Among passenger rail advocates HSR is today’s buzz word, but just what does it mean? First of all I would suggest two things by way of definition: 1) it be defined in terms of average speed not top speed, and 2) it be subdivided into into several ranges of speed.
To start with let’s look at the average speed of Amtrak trains today. I’ve chosen 5 Amtrak corridor and 5 long distance routes (purposedly excluding the NEC) which I think are reasonably representative of Amtrak service. The chosen routes are Chi-Milw (Hiawatha), NY-Albany (Empire) FtW-Ok City (Heartland), Chi-Battle Crk (Michigan), Okld-Sacramento (Capitol), NY-Miami (Silver), NY- Chi (Lakeshore), Chi-NO (C of NO), Chi-LA (SW Chief) and Seattle-LA (Starlight). The average speed of these 10 routes is a blazing 52 mph. I’d call this Snail Rail (SR) but since it’s where we are today it can be used as a baseline for definining high speed rail. Any average speeds relatively higher than SR, even if not high speed by Asian or European standards, are at least higher speed rail.
I’d suggest the following incremental ranges of average speed for purposes of discussion: 60-80 mph -Nominal Speed Rail (NSR), 80 -100 mph - Medium Speed Rail (MSR),100 - 120 mph - High Speed Rail (HSR), and 120+ mph - Ultra High Speed Rail (UHSR).
To attain SR speeds, trains today run at up to 80 mph (79 actually) which suggests to me the following: NSR would require top speeds of up to 100 mph, MSR up to 120 mph, HSR up to 140 mph and UHSR at least 160 mph. On many routes today we already have operational problems arising from the conflict of mixing 80 mph passenger trains with 60 mph or less freights. As we move to each incrementally higher speed range those problems, and the cost of solving them, probably increase exponentially!
Additionally, the multiplicity of level grade crossings in the US as compar
Defining HSR is like the Supreme Court Justice who said he couldn’t define pornography, but knew it when he saw it.
I’m guessing the Acela is toward the low end of the spectrum for modern HST’s when compared to what the systems of many other countries now offer, esp. France, Germany and of course Japan.
HSR in the United States, today and for the forseeable future, can be defined as wishful thinking.
To see what HSR should be, check out the Japanese high speed rail network - dedicated right of way, totally grade separated, not even using the same track gauge as the low speed system it sometimes parallels. Then run a quick number crunch on what it would cost to build anything similar in the US. The only thing comparable would be the defense budget!
HSR…High Speed Rail…is just a sexy, glamorous, obscure, hype or buzzword used to ignite feelings of euphoria at the thought of moving on land as fast as you can in in jet plane. Reality, expectations, application, and understanding of the term is not needed as long as you are a politician or other in need of attention ($$$ and/or votes). There is a lot of talk of HSR without explanation of implimentation, application, or expectations.
The European Union defines High Speed Rail as 250km/h (155mph) for new lines and 200km/h (124mph) for upgraded existing lines. There’s a general consensus that true high speed rail is 300km/h (186mph) or faster.
I agree with the replies you all have posted in response to my original message. My point was to attempt to define HSR in terms of something that was realistic and doable in the near term in the USA. The Asian and European concept of HSR is, IMHO, not going to be implemented any time soon in North America and in the meantime we should be thinking about and planning for more modest objective speeds that we have a reasonable chance of attaining. Given Amtrak’s current 52 mph Snail Rail average speed I think Phase I of our HSR planning ought to be to get up to an average train speed on the order of 75 mph.
That is a sad commentary that pretty much describes the United States today.
Some of us are old enough to remember when the US was the technology leader.
Now we are falling behind even former 3rd world countries. We are even about to retire our space shuttles and pay the Russians to transport our people to and from the Space Station. If we ever do decide to invest in HSR, we will have to buy the equipment from foreign companies.
I don’t think we in the US are lacking in the technical cabability to achieve truly HSR, What’s lacking is the will to achieve it. For at least the last 70 years we’ve simply been too much in love with the private automobile to want to make any significant investment in any form of ground transport other than highway, When and if HSR becomes a national priority I’m confident that entrepenures will be more than ready and capable to step up and develop the necessary technology and manufacturing capability that will be required.
We built an Interstate Highway System that was the envy of the world and we never let the costs get in the way.
Now I say it is time to build a HSR system the envy of the world by combining the Interstate Highway System with a HSR system elevated in the median of the HSR system and using Maglev. Today Mag-lev is the only system out there capable of sustained 350 mph speeds an has virtually no wear and tear on itself. Maintenance costs for HSR is astronomical where the initial costs of Mag-lev are high but once the system is in place very little maintenace is required to keep it running. It does not touch its guideway once underway and unlike hovercraft is quite capable of climbing 3 and 4 % grades without losing speed. We already own the IHS right of way so there is no reason to go out and purchase the majority of the ROW necessary. From what I have been able to glean from the information available Mag-lev uses no more electrical power than any other HSR system. Initial costs of Seattles Monorail system was high when installed in 1960 but it is now 49 years later and the system still operates for the most part reliably every day. Sure there have been a few glitches but the system is now almost fifty years of age, probably older than the majority of people contributing to this forum.
If we want to create another system that will be the envy of the world than it is seriously time to take a good hard look at Mag-Lev. Another thing that will be accomplished by building a system elevated in the median strip of the IHS is it will save hundreds of lives yearly where cars or trucks lose control and cross the median into oncoming traffic causing horrendous accidents. Can it be built and create huge numbers of jobs at the same time. The answer is obviously yes. I dare say that I see no reason that a Mag-lev system can also transport much of the nations UPS and other parcel services including the Post Office. A network of
I do agree that it is fueled by a lack of will, but the technology is still being patented offshore.
In the not so distant past, the majority of the airlines this side of the iron curtain flew Boeing and McDonnell Douglass aircraft. Now even America’s airlines are converting their fleets to European build Airbus.
The 28 new helicopters currently being constructed to fly the US President are being built by Augusta Westland in Europe.
The current leader in the bidding to build 150 new combat search and rescue helicopters for the US Air Force is Augusta Westland.
The US Coast Guard flies French made Dauphines.
The largest automobile manufacturer in the US is now Toyota.
The Dell computer on which I am typing this was made in Malaysia. Their tech support facility is in India.
My televisions were made in Japan.
I own 3 Chevrolets. One was made in Canada and one was made in Korea.
I agree that a great deal of the interstate highway right of way could be used for HSR, but I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting. Like Mark said, We don’t have the will.
I agree that HSR would have to be a priority. I remember that the Interstate Highway Program was seen as important to defense as well as to safety; it wasn’t promulgated just to save time on the highway for the motorist. As in the sixties, in addition to the (political, national) will we’'d need some serious money from somewhere to do it.
I don’t think it is in this country’s interest to develop our own American set of HST trainsets and infrastructure (power, rails, etc.). In fact, I’m not sure this country has developed any HST on its own except for the Metroliner, which Budd started developing in the mid-Sixties. I know there are some jobs to be created in planning, design and manufacture, but there are so many countries that have HST’s now that I’m sure quite a few of them would be willing to sell us a whole HSR route “out of the box,” as Siemens can do with its LRT systems. That way we could get what we want and not have to (excuse the pun) “reinvent the wheel.”
Now, if we want to stay on top of the world technologically perhaps working on a Maglev would be the way to go. But this country couldn’t even build a superconducting supercollider 15 years ago, so I’m not too hopeful about Maglev. - a.s.
As I mentioned someplace sometime ago, in a conversation I had with an Alstom VP he mentioned that there is a lot of technololgy around the world for all types of rail and transit application which we cannot use here because of American rail standards being so much heavier and more thus more restrictive. We cannot just take world technology and plop it down on our rights of way because of that. Therefore, we have to sort of reinvent the railroad. (And saying that, I don’t mean Mag Lev. At least not yet in my mind.) But I am suspect of many using the term HSR are using it without fully understanding what its capabilities and shortcomings are as they build up a false expectation in the public’s (and politicians’) minds. Then when it turns out a train cannot achieve 200 miles per hour until it is an hour out of a metroplitan area where it has moved at an average 50mph, they have a public uprising. No, expectations have to be explained before planning.
How do we power all this high speed rail? During the recent campaign, Obama seemed to be either for or against additional coal or nuc facilities depending on his audience – not surprising for a politician. I suspect his bottom line is that he is for it so long as it comes with so many restrictions that it can not be built. In this connection, it is my understanding further work on the Yucca Mountain railroad already has been suspended.
Solar and wind are fine, provided you can build the new transmission lines to get it to consuming areas. However, both have reliability issues, making them less than ideal for transportation uses.
Perhaps California will be the test case for this problem. Put bluntly, does California want HSR badly enough to allow construction of the infrastructure to support it? In this century?
Obama seems to be against all new nuclear power. A significant and recent development is that Yucca Mountain storage facility and its fancy new 330-mile railroad have been suspended indefinitely.
Mag-Lev may come to fruition at some futuristic time but I don’t expect to live long enough to see it. To me it’d just be another people mover akin to commercial aircraft so even if I were around it wouldn’t hold much interest for me. I guess I’m too much of a tradionalist, but if it doesn’t have steel wheels riding on steel rails it just isn’t a train as far as I’m concerned.
I realize Seattle’s Monorail is not a Mag-lev system I was just using it as an example of how long it has lasted.
I followed all of the hearings on California’s HSR from day one and they are selling a white elephant that will never live up to its hype. They are claiming 2-1/2 hours from San Francisco to LA and for the first 50 miles between San Francisco and San Jose they will be sharing tracks with Caltrain and speed will be limited to 100 MPH. Once past Gilroy the trains will climb and tunnel through Pacheco Pass with grades of 3% in some places. The Japanese and French can tell California that grades of 1% are the maximum for HSR as speed drops dramatically on any grade above 1% and that 1% can only be for a short distance.
Once in the San Joaquin Valley the train should be able to attain its design speed for most of the distance to Bakersfield. Once leaving Bakers field and climing over Tehachapi Pass the grades will once again be 2% or greater. Once past Mojave the train should be able to attain its design speed once again. I would imagine they will have speed restrictions once past Palmdale for most of the remaining way to LA due to the narrow canyons and other mountainous terrain.
If the system selected had been Mag-lev the 2% and 3% grades would have little effect on the overall speed. With todays depressed real estate market the cost of obtaining all of the Right of Way has dropped dramatically from 16 Billion to 8 Billion. I would imagine that the 8 Billion saved would be enough to install Mag-Lev instead of HSR. The issue of where the power needs are going to come from have not been addressed y
I’m going off topic here but the Space Shuttle fleet has exceeded the designed lifespan of the system and really needs to be retired as the safety margins are decreasing with each additional flight. There will be a follow on system which is a basically a modernized Apollo command module (although reusable) but I agree the Shuttle replacement should have already been developed and in service.
I’m going to quit while I’m ahead before another “Amtrak vs. NASA funding” war starts…