If our country wanted to build a better and more complete passenger rail system, it would probably mean new tracks that are passenger-only(or passenger-mostly) tracks.
Since another thread pretty much put to rest any idea of running new passenger track lines along Interstate highways, another idea would be to lay new passenger tracks along existing RR rights-of-way.
Some curves would probably not support HrSR, but at least the grade issues wouldn’t exist. I know there would have to be some wider bridges, more signals, etc., which would all cost money, but not nearly as much as buying new land and building all new bridges, let alone all the environmental court costs.
Is there enough room in existing track lines to add passenger tracks, and what would be environmental hurdles? Is the whole idea feasible?
Not to disparage you, but it’s an asinine idea, except perhaps where a historic ROW has enough space for ‘new’ trackage, or a parallel route that has been removed or downsized could be converted back from a trail or whatever to a passenger route.
The cost of the civil engineering for passenger-quality subgrade is very large, and much of the drainage and subbase is not something that current (including Chinese) rapid construction equipment would address. You’d be better off adopting the HAL class 9 slab track, devising TLMs and maintenance equipment for it, and co-locate passenger and existing freight ROW where possible. If you expect to do better than what bus competition will offer by the time the grand construction project gets to start running train service, you’ll have to add electrification, wayside power, security fences, and all the various etcs to the cost. ALL of which is cost that would be fairly borne by the train riders, NOT the local taxpayers who have to put up with the noise and obstruction of the new rail line.
Thanks, but it wasn’t my idea. I was talking to a BNSF employee yesterday who suggested it was a better idea than building all new lines on new routes.
Personally, I don’t think it’s a good idea, but I’m trying to explore some possibilities if our country ever is serious about expanding passenger rail traffic.
I’d like to wait and see how Brightline does with their LA to LV line down the median of I-15. I personally think that’s a great place for rail lines.
I live in Chicago where almost every expressway has trains in the median and nothing makes me more wish I took the train than watching the L train zip past me while I’m crawling in traffic.
Here is the thing, the evolution of every city, every existing infrastructure, every existing commuter rail line is different. There are not goung to be “one size fits all, cookie cutter” answers assuming there is a need and denand,
In tbe Northeast Corridor, the one place where Amtrak makes money, them and the states own the trackage, and there is very mjnimal freight traffic.
In the heyday of the 1940’s a train crossed the Susquehanna river on the PRR every eight minuntes. It was 4 tracks except for tgat bridge and few other spots, Washington to Boston.
The chief concern with ‘regional rail’ is that it gets built to heavy-rail standards, and it only makes sense for densely-populated corridors where automobile use is restricted, or there are chronic congestion delays. The somewhat-vague ‘powers that be’ that are trying to eliminate private automobile ownership almost always balk at the idea of properly funding first construction and then operation at required subsidy.
Lighter rail is probably a better alternative, but it often winds up being not much more than ‘bus-plus’ – and whether or not we reverse the century-old idea of ‘good roads’ and ‘defense highways’, I don’t think there is any cost-effective niche for any kind of renewed interurban service on dedicated rail ROW.
Much of the ‘regional’ feeding of corridor rail may come from electric air taxis, presumably fed by rideshare jitneys. We’ve noted in other threads how typical ‘peak-dependent’ heavy rail is hurting post-pandemic; I’d like to see the effect on off-peak use of the lines. Amtrak’s service to Scranton and ABE (in the Lehigh Valley) utilizes commuter lines for much of the ROW in the East, with ‘all that that implies’ probably including limited amenities for a ‘transportation’ service. Two words that I keep remembering: “bar cars”… even if (in our current state of deplorabiliry, especially if) their operation and maintenance can be done by an outside ‘association’)
Build it and some will come. For a while. Many things will cripple or kill it without warning.
The section from Cocoa south is actually a rebuild of an ‘existing rail corridor’ – in fact, a line built as double track with much of the original bridging still present. Note the enormous amount of work required to replace all the bridges with new structure, involving temporary construction to get rid of the old. Several compromises in the speed of the route still remain.
The big problem here is crossings. Even with four-gate crossings with medians and cameras there are an awful lot of collisions and accidents. There also seem to be more than a few ‘trespasser’ accidents. Neither of those things can be functionally eliminated (as they would have to be for service above 110mph) without orders of magnitude more expense and inconvenience. When service is extended to Jacksonville I expect these concerns to apply to that section, too.
The extension to Orlando is an American take on what is appropriate for HSR… except that it sorta isn’t. This uses part of the land taken for the Beachline Expressway (528?) and part of the fun with the Cocoa station is that the expressway authority has a condition that the train service not impair toll revenue… so it’s intentionally hard to get from the train station to the highway. All the grade crossings are expensively separated, and there are no intermediate stations to have to arrange. The construction is largely graded (where the Chinese would likely have gone to viaduct construction with the line, surface, and drainage in the decking structure). Any of the times I have ridden Brightline (Orlando to West Palm) the actual time at anywhere close to 125mph has been very little; perhaps that will improve over time, but I’m given to understand that the extension west of the Orlando station facility will be nowhere near as straight, or as fast, as the Beachline tangent.
There has been discussion of HSR on the I-4 alignment, perhaps co-located with the existing line Amtrak uses. I am not sanguine that high speed could actually be practical without tilting equipment.
There’s a very obvious problem that pretty much dooms this situation from the beginning.
The freight railroads needs to access trackage on either side of their main lines.
Kinda hard to do if there’s a high(er) speed passenger line in the way. Can’t easily build flyovers in congested urban areas. Frequent rail crossings would remove the “high” from the passenger speed, and would require high-speed diamonds even at 79mph.
We’re not talking about freights using the NEC in off hours, in case someone is already thinking “whattabout”. That’s irrelevant to this situation.
You’ll get all the NIMBY action you could want, and a great deal more besides, if you try to put fast passenger trains on some previously-sleepy branch line or abandoned section now a trail. Propose it and see…
Part of the problem keeps being the bus alternative. All the selling points GM made for transit buses vs. streetcars and interurbans still apply, with the bus further facilitating the necessary multiple trips per day or short waiting times that make mass transit at all palatable. The situation gets much worse if you take even a fraction of the rail construction cost and put it into amenities on the buses – entertainment connectivity, easy charging, hover seats with parlor legroom, reasonable food access.
Note that various forms of BRT also remain alternatives for reviving old rights-of-way. I believe there is one in Pittsburgh on a relatively high-speed part of the old P&LE that makes use of considerable grade separation.
Only when you get large numbers of people patronizing faster alternatives that actually convert peak speed into meaningfully shorter travel time does HrSR start to look attractive. Where there are not identifiable ‘lanes’ of commutation to underwrite the costs of high-speed regional, there is less certainty that adequate, rather than ‘you’ll take what we can afford’, service can be provided long-term.
Lots and lots and lots of additional incentives to travel ‘by rail’ will need to be organized and provided – not just the synergies that Fortress PUD development enables, but the sort of ‘market encouragement’ that the New Haven (for instance) did so carefully. When was the last time your ticket stub gave you a free burger, or discounted admission?
1.Chicago eastbound lines included the NYC Lakeshore route, PRR, NKP Erie and B&O. Are any of this still intact but abandoned or lightly used to connect to Cleveland, Columbus or Pittsburgh?
2.Chicago westbound lines to Omaha (or nearby) included UP (CNW), BNSF (CB&Q), RI, Milwaukee Road and CGW.
A fair part of the former four track NYC line across NY state might still be available. There is the problem that it was the freight tracks that were taken up, and many of the industries are on the north side. Likewise, the passenger stations are chiefly on the south side of the line. That’s not to say it couldn’t happen, but it would be a challenge.
Likewise, a fair part of the Erie was two tracks, now reduced to one, so there might still be the ability to add another track.
Don’t know about the Pennsy, but IIRC much of their mainline was four tracks as well.
Unfortunately I doubt CSX would give up any of that right of way. A couple decades ago Alstom and SNCF proposed a turnkey HSR on half of the CN right away Chicago to I think Champaign. CN had a stroke and killed it. If I recall correctly they wanted 25 feet from loading gauge to loading gauge and an impenatrable concrete wall in between. They got the FRA to create entirely new standards on shared rights of way. For the CTA that killed any hopes of ever building another Orange Line to MDW. Big deal in the papers at that time. Basically the standards were designed to eliminate any chance of that happening. I’ll see if I can find the FRA rules.
