110 MPH corridors

[ExCon90]

You misread my point. First you eliminate all the slow spots. It will not be easy but Europe does it.

The Swiss have made a science of it. Ease a curve here, reconfigure an interlocking there--it all adds up more than you'd think. Their new (ca. 2000) signal system provides for diverging speeds at interlockings at 10 km/h increments, so that if one route is good for 80 km/h and another for 90, the signaling can provide for both.

[electricron]

Technically, the speeds weren't illegal because there were no legal limits on railroad speeds in the US until 1951.
Chicago - Twin Cities is ~400 miles. Hence the C&NW's 400-- "400 miles in 400 minutes." Which also is a pretty amazing speed when you think of it.

That’s one mile per minute speed, the equivalent of 60 mph. Which isn’t that fast for a “maximum” speed, but it is very impressive for an “average” speed. Even Amtrak’s Acela trains only reach “average” speeds of 65 mph.

[daybeers]

Technically, the speeds weren't illegal because there were no legal limits on railroad speeds in the US until 1951.
Chicago - Twin Cities is ~400 miles. Hence the C&NW's 400-- "400 miles in 400 minutes." Which also is a pretty amazing speed when you think of it.

That’s one mile per minute speed, the equivalent of 60 mph. Which isn’t that fast for a “maximum” speed, but it is very impressive for an “average” speed. Even Amtrak’s Acela trains only reach “average” speeds of 65 mph.

I wouldn't say that's "very impressive". What about the European or Asian corridors with averages much, much higher? Even the Acela does about 82 mph average between NYC and WAS.

[Ridgefielder]

Technically, the speeds weren't illegal because there were no legal limits on railroad speeds in the US until 1951.
Chicago - Twin Cities is ~400 miles. Hence the C&NW's 400-- "400 miles in 400 minutes." Which also is a pretty amazing speed when you think of it.

That’s one mile per minute speed, the equivalent of 60 mph. Which isn’t that fast for a “maximum” speed, but it is very impressive for an “average” speed. Even Amtrak’s Acela trains only reach “average” speeds of 65 mph.

I wouldn't say that's "very impressive". What about the European or Asian corridors with averages much, much higher? Even the Acela does about 82 mph average between NYC and WAS.

The 400 was scheduled at 62mph average speed over a ~415 mile route **in 1935**.

And the equipment was heavyweight Pullmans pulled by oil-burning 4-6-2's.

Seem a little more impressive now?

[daybeers]

Technically, the speeds weren't illegal because there were no legal limits on railroad speeds in the US until 1951.
Chicago - Twin Cities is ~400 miles. Hence the C&NW's 400-- "400 miles in 400 minutes." Which also is a pretty amazing speed when you think of it.

That’s one mile per minute speed, the equivalent of 60 mph. Which isn’t that fast for a “maximum” speed, but it is very impressive for an “average” speed. Even Amtrak’s Acela trains only reach “average” speeds of 65 mph.

I wouldn't say that's "very impressive". What about the European or Asian corridors with averages much, much higher? Even the Acela does about 82 mph average between NYC and WAS.

The 400 was scheduled at 62mph average speed over a ~415 mile route **in 1935**.

And the equipment was heavyweight Pullmans pulled by oil-burning 4-6-2's.

Seem a little more impressive now?

Haha true! But it also makes me sad: we haven't gotten anywhere speed-wise since then.

[electricron]

Haha true! But it also makes me sad: we haven't gotten anywhere speed-wise since then.

But I believe you will discover that today’s trains are many more times more efficient.
This should make an excellent read;
http://www.railway-technical.com/trains ... iesel.html

[daybeers]

Haha true! But it also makes me sad: we haven't gotten anywhere speed-wise since then.

But I believe you will discover that today’s trains are many more times more efficient.
This should make an excellent read;
http://www.railway-technical.com/trains ... iesel.html

Very interesting, thanks for the link!