Yup!
Two items noted from Japan’s Shinkansen experience:
- Two reasons why Japan never routed the original “Bullet” or its grain-scoop successors over existing rails - hyperdense traffic plus a 14.5 inch gauge discrepancy.
- That nice smooth curved pilot below the nose ogive was a system of laminated armor worthy of a WWII battleship - far more capable than anything the FRA has mandated for US trains. The people who designed those trains didn’t assume that they wouldn’t ever hit things at speed, even though the right-of-way was designed to keep everything but trains off the rails. They were firm believers in Murphy’s Law.
The first item above isn’t true of most US termini. The second should put the crashworthiness argument to rest.
Chuck (former resident of Tokyo)
The biggest problem I see for a 220mph Chicago-Champaign route is the 2-seat ride for travel beyond Champaign. At least two potential routes would be affected: Carbondale and St Louis. The alternative is a change of engines.
A separate row does not seem necessary inasmuch as the current one seems wide enough with some separation between freight & hsr tracks.
Except for coming out of Union Station to McCromick Place (mi 0-3) and at Hyde Park (~mi 9), very little, substantial curvature requiring additional row easment would be necessary for 220 mph curves. The few curves including the one at Hyde Park are 50-min.; and these would allow 135 mph with tilting trains. Some catenary hs issues may be present at undercrossings at 79th (former NKP), 93rd (BRC-NS), and 118th (UP). Kensington Jct also would be problematic.
135-150mph seems readily acheivable with non-electric motive power that would offer through service in the interim and during subsequent phase hsr development to St Louis. Furthermore, such trains to Louis could continue to Kansas and Oklahoma; and additional trains could go to Carbondale, Paducah, and Memphis from Champaign,
The only question is the relative priority for electrification given the oil situation.