Just wondering, but: how many nations have HST’s operating that are faster than our Accela?
For the sake of comprehensiveness, let’s also count countries that have such HST’s running but are of a different country’s design or manufacture.
There are many interpretations for what HST-type speed is, but let’s go with a common one: a train is an HST if it can and does maintain (not all, but) sustained running at 125 mph (200/kph) or more. Notice that Accela meets that definition. - a. s.
125? That’s not true HST.
Let’s say the USA is rather backward and lagging with HST technology. Yes they rattle a acela down tracks at 125-150… but that is about all that set of tracks can do.
True high speed has been done by the Japanese and Europeans for decades. Such trains are totally isolated from grade crossings etc. And BOY do they fly. In fact Ive heard that some French trains managed to kill regional airlines by beating thier own schedules.
I think the Australians have or had Luxury trains that goes from one coast to the other… not too fast but has everything a passenger could want for the hours and days spent on that train.
I recall a experiment where they mounted a set of jets on a railroad something with wheels and broke 175 mph but it wont happen in revenue.
I have heard of some maglev experiments in popular magazines where they have the ability to generate the high speeds above and way beyond piddling 150. Heck, Ive been at 140+ a few times in a very powerful car. But that I save just for me and write it off to youth gone by.
Typing in Maglev in google for the USA turns up projects numbering about 10-30 around the USA where there are efforts or baby steps being made towards true HST in the USA.
We have the land, money and the room to make it happen but until someone actually gets out of the research lab
Let’s start counting:
USA (That’s all for the western hemisphere!)
England
France
Germany
Netherlands
Japan
Taiwan (I think)
China (Shanghai Maglev)
Italy
Spain
(how about Austria, Denmark, Switzerland? I don’t know…)
Also:
Belgium, Portugal, Finland, Norway, Sweden, Czech, Russia, South Korea, Turkey (almost commissioned), Austria (2008)
Taiwan is in service; we just hired some of the expats who worked on it.
RWM
I lived in Australia from 1999 to 2004. It has some really neat trains, but they are not high speed trains.
The quickest train runs daily from Brisbane, Queensland, to Rockhampton, Queensland. Three days a week it goes to Cairns. Its maximum speed is 160 kilometers or 100 miles per hour, although there are only a few short stretches where it achieves these speeds. The train is called the Tilt Train because it incorporates tilt train technology.
The train to Cairns leaves Brisbane at 6:25 p.m. and gets to Cairns at 7:20 p.m. The times are somewhat different when the train is only going as far as Rockhampton. Interestingly, the QR is a narrow gauge railway, albeit a first class property.
The Tilt Train has business class and coach class carriages. I rode it twice from Brisbane to Townsville. It is very comfortable. Meals are served at the passenger’s seat, thereby eliminating the cost associated with restaurant cars. Even though it is an overnight train three days a week, it does not have any sleeping or lounge cars. Passengers have a variety of entertainment options. They can even switch to a camera mounted in the nose of the locomotive and watch the track roll by.
Another interesting QR train is The Outback. It runs from Brisbane to Long Reach, which amongst other things is the home of the Qantas Airline’s Museum. Qantas, which is one of the oldest, continuous airlines in the world, got its start in 1926 in Longreach. All of Qantas’ 747-400s are named Longreach. Initially I thought it was because of the long reach, i.e. non-stop capabilities of the airplane, but it turned out that they are named for Longreach, Queensland. A trip to Longreach on The Outback is a great way to see the Australian Outback.
The train that runs across Australia, at least from east to
Samantha, that was a great accounting of Australian passenger trains. Thank you! - a. s.
Where do these other countries (many of them considered to be “lesser” compared to the USA manage to scrape together the money for these billion dollar developments? And the United States can’t do this because some influential voice constantly sells the idea that we can’t afford it, that no one will ride it, that it can’t be justified in the current “fill in the blank” climate. Maybe 43 years from …
These Nations or States have the ability to make things happen and right away.
The United States needs Studies, EPA impact studies, committiees, local input (NOT IN MY BACK YARD!!) and years of wasted effort.
It is my understanding we slammed a road through to Alaska in 6 months to a years time in world war two. Now a mile of free way is years in the process before the first survey peg is installed.
Sweep the bloat away, find the money, get the property and make it happen. Putting boots on the ground as they say.
Nah, they rather go back to thier currently scheduled committee meeting.
Most of the “lesser” countries have it because they never invested in much of a highway network, so the population lives in cities, not suburbs. Because of the population living there, the cities have transit to support intercity train travel. Because they can connect to the existing rail network for travel outside their country, which leverages their investment. And, because they have chosen to place a high tax on gasoline. You can argue which is the “chicken” and which is the “egg”, I suppose…
The NEC works well because the Northeast has less roads, more transit and big population centers. If you build a ground up, HS line in the US, say Atlanta to Chattanooga, as is now being actively studied, where would the riders come from and where would they go to? The major reason it’s even being studied is becaus there is no more room for more runways at the airport, I-75 is pretty close to full, and a second airport or additional highway could be much more costly than the HS rail line. So, if it’s going to happen in the US, it’s for a whole differents set of reasons than elsewhere in the world.
I live in metro Atlanta, but a Hartsfield Jackson to Chatt rail line would do me almost no good. Just to get to the rail line, would be about half the trip to Chatt, and the worst part of the driving would be over - might as well just finish the trip in my car. The 4.5 million in metrol ATL are so sprawled out that you
Just bring in the HST straight to the airports.
If Kennedy or BWI or similar ground to a halt because of filthy weather, the people will continue to “Fly” by HST Direct from airport ternimal to airport ternimal. In fact they may like it sooo much that more people will drive to the airport, park and HST it. In time they might say… whoops time for me to hiss instead of time for me to jet.
Im taking another look at the Moller Skycars while I wait for HST… those things are potentially VERY useful bypassing that choked highway I fought today.
Another thought. After WWII the governments of Europe owned both the railways an the airlines, thereby limiting competition and encouraging cooperation. Here, regional airlines routinely lobby agains and block rail alternatives. How many flights do you suppose Southwest flies between DFW and Houston/San Antonia each day?
Southwest does not fly from DFW if by that you mean DFW International Airport. It flies from Love Field, which is approximately 11 miles east of DFW.
Southwest flies 60 flights a weekday between Dallas and Houston, 26 flights between Dallas and Austin, and 30 flights between Dallas and San Antonio. Southwest’s 737s can carry an average of 149 passengers. Its load factor in 2007 on its Texas flights was approximately 80 per cent. This means that it carried approximately 3,595,072 passengers between these three cities during the week. The number of flights on the weekend and over certain holiday periods varies from the weekday operations.
Add in the passengers carried on the weekends or special holiday flights, plus the passengers carried to its other Texas cities (Amarillo, Corpus Christi, El Paso, Harlingen, and Lubbock), and Southwest carried more passengers in Texas in 2007 than all of Amtrak’s long distance trains (3,819,267).
Southwest is only one of the many airlines serving Texas. When you throw in the passengers carried by the other carriers (American, Continental, etc.) within Texas, as well as into and out of Texas, the airlines serving Texas probably enplaned and deplaned more passengers than Amtrak carried over its system with the possible exception of the Northeast Corridor.
Approximately 15 years ago, if I remember correctly, a consortium of investors proposed building a high speed rail line to connect first two and then all the Texas Triangle cities. I believe the first candidates for the rail line were Dallas and Houston. Their proposal did not fly - no pun intended - because the state legislature would not guarantee the bonds needed to raise the funds for the project. They promoters could not raise enough money in the capital markets to float the project. It died.
Southwest Airlines, amongst others, opposed public funding for the pr
I don’t see a single reference to support anything you’ve asserted. Care to provide them? As far as I’ve heard, plenty of direct subsidy goes into air traffic control, and without it, it would fall apart. (Is the Airline Trade Group an unbiased source?)
I’ve pointed out on another thread that claiming “per passenger” subsidy is a red herring, especially when seat-mile availability is not brought into the equation. In addition, would it be an endeavor to keep intercity passengers captive to domestic air travel (which burns 13 billions of jet fuel per year) in order to keep the passenger miles up, rather than giving them a choice in modes? The continued question of why there are highway and aviation trust funds but no rail trust fund must be kept in the spotlight.
Attacking NARP, especially in the vein of them representing all potential rail passengers, is also a logical fallacy. As is attempting to claim (by inference) that long-distance trains operating at an average speed of 40 mph are the same as high-speed trains operating at average speeds of between 125 and 175 mph.
SWA is not a 100-percent private enterprise. They do not own their own airports, nor do they operate their own ATC system out of pocket that is dedicated to their operations. Their counterclaim is utterly invalid.
Lets backup a little bit.
The “Acela” does not “rattle” down the track. Inside at full speed it rides better than an Amfleet Car. The locomotive rides hard at 150, about the same as an F40-PH at 80 mph.
The Acela was based on Alstrom’s TGV 300 klm French train. U.S. Safety Standards has made the Acela heavier than the French version. As the Northeast Coridor is built on old railroad Right of Ways, buying more land to take the curves out would be too costly taking homes and factories, more acceleration was needed. Gearing was set for a 250 klm cruse speed (153), It has hit over 170 mph during testing. Multi-deck parking garages are built, not only in the city, but also outside majior cities on the Interstate Beltways.
“You Build It, They Will Come” The 20 Acela Bullet Trains running between Boston and Washington reported a 19% increase in riders in just 2007.
The Acela Express is not “based on the TGV”. The TGV is not a tilt train, like the AE is. The only things that the AE shares with the TGV are the traction components and wheel truck setup. Other than that, it’s a new-build that is distantly related (pardon the pun) to Bombardier’s LRC.
During testing, the AE hit 169 mph and did not hit or exceed 170 mph.
Germany’s ICE 1 is comparable to Acela Express in weight, although overall it is lighter. (ICE 1’s power cars are 172,000 lbs whereas AE power cars, not “locomotives”, are 204,000 lbs; the heaviest cars on the ICE 1 weigh a bit over 128,000 lbs whereas the AE’s heaviest cars, next to the power cars, weigh 142,000 lbs. Going with newer ICE designs, the average per-car weight of ICE-T tilt trains is 110,231 pounds.) Not only is the AE not all that much heavier than other high-speed trains, it’s not even that heavy for US passenger rolling stock.
It’s not necessary to “take the curves out” on traditional railroad rights of way, such as the NEC is; certainly if the ICE-T can achieve average speeds of 120 mph, and the X2000 achieve average speeds of 109 mph, on traditional railroads, the AE ought to be able to achieve similar results. The FRA has gotten in the way, in some respects, requiring “Class 8 track” (whose specifications still elude me; France and Germany run high speed on 132 lb/yd track whereas more 140 lb/yd tracks on the NEC are limited to “Class 7”??) for operation faster than 125 mph, and of course the need for newer constant-tension catenary wire, for rapid operation on the former PRR in particular.
As far as “build it and they will come”, all the proofs to the effect (the high-speed endeavors of other countries combined with the example in the USA and even Canada) ought to make arguments to the contrary moot.<
I have a solution to the red herring about subsidies.
Let’s eliminate all direct payment subsidies to Amtrak.
Then we’ll have the Federal and State governments build, and maintain all the track and right of ways, like they do the highways that are the right of way for busses and trucks. Then we’ll have the local governments build and maintain all the train stations and yards like they do the airports that are the terminals for the airlines. And, of course, the dispatch centers which perform the same function as Air Traffic Control. Oh, did I forget hire and pay the railroad police like they do the traffic enforcement and accident investigation on the highways and at the airports.
With the government owned infrastructure open to anyone, subject to a rr fuel and ticket tax, I bet you would see lots of new railroads serving both freight and passengers. Anyone who could afford to buy an engine and a couple of cars could start scheduled or on demand passenger service.
Already tried in Britain in relation to rail, right?
Open access does not exist anywhere in the world, at present. The complexity of dispatching would require a lot of federal oversight. It’d be like if we had Amtrak take over all the railroads, or if you like, a return to USRA. (And IIRC, the prevailing judgment is that USRA was directly, not indirectly, responsible for the so-called “golden age” of US railroading.)
Hold on; we gotta take away direct subsidy payment to all commuter rail and transit, too. Let’s see what that results in…
My point was only that only the railroads are expected to build and maintain their own right of way, so comparing subsidy costs is irrelevant.
Indeed.