on new’n’improved NEC
Your NY to Chic would be >900 miles. PRR main was 904 and it skipped your Cleveland and Toledo stops. If you go NY to Chicago via Phila, Pitt, Cleveland and Toledo, you wind up at 940 or so. Shortest rail route NY to Chicago was 896 on the Erie. You would squeeze out some miles by trading grade for curve to keep the speed up, but you’d probably still wind up over 900 miles.
HSR with intermediate stops would be transforming technology. It would open up currently rural areas of the country to developement. This may have value beyond just moving existing passengers (or some future ones in the same lanes). But, it’s a big question that’s not been answered.
HSR without intermediate stops we already have and it’s called an airplane.
If the HSR in question is over an open access system, then it would be up to the transporter to decide if intermediate stops are warrented or not. You could have some service providers who want the intermediate business, and others who’s service is best facilitated by running straight through. I would think a freight based “mixed” service would want to run straight through, unless the intermediate stops don’t interfere with the scheduled ETA.
You guys need to get out of the Amtrak frame of mind
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by donclark
32 million per mile over 800 miles is $25.6 billion…higher than $17.3 billion… but still acceptable… I am not interested in replacing jet aircraft, I’m interested in providing another means of travel comparable to jet aircraft, which in many places are already maxed out… Whether its 4 hours or 5 hours or 6 hours to Chicago from New York City, there will still be better service in places like Cleveland, which today only sees passengers trains at night and a 16-17 hour trip…
The HSR right of way is no larger than a two lane highway, 40 feet wide…not a divided 4-6 lane highay and 150 plus feet wide. Frankly, there is enough right of way along the interstate highways already, or alongside current or former railroad right of way… we could built the HSR lines in most places astride one side of an interstate highway, reaching stations by diverting off the interstates near the stations inside the major cities using whatever right of way…
Paris like London has plans to build a tunnel to create a HSR hub… London is building theirs as we discuss this on this forum… Eventually the rail lines will be linked in Europe… and they haven’t finished building theirs yet…
Will we be better off building a HSR of the 21st century, or are we better off to continue to spend a billion or two a year maintaining our obsolete 19th century railroad…that is the question? I am convinced that any HSR line at whatever speed will compete with the airliners in a New York City to Chicago and Miami run… as long as it doesn’t require an overnight trip…as today…
My company considers a flight a day…time wise… Train travel should be the same, the technology is here to do so in America east of the Rockies…
I live in the Dallas Fort Worth area. From DFW airport I can fly to Las Vegas in less than 3 hours, yet if I wanted to fly to Reno instead, the best time is 8 h
Well - PRR ROW was built 100 or so years ago. TGV Sud-Est is about 20% shorter then traditional line. Sub 850 is possible
Highway route is below 800 miles.
Also - all HSR in europe has intermediate stops. Some have more, some have less. Its the same deal in Japan.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
If the HSR in question is over an open access system, then it would be up to the transporter to decide if intermediate stops are warrented or not. You could have some service providers who want the intermediate business, and others who’s service is best facilitated by running straight through. I would think a freight based “mixed” service would want to run straight through, unless the intermediate stops don’t interfere with the scheduled ETA.
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by oltmannd
[quote]
QUOTE: Originally posted by futuremodal
If the HSR in question is over an open access system, then it would be up to the transporter to decide if intermediate stops are warrented or not. You could have some service providers who want the intermediate business, and others who’s service is best facilitated by running straight through. I would think a freight based “mixed” service would want to run straight through, unless
RE: HSR on freeway ROW’s
You probably could place a HSR ROW between the lanes of a freeway, since the alignment of the usual freeway is condusive to high speed operations, at least in the Midwest and West. You would have to replace the middle support column of the typical overpass. Since there typically would only be room for one track, you either have to have directional running between terminals, or spend the money for more rail access ramps between freeway center and the area outside the freeway corridor.
But as has been noted, you do basically have a free ROW to work with, which could drastically cut down on the total cost of constructing HSR.