SEHSR Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

General discussion of passenger rail proposals and systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: gprimr1, mtuandrew

SEHSR Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

Postby villager » Mon Jul 24, 2006 1:40 am

Other than the Positive Train Control Experiment in Michigan, to my knowledge, the only current environmental study/engineering work being done to further HSR in the USA is underway in North Carolina and Virginia.

Earlier this year, the website for the SEHSR was updated to spread the word about field work commencing in the Raleigh-Richmond corridor.

http://www.sehsr.org/fieldwork.html

If they keep the timetable proposed, a 2015 opening of a fast line between Raleigh and Richmond with 110 mph running speeds would be terrific.
villager
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:00 pm

Postby geoking66 » Fri Sep 01, 2006 7:41 pm

That would be quite nice. If it's successful, hopefiully they can connect to DC and we'll have a larger High Speed Rail network in the US. We really need one.

-Phil
Mass transit...the good transit
User avatar
geoking66
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 4:11 pm

Re: Progress Occurring on Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

Postby george matthews » Sat Sep 02, 2006 7:37 am

villager wrote:110 mph running speeds.


Not High Speed, just standard commuter speed (in Britain). Not even highish speed (125).
george matthews
 
Posts: 4549
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Britain

Postby M&Eman » Sat Sep 02, 2006 1:50 pm

It is sad that this is considered high speed in the US. In most of Europe, this is the running speed of most normal lines. Also, MARC's Penn Line, NJT's Northeast Corridor, and SEPTA's R5, R2, and R7 are all considered high speed under this definition. America needs to take rail more seriously. Real high speed lines need to be established.
"The Erie only sells 1 way tickets on the NJ&NY because it only has a 99 year lease on the line."
User avatar
M&Eman
 
Posts: 1198
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2006 4:53 pm

Postby george matthews » Sat Sep 02, 2006 3:59 pm

M&Eman wrote:It is sad that this is considered high speed in the US. In most of Europe, this is the running speed of most normal lines. Also, MARC's Penn Line, NJT's Northeast Corridor, and SEPTA's R5, R2, and R7 are all considered high speed under this definition. America needs to take rail more seriously. Real high speed lines need to be established.

I can see that 110 mph would be an improvement but it is not considered high speed in Britain.

Last night I came from London on the Southwest mainline in a train carrying commuters from London. There are parts where it goes at about 100mph - this on the third rail 750 v DC which is about the limit for this mode.

Diesel at 125 mph was considered a great advance in the 1970s, and probably saved the InterCity network but this is not anywhere near the cutting edge.

Only the Channel Tunnel Rail link is true high speed in Britain.
george matthews
 
Posts: 4549
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Britain

Postby geoking66 » Sat Sep 02, 2006 6:35 pm

M&Eman wrote:It is sad that this is considered high speed in the US. In most of Europe, this is the running speed of most normal lines. Also, MARC's Penn Line, NJT's Northeast Corridor, and SEPTA's R5, R2, and R7 are all considered high speed under this definition. America needs to take rail more seriously. Real high speed lines need to be established.


Exactly. The midwest definitely needs it, they have no other transport rather than cars basically. Also, it needs to be electric; I don't want 125mph diesel service. I think that there is a structure which, over time, may actually work:

1) Connect the endpoints of the country (NYC/Boston - Florida, Florida-Texas-LA, LA-Seattle, Seattle-Chicago, Chicago-NYC)

2) Once endpoints are electrified and connected, work inwards with lines that connect endpoints that haven't already been connected (NYC/Boston-Texas, Texas-Seattle, etc.).

3) Build shorter commuter rail networks in major urban centres, a good example is NJT.

If that goes as planned, I definitely think that high speed rail could work in the US. Cars are really a waste. But I think that people, even after hearing how good it is, will be ignorant and still travel with cars.

-Phil
Mass transit...the good transit
User avatar
geoking66
 
Posts: 253
Joined: Sun Jan 01, 2006 4:11 pm

Postby orulz » Tue Feb 19, 2008 12:32 pm

The Southeast HSR project has posted several proposed alternative alignments for the track between Raleigh and Petersburg. The alignment would be a modification of the now-defunct "S" line. They want to straighten lots of curves, targeting a prevailing speed of 110mph.

The fact that the S-line is now out of service helps quite a lot as they won't need to worry about working around existing freight or Amtrak trains. This is some very inexpensive and rural land, making right-of-way acquisition plausible.
orulz
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Thu Oct 28, 2004 7:55 pm
Location: Raleigh, NC

Postby villager » Thu Feb 21, 2008 10:05 am

The satellite photos of this alignment that orulz found are terrific. I checked in with some of the staff on this project and with the prevailing speed of 110, the average speed will be roughly 85-87 mph with two stops between Richmond and Raleigh at Petersburg, VA and Henderson, NC.

This would make the Richmond-Raleigh travel time by train 1 hour 48 minutes. The drive time on Google Maps is currently 2:41. For business between two state capitals, that's a considerable time advantage.
villager
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:00 pm

Postby Chafford1 » Thu Feb 21, 2008 3:58 pm

villager wrote: I checked in with some of the staff on this project and with the prevailing speed of 110, the average speed will be roughly 85-87 mph with two stops between Richmond and Raleigh at Petersburg, VA and Henderson, NC.


That's a very high average speed for a line with a maximum 110mph!
Chafford1
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby Nasadowsk » Thu Feb 21, 2008 7:39 pm

Chafford1 wrote:That's a very high average speed for a line with a maximum 110mph!


Especially one operating low power high weight equipment. There's been a stretch of '110' mph track in NY for years now, and trains over 4 or 5 cars can barely hit 110 before they slam on the brakes for the next restriction....
Nasadowsk
 
Posts: 3795
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 10:45 pm

Postby villager » Fri Feb 22, 2008 9:05 am

Chafford1 wrote:That's a very high average speed for a line with a maximum 110mph!


The amount of straightening of curves is really the key here. This line is defunct for much of its length, so there is an opportunity to rebuild it as if it were "done right the first time."

To see the type of relocations we are talking about, take a look at the blue line proposed on this satellite photo.
villager
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:00 pm

Postby RVRR 15 » Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:22 am

Chafford1 wrote:
villager wrote: I checked in with some of the staff on this project and with the prevailing speed of 110, the average speed will be roughly 85-87 mph with two stops between Richmond and Raleigh at Petersburg, VA and Henderson, NC.
That's a very high average speed for a line with a maximum 110mph!
The stops are far enough apart. 90 miles separate Henderson NC and Petersburg VA, and 45 miles separate Henderson and Raleigh. The shortest segment is Richmond and Petersburg, which is about 25 miles.
Nasadowsk wrote:Especially one operating low power high weight equipment. There's been a stretch of '110' mph track in NY for years now, and trains over 4 or 5 cars can barely hit 110 before they slam on the brakes for the next restriction
Those cars are also hauled by a 3200-horsepower dual-mode locomotive, if they are the trains I am thinking of. The stops are closer together on the Empire Corridor than on this proposed corridor, too. Plus, of course, there's a lot of freight on there, for a "high-speed" railroad.
RVRR 15
 

Postby Chafford1 » Tue Mar 25, 2008 12:19 pm

villager wrote:
Chafford1 wrote:That's a very high average speed for a line with a maximum 110mph!


The amount of straightening of curves is really the key here. This line is defunct for much of its length, so there is an opportunity to rebuild it as if it were "done right the first time."

To see the type of relocations we are talking about, take a look at the blue line proposed on this satellite photo.


Dead straight! If this is a new line they should go for a higher maximum speed than 110mph.
Chafford1
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Fri Jan 04, 2008 4:14 pm
Location: London, UK

Postby villager » Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:30 pm

Chafford1 wrote:
villager wrote:
Chafford1 wrote:That's a very high average speed for a line with a maximum 110mph!


The amount of straightening of curves is really the key here. This line is defunct for much of its length, so there is an opportunity to rebuild it as if it were "done right the first time."

To see the type of relocations we are talking about, take a look at the blue line proposed on this satellite photo.


Dead straight! If this is a new line they should go for a higher maximum speed than 110mph.

I certainly agree, though I don't know what's out there in terms of non-electric propulsion to pull trains at speeds above 110. This line is not planned to be electrified when it opens.

It would be great if there was some fossil-fuel powered loco that could get up to 125 on the straighter sections. I think the GNER in Britain is a fossil-fuel powered train that can do 143 mph, but it probably pulls much lighter coaches than FRA-compliant equipment, which of course means you have to build it like a tank.
villager
 
Posts: 223
Joined: Tue Nov 15, 2005 1:00 pm

Postby george matthews » Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:55 pm

villager wrote:
I certainly agree, though I don't know what's out there in terms of non-electric propulsion to pull trains at speeds above 110. This line is not planned to be electrified when it opens.

It would be great if there was some fossil-fuel powered loco that could get up to 125 on the straighter sections. I think the GNER in Britain is a fossil-fuel powered train that can do 143 mph, but it probably pulls much lighter coaches than FRA-compliant equipment, which of course means you have to build it like a tank.

The East Coast Mainline is electrified to Edinburgh and Glasgow (built when still nationalised). GNER as an operating company is no more and has been replaced by National Express when they failed to make enough money to pay the premium.

Some trains that run beyond Edinburgh are diesel, but there are plans to built a dual powered train that can run under the wires and off the wired section.
george matthews
 
Posts: 4549
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 9:07 am
Location: Britain

Next

Return to General Discussion - Passenger Rail

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron