RWM, thanks for your analysis and comments on this and the previous page of this thread. You’ve nicely answered my question on the other thread of what you meant by ‘‘chance of success’’, etc.
With regard to the above: ‘‘has to be’’ - no; ‘‘possibly’’ or ‘‘likely’’ some - yes, I think. For example - and without asserting that this particular item is true or the vendor is likely or not - here’s a link (hopefully) to a Wall Street Journal article from this past Tuesday, January 26th, 2010, which posits that the Central Japan Railway Co. is angling to get some of the equipment orders for its shinkansen ‘Bullet Trains’:
The $8 billion tranche, as it is actually allocated, really doesn’t have much prescribed within it for post-110 mph equipment for which there aren’t already existing designs that would be built in the U.S., e.g., Talgo. Most of the equipment will be either Talgo or standard off-the-shelf Amfleet/P42 type equipment.
I have read the CJR and SNCF proposals. They make for sexy press in our nation’s ivory towers of media. They’ve got less chance of happening than I do of winning American Idol. Which is zero. What they propose is we simply hand the whole project over to them, thank you very much, and they deliver a turnkey project. Politically, culturally, legally, and technically, that’s a non-starter.
There are a lot of people in this country who are positivists, that is, they are certain there is a technical solution to just about any problem at hand. They see the high-speed rail issue as one to solve with the heavy application of technical prowess. But in reality, the problems of high-speed rail are not technical, but cultural. There isn’t anything technical that Japan or France or Germany can offer that can’t be done here, and isn’t already done here, and their ability to solve our cultural problems with experts from afar is about as good as ours to solve theirs.
I’ve read on other forums claims that the U.S. “has no experience with high-speed rail.” It’s true, we do not have cultural experience with implementing it. But the technical experience is chump change. So we import a foreign firm to navigate our own cultural waters – what a preposterous idea.
Most of new HSR will be on existing freight railroad right of ways. This will require public funding of considerable improvements to private freight rail infrastructure.
Here is an article that explores the issue of how freight railroads will need to partner with the government in order to host public HSR on their corridors:
It characterizes the act of freight railroads partnering with the government as “getting in bed with the devil,” and it wonders if private rail executives are wary of such a partnering in the wake of dere
Gotcha - thanks for the detailed and informative response. On the technical points, you sound like Don Phillips did when he wrote about the NECIP = NorthEast Corridor Improvement Project in the late 1970’s or 1980’s that there really wasn’t much all that new there - they just took what the PRR had figured out 40 or 50 years earlier, and rehabilitated / rebuilt the Corridor to update and re-implement that technology, only with lots more money.
You used the word ‘cultural’ several times. (Kind of reminds me of a teacher who used the analytical dichotomy of ‘Is it the person, or the institution, who is the cause here ?’'.) Anyway, could you elaborate or explain on what you mean by ‘cultural’, as contrasted/ distinguished from the ‘‘political, legal, and technical’’ aspects ? Thanks !
RWM: It may seem preposterous to you to consider input from companies with years of experience in HSR. Perhaps their technical experience is just “chump change” - essentially worthless. The fact remains that most folks would not care to rely totally on a new contractor with absolutely no experience to design and build a new, massive project anymore than they would do so for a house. I can only restate what I said before:
"You of course, are technically expert and you have access to their proposals. You may well be right. However, the fact remains that NO US concern has any experience in HSR whatsoever, and that may well be a handicap. Time will tell. "
I think we are talking about apples and oranges here. I think it’s helpful to think of the things that would go into a successful HSR or quasi-HSR rail line here in the US. On the technology side, a lot already is based on foreign designs.
Track: I think the US has a pretty good handle on construction and maintenance of track for HSR. Amtrak does quite nicely in the NEC, for example. Did Amtrak take a look a the rest of the world when figuring out what and how to do it? You bet. They adopted and adapted lots of what they learned.
Passenger cars: Talgo and Acela are adaptations of foreign designs.
Locomotives: AEM7s are based on ASEA designs, Acela and HHP8s on Alstom propulsion equipment. Is there any reason to hire a foreign RR to provide technology that’s already here and well understood?
Other Technology: Train dispatching, crew calling, reservations, s
[;)] Nice phrase. Good ‘break-it-down’ analysis, too. [tup] Track technology has been a 2-way conduit for the last 30 years or so between Japan, Europe, and us - they’ve had the speed and quality, we’ve got the heavy loads and long distances. It ain’t rocket science any more - more like, ‘‘Show up, and bring lots of money’’.
Given that Moline service may be part of this ARRA grant, it’s puzzling that Iowa City wasn’t included. Gov Quinn (IL) is making an announcement in Moline tomorrow; and you can bet it won’t be about not getting the grant 3 days before an election.
I was thinking that the $1.1 bil would include Dubuque as well; but the news report dispelled that notion.
Strangely, Iowa City didn’t get its train; but Iowa got money for a universal crossover near Ottumwa for the Zephyr and money to study CHI-OMA. The capitol, Des Moines (metro pop 556,000) isn’t on that line.
Yes, that’s exactly what it’s about, and the governor will state how Illinois intends to use its own money to build the service anyway. At least, that’s what the governor’s office told us on Thursday morning and again today.
$16 of the $17 million is a Track 1A application award for multiple crossovers and CTC islands on the BNSF Ottumwa Subdivision to improve Amtrak CZ service. There are many similar Amtrak long-distance and corridor train improvement projects in the $8 billion tranche, throughout the U.S.
The other $1 million is a 50% match for Iowa general fund money (already appropriated) for a Track 3 planning study for the Chicago-Omaha corridor. This includes (1) route alternatives analysis (2) NEPA Tier 1 EIS, (3) ridership estimates (4) service development plan. Iowa DOT has an RFP out on this for choosing a consultant which I believe is due on Monday.
According to the FRA, much of the contemplated national HSR system will be placed on existing freight rail corridors because those corridors go most of the places where HSR is intended to go. As I understand it, HSR is expected to share freight corridors, but not share actual track with the freight railroads.
Here is my question: Could you simply drop the HSR infrastructure onto freight corridors without affecting the freight rail operation—or—will this addition of HSR require massive amounts of new and revised freight rail infrastructure in order to share the corridor?
Even though both freight and HSR will have their own track and signal systems, can they really just operate side by side each other with no crash barrier to keep them separate in case of a freight train derailment?
Would existing freight corridors have to be revised to lessen curvature? Would their grade crossings have to be eliminated in order to share the corridor with HSR? Would retaining walls be needed to widen fills at the top? Would new bridges be built along existing bridges? Can HSR tracks simply be added into existing space, or would th
According to the FRA, much of the contemplated national HSR system will be placed on existing freight rail corridors because those corridors go most of the places where HSR is intended to go. As I understand it, HSR is expected to share freight corridors, but not share actual track with the freight railroads.
Here is my question: Could you simply drop the HSR infrastructure onto freight corridors without affecting the freight rail operation—or—will this addition of HSR require massive amounts of new and revised freight rail infrastructure in order to share the corridor?
Even though both freight and HSR will have their own track and signal systems, can they really just operate side by side each other with no crash barrier to keep them separate in case of a freight train derailment?
Would existing freight corridors have to be revised to lessen curvature? Would their grade crossings have to be eliminated in order to share the corridor with HSR? Would retaining walls be needed to widen fills at the top? Would new bridges be built along existing bridges? Can HSR tracks simply be added into existing space, or would the freight line alignment need to shift in the process?
They’ve just stopped funding transit. They’re $250 million in arrears now.
Promising to blow another $45 million to set up a service that will require a perpetual subsidy when they can’t pay for the existing services is beyond belief. But then, so it the Government of the State of Illinois.
It’s part of the Quad City train service. How the train service gets funded is a legitimate part of the discussion about the train service… I simply pointed out that the State of Illinois can not fund their current transportation commitments. How they plan to fund this new toy is a valid question to ask here.
Nothing is in it for the freight railroads except being good public citizens. Any capacity or maintenance or speed benefits cannot benefit the freight railroads by law, unless the freight railroad pays out of its own pocket for the allocated share of the improvements. The freight railroads are in a “heads we break even, tails we lose” position. They could be punished for not being nice, but they’re not going to receive any benefit, either.
There are some ancillary benefits such as grade-crossing closures and separations that will benefit freight railroad reliability, but for every one of those there are subtle effects of HSR that is co-located that decreases freight railroad reliability. There is a severe consumption of potential future growth potential in virtually every corridor, because virtually every corridor has choke points.