I read something that refered to some proposed passenger train proposal as touting that the service would be “fast and frequent” (FAF).
If high speed rail (HSR) will require high test infrastructure and grade separations, would it make more sense to start with passenger service that is fast and frequent (FAF), and build from there?
Heck, yes ! That’s been my position for a long time now. Let it become the introduction or ‘gateway drug’ to the convenience and merits of rail passenger service for the existing passengers (“preaching to the choir”, as it were) and the incremental newer users - as the light rail and regional commuter systems - and grow from there.
Fast and frequent makes a lot more sense for a whole variety of reasons (high frequency seems to work for Southwest Airlines), but it’s a lot tougher to sell since it doesn’t have the appeal of HSR. People seem to want everything at once and don’t realize that HSR in Europe is the latest phase of an incremental approach that started back in the 1950’s-1960’s. Fast and frequent would be the first phase which the European carriers took years ago and realizes that we can’t catch up in one step.
An excellent idea!!!
The California HSR to nowhere, Corcoran to Borden, is their proposed HSR start-up. What a rediculous waste of money.but typical for California. The current Amtrak service through the San Joaquin valley is adequate for that area, at least in the minds of those who think rationally.
Sounds like a plan… but, it depends on a number of things.
Where? We still need to think of relatively short corridors (even shorter if not HSR) with population nodes. The elapsed time, point to point, is what counts, if you are going to snare people from using autos and planes. Else, why even bother?
How fast is fast? Maintained (average) speed is what counts. If over 90 mph, you will still need somewhat better infrastructure (hi-speed switches, smoother roadbed, better grade crossing protection). You will also need to deal cheaply with reducing the ridiculously long dwell times (8-15 minutes) at en route stations.
But is one really a substitution for the other? And with the designation FAF, I understand what frequent means, but what does fast mean? If it is an alternative to HSR, I assume that FAF is not as fast as HSR, so how fast is it? Since much of the HSR that is envisioned for the U.S. will be relatively low speed for HSR, then the speed for FAF must be only the typical 79 mph. So why not just call it F for frequent?
And if the primary attribute of FAF is frequent trains, will this really attract more people to long distance rail travel? I don’t think it would. For long distance, you need fast. Frequent is much less important. For short distance such as commuting, you need frequent, and fast is much less important.
So I don’t see how I ma
I see what you’re saying, but maybe that idea of wanting everthing now, is what’s going to work against HSR in the end? I can forsee people not being happy with the idea of expecting a Rolls Royce, and getting a Chevrolet.
As an example, I overheard some folks in a sandwich shop talking about a newspaper article on HSR this summer. They were thrilled at the idea of being able to hop on the HSR and zip down to Omaha (200 miles) in about an hour, in order to fly out from a bigger airport with lower fares. I imagine they’re going to be somewhat disappointed with the reality of the situation
The USDOT current map of proposed priority HSR does not contemplate HSR for more than 400-500 miles with much of it shorter distances. So to begin with FAF should be a less expensive (for each project) but allow more projects.
Good idea and good slogan.
I’m no expert, but,
1: It seems to me that HSR is also going to have to be fast…and I guess it depends on what you mean by frequent.
2: If we’re talking about rail service on existing lines as opposed to wholly new infrastructure, then isn’t FAF even more expensive and a tougher sell? If nothing else, the operating expenses are much higher and if it’s a heavily used rail corridor, the upgrades will be as well.
In short, I agree it makes more sense, but I don’t think it’s a much easier pill to swallow financially. Plus it isn’t as Sexy.
And for the record, part of the reason California’s HSR will go between those 2 points, is because it can build there without waiting for a bunch of political fights and eminent domain cases to be worked out.
YoHo1975,
Regarding the “HSR to Nowhere” prudent proceedure is to make sure you can complete the entire project before building something that will be a “White Elephant” for many years, perhaps forever.
But when in the last 10-15 years has California been prudent???
What about Dependable and Frequent (DAF)?
Getting more places depends on a network. As it is, miss a connection, lose a day. Even if it is limited to 79MPH top speed, knowing the next train leaves in under 4-5 hours is better than 24 hours.
Based on that concept, you could make a good mathematical case that trains leaving every 2 hours or even 4 -5 hours at 79 MPH is functionally much faster for intermediate distances - like 400 miles or so - end-to-end, than a once or twice a day scenario at a much higher speed.
[:-,] And there’s the seeds of an acronym we could all get behind, and one that our British members will understand immediately - “Dependable And Frequent Train”, or “DAFT” . . . oh, never mind . . . . [swg]
So if you want to take the train to Omaha, and the trip takes two hours, but it will be ten hours before the train leaves, then that is a twelve-hour trip? Is that how frequent is faster?
[quote user=“Bucyrus”]
Paul_D_North_Jr:
Based on that concept, you could make a good mathematical case that trains leaving every 2 hours or even 4 -5 hours at 79 MPH is functionally much faster for intermediate distances - like 400 miles or so - end-to-end, than a once or twice a day scenario at a much higher speed.
- Paul North.
So if you want to take the train to Omaha, and the trip takes two hours, but it will be ten hours before the train leaves, then that is a twelve-hour trip?
No that would be a slower trip (24 hours versus 12 hours) if more frequent = faster.
Frequent and reasonably fast service on lots of “corridors” would undboubtedly work in many cases. One such case I’ve always thoght about is from Milwaukee up to Green Bay with stops in FonDuLac, Oshkosh, Appleton, DePere and Green Bay. Anybody who has driven along Hwy. 41 on that route will tell you there are hundreds of thousands of cars that could potentially be taken off the road if FAF service were implemented on that route. The best way I think of looking at it is where do we now have interstate highways linking cities (Chicago-DesMoines-Omaha for example) and take the discussions from that point forward)…yes, FAF would work IMHO on such routes. Oh, yes, it must also be RELIABLE service.
Yes! All I want to know when I travel is “what time do I have to leave to be there by X?” Well, not all. There is cost and the overall “hassle factor” of the trip to factor in. FIrst mile/last mile considerations. What can I do during the trip and what do the blocks of time look like?
Fast has to be fast enough that is comes close to the driving door to door time. It could somewhat longer since the time on the train is more useful than that in the car. I’d view a 4 hour door to door train trip as equivalent to a 3 hour car trip.
Frequent doesn’t necessarily mean the same frequency all day long. It just has to get me there when I want to get there. A couple of morning departures, a couple of evening departures and a mid-day or two would be a good start on “frequent”.
For the same cost of HSR, more DAF(T) routes? Say Minneapolis to Kansas City. Connections in Iowa to San Fransisco and all points in between. At Kansas City, Los Angles, Houston and all points between those ends.
It opens up more destinations than simply more frequent service along existing routes. Once again, dependable timing makes it possible. As with freight, knowing with reasonable certainty arrival at destination will effect the decision to utilize.
DAFT brings to mind RAILPAX. A twist on a pox upon thee AMTRAK was to cure. Is AMTHRAX worse than the French Pox?
I can’t help but notice that all the discussion is about the positives of this idea so I assume there are absolutely no negatives. Things like the cost of the equipment and crews, where the stations would be and how people get to and from them and not least the funding since there is no state or federal sourcing since we are all broke. The general public will not tolerate a funds transfer from road building and maintenance.