General US High Speed Rail Discussion

hi55us wrote:

Jeff Smith wrote:Mod Note: Amtrak is mentioned a mere one time in the WSJ article, as a point of reference for operating speeds, since they are the only current "HSR" operator. Whether Amtrak operates these proposed HSR projects is undetermined, with the possible exception of the Empire Corridor. Great topic, but to be consistent, it belongs in HSR.

Just for the record it was talking about the problems of introducing faster service to the existing network, which is totally operated by amtrak.

The focus on the article was not on the establishment of exclusive corridors such as the proposes network in California which have yet to be determined whether or not will be operated by amtrak.

The negotiations with the freight railroads, which are cited in the article, will have a tremendous impact on the operations of amtrak to say the least.

It bears repeating: just for the record, Amtrak was mentioned once in the entire article. Of the "existing network", Amtrak owns most of the NEC (outside of NY and CT), the CT River Line, and a short stretch east of Albany, I think. I'm sure there are other stretches they own (Michigan comes to mind; I don't know why). Of the existing network, I'm sure those pieces are a small portion.

Amtrak currently runs a network of long distance or corridor trains over other railroad's tracks, whether by national charter or state support. Who's to say Amtrak will run any HSR trains over these same tracks? It's an HSR topic, not Amtrak.

Last call: if you have an issue with the moderation, PM THE MODERATOR. Why is this so hard to understand?.

The two sides to the agreement have different timeframes. The poiticians want to get people working before the November election. Amtrak's work on platforms using their $1.3 billion bonus from the stimulus bill must be competed by mid-February or the money goes away. Most of those platforms are in the host railroad's right-of-way and need their OK.

From the railroads' perspective, there is no rush. So it has been convenient to the railroads to delay any agreement while the politicians get more and more anxious.

That point of peak anxiety is here. Amtrak, and the various state departments must either advertise projects for bid now or find somewhere else to spend the money. In the northern parts of the country, paving a new platform is not guaranteed after Thanksgiving, and that is only 60 days away. Put the job out for bid for two weeks and then take a week to notify the winning contractor, give him time to mobilize and organize an press conference. If they do it today, groundbreaking is mid-October.

The railroads will not get any more concessions than they will this week.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

mlrr wrote:
Another example is the State of Virginia simply wanting to string catenary from D.C. to Richmond to extend electric service on the NEC. You're not gaining much (other than cleaner transportation) by just stringing up catenary as you are still limited in speed by the condition of the track and its geometry.

Actually, electrifying to Richmond would allow for far more service south of Washington, both in terms of commuter and corridor services. You no longer would have and engine change at D.C. which would save time and personnel costs. It's worth remembering that this is a region with stable population growth and good prospects for increased patronage.

I've considered that benefit as well and your point is duly noted. My frustration comes in the context of high speed rail. If you string up catenary over existing track geometry and eventually the powers-at-be who can actually right the checks finally get it and say "Oh. You know what, our speeds aren't getting any faster, let's look into this track geometry thing. Oh, we have to add tracks and straighten curves, ok, I guess we can do that", it will cost more in the long run because that catenary has to be replaced with track re-alignment and we haven't even gotten into inflation yet.

Given that this is a region with stable growth (totally agree with you here), I think it's worth looking into improving track geometry and capacity first before stringing up catenary. That way you have more frequent service and then the perk of higher speeds with less dwell time to follow with electrification of the improved line.

I'm pro electrification south of DC as well. When you look at I-95 traffic, the benefit of the increased speeds are great. Now, I don't know how that will tie in to freight operations, and what the clearances are south of DC. However, I think the eastern seaboard is an ideal candidate for a euro-style HSR.

I think the point we are getting at is ideally we should get the whole network up to 110 mph running (since the p42's can handle 110 mph running, see chi-stl and nhv-bos before electrification).

once the whole rail network is running at 110, then you can start to look at electrification and running speeds of 150+

hi55us wrote:I think the point we are getting at is ideally we should get the whole network up to 110 mph running (since the p42's can handle 110 mph running, see chi-stl and nhv-bos before electrification).

once the whole rail network is running at 110, then you can start to look at electrification and running speeds of 150+

My sentiments exactly! I think we all agree that electrification is a good idea. The results will be extraordinary if done right (i.e. taking the incremental approach as opposed to doubling the work down the road making it a harder sell to those who write the checks)

mlrr wrote:

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

mlrr wrote:
Another example is the State of Virginia simply wanting to string catenary from D.C. to Richmond to extend electric service on the NEC. You're not gaining much (other than cleaner transportation) by just stringing up catenary as you are still limited in speed by the condition of the track and its geometry.

Actually, electrifying to Richmond would allow for far more service south of Washington, both in terms of commuter and corridor services. You no longer would have and engine change at D.C. which would save time and personnel costs. It's worth remembering that this is a region with stable population growth and good prospects for increased patronage.

I've considered that benefit as well and your point is duly noted. My frustration comes in the context of high speed rail. If you string up catenary over existing track geometry and eventually the powers-at-be who can actually right the checks finally get it and say "Oh. You know what, our speeds aren't getting any faster, let's look into this track geometry thing. Oh, we have to add tracks and straighten curves, ok, I guess we can do that", it will cost more in the long run because that catenary has to be replaced with track re-alignment and we haven't even gotten into inflation yet.

Given that this is a region with stable growth (totally agree with you here), I think it's worth looking into improving track geometry and capacity first before stringing up catenary. That way you have more frequent service and then the perk of higher speeds with less dwell time to follow with electrification of the improved line.

Electrification to Richmond is more important from an operational and labor standpoint than from the perspective of HSR. To put it simply, if you can run a single locomotive, straight through from Boston or New York to Richmond, sure it saves time, but it allows for more service to Richmond, and other growth markets south of Washington D.C. Forget about the catchphrase of "high speed rail," and concentrate on the old fashioned concept of "passenger service."

if this does not bring us hope I Don't know what will.. However it seems like appointing a CEO for a airline that will never take flight...

http://www.philly.com/philly/business/h ... _unit.html

As Amtrak seeks to create and expand high-speed passenger train operations in the United States, the company on Thursday named Philadelphia rail expert Albrecht "Al" Engel to head its new high-speed rail department.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:
Electrification to Richmond is more important from an operational and labor standpoint than from the perspective of HSR. To put it simply, if you can run a single locomotive, straight through from Boston or New York to Richmond, sure it saves time, but it allows for more service to Richmond, and other growth markets south of Washington D.C. Forget about the catchphrase of "high speed rail," and concentrate on the old fashioned concept of "passenger service."

That's all well and good, but Amtrak doesn't own the ROW south of DC. CSX may not be open to adding more passenger traffic to an already congested corridor, electrified or not. It would cost more money to rip down the catenary to straighten out curves and then install new catenary to match the new geometry.

I see what your saying from an operational and labor standpoint but it's all moot if the host railroad (CSX) says "No". It's more prudent to upgrade the track, straighten out curves and market a reduced travel time between Washington and Richmond (i.e. higher speeds), than have more D.C. run-throughs that all are subject to the same constraints we have today; HSR asside.

Side topic: I know I may be stepping into a hornets nest here (and please correct me if I'm wrong) but I'm trying to recall just how much freight service is on the Keystone Corridor these days between PHL and Harrisburgh, PA. They just re-energized the catenary and increased the speeds there. My point here is (provided that there isn't much freight activity on this line like there used to be) is that electrification makes the most sense when interfering freight traffic is VERY light. The DC-RVR corridor gets a fair amount of freight traffic at all times of the day.

In the end, if you install catenary over the existing infrastructure all you do is eliminate jobs of the yard workers in D.C. who handle the engine swap and reduce dwell time but the travel time from WAS to RVR is still going to be the same. Amtrak is limited to a maximum of about 90 mph and we haven't even thrown in tie-ups with traffic yet let alone the excessive heat restrictions.

I always try to think of extremes in order to make a point or for my own understanding. Assuming you had catenary south of DC, do you think you can convince a financially savvy person to ride an Acela Express as opposed to a Northeast Regional from DC to Richmond if their main concern is travel time? It's kind of the same thing here.

The cons still outweigh the pros on electrification south of D.C. without incremental track and ROW upgrades.

After sixty-five years of decline and re-invenmtion, the freight roads know what they're selling; basic, efficient freight transportation geared to high volumes. Their competition is now as likely to be a barge line, a pipeline, or a coastal ship, as a trucker. And the highway carriers have themselves restructured, eliminating most of their urban terminals and local pick-up and delivery structure. That observation doesn't address the point that the vast majority of the hundreds, even thousands of "regular route, common-carrier" trucking lines went out of business in the wake of deregulation. What's left moves by private carrier, or by specialized arrangement.

Obviously, the freight roads don't want this stuff back unless somebody else goes through the hassle of pickup, delivery and classification. Even the "high and wide" movements for which the rail system was once famous, have been almost exclusively turned over to specialized motor carriers, with the direct participation of state highway authorities in many cases.

While this writer once believed that fuel price pressures would work in favor of increased rail market share as the finite supply of easily-recoverable petroleum dwindled. I'm no longer so sure. The latest phase of the continuing energy issue now seems to be focusing on natural gas, Liquified gas (LNG) has been used as a fuel for farm tractors in some regions since at least World War II, and I know of no obstacle in the path of applying this technology to highway tractors. It's not clear at this stage whether personal autos will follow suit, but unless the environmentasl argument recovers from the damage the "global warming" crowd brought upon themselves, or the disparity between small personal vehichles and ever-larger highway rigs morphs into a major safety issue along the lines of drunken driving, government-mandated smaller highway rigs delivering only over shorter distances is a phenomenon not likely to emerge very soon, if ever.

So it would appear that the remaining major railroads have little incentive to go after shorter hauls and a greater diversity of traffic. The only possibility ths writer could envision would be the continued development of the current short lines and regionals, with their lower cost structure, as secondary feeders. If that scenario fed even more traffic onto a core system of rail carriers who could not be depicted as a political target, then such improvements as electrification and a more-sophisicated system of dispatching and traffic contol might make sense, but it's a long way off.

mlrr wrote:
In the end, if you install catenary over the existing infrastructure all you do is eliminate jobs of the yard workers in D.C. who handle the engine swap and reduce dwell time but the travel time from WAS to RVR is still going to be the same. Amtrak is limited to a maximum of about 90 mph and we haven't even thrown in tie-ups with traffic yet let alone the excessive heat restrictions.

I always try to think of extremes in order to make a point or for my own understanding. Assuming you had catenary south of DC, do you think you can convince a financially savvy person to ride an Acela Express as opposed to a Northeast Regional from DC to Richmond if their main concern is travel time? It's kind of the same thing here.

The cons still outweigh the pros on electrification south of D.C. without incremental track and ROW upgrades.

Eliminating delays associated with the power change in Washington and decreasing the dwell times in Washington will improve on-time performance and schedules more than mere track upgrades. Consider the personnel costs as well. Engine changes are unproductive and cause delays.

If you extend electrification to Richmond, service would be measurably improved, as would the economics of that service. Considering that Richmond is a state capitol, with lots of public sector workers who'll travel at taxpayer expense, as well as the population growth south of D.C. and it's hard to argue against electrification. It's pretty obvious that there is the potential for growing ridership in this region.

This might necessitate a new topic in the Amtrak forum...

We both agree that time savings would be gained with the elimination of a power swap when looking at the BOS-RVR run. But the majority of the market that you are referring to would be traveling mostly from D.C. so the marketing strategy would be to market to those living in VA and working in D.C. or folks living between RVR and WAS and work in RVR.

I think you're still ignoring the constraints that the service would still face when actually en route between D.C. and Washington. These trains can still be subject to delays because Amtrak does not dispatch the line and they are limited to the infrastructure that CSX chooses to maintain (i.e. track capacity and curves that limit speeds) so eliminating dwell time in WAS will save time but not much. The yard crews also appeared to be pretty efficient when I've been there (I always go up front to watch the power swap). They have engines lined up for trains continuing south on the adjacent tracks most of the time I've been there, waiting for the train to arrive.

I remember riding frequently in 2004/2005 and laughed because it was a given that once you exited the tunnel south of Union Station, CSX brought you to a stop and you sat for a few minutes. This is still a very likely scenario if the line were to be electrified tomorrow. So what ends up having to the time savings at D.C. Union Station by eliminating the engine swap and electrifying the RVR-WAS corridor? It's gone.

Also keep in mind that the dwell times at D.C. wouldn't decrease by much with the elimination of the power swap because of the extra time required for passengers disembarking on the low level platforms and those boarding at those same platforms at limited locations. This is all in conjunction with huge passenger volumes which require disembarking and boarding passengers to occupy the platform area at separate times. At the very least I see a dwell time similar to that at Penn station for Northeast Regionals (15 min) assuming that no power swap was required at WAS which is only 10 minutes less than the current dwell time at WAS (with an engine swap).

Looking at maps of various systems over at High-speed rail got me thinking - what are the shapes of various nations' high-speed-rail networks? What can we expect out of various US HSR plans and proposals?

Linear. Several stations in a line often with short branches off of it.

• Japan
• Italy
• Taiwan
• US Northeast Corridor (existing)
• US Southeast Corridor (upgrade; planned extension of NEC)
• California (planned)
• Pacific Northwest (upgrade)

These ones are the result of geographical constraints -- where the cities are. This in turn is a result of the shape of the land, or at least the easily-habitable parts of the land.

Star. A central city with several lines coming from it, lines which may branch further.

• France: Paris, extending into Belgium, Holland, and Britain
• Spain: Madrid
• US Chicago Hub ("Greater Chicagoland"): Chicago, of course (upgrade)

The central city is much bigger than most of the others in the network, so getting to and from there becomes a big priority.

Area-covering. The lines are multiply connected, making several possible routes between cities. All of these are currently rather patchy, it must be said.

• Germany (various states of planning and construction)
• China (under rather vigorous construction)
• Western Europe (various plans for connecting national networks)
• Eastern half of US (combination of NEC, upgrades, plans, proposals)

The result of having no central city, meaning that each major city's neighbors have about equal priority. I suspect that the patchiness of most of these is a combination of decentralized politics, political whim, and the expense of building new lines. US and German states have shown varying amounts of initiative on HSR, and it shows in what they've planned or built. The line-building expense means that the money needed to build a reasonably-complete star system will build only a partial area-covering system.

WASHINGTON – U.S. Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood today announced that $1.195 billion in high-speed rail funds originally designated for Wisconsin and Ohio will be redirected to other states eager to develop high-speed rail corridors across the United States. Wisconsin has suspended work under its existing high-speed rail agreement and the incoming Governors in Wisconsin and Ohio have both indicated that they will not move forward to use high-speed rail money received under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA). As a result, $1.195 billion will be redirected to high-speed rail projects already underway in other states.

http://www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/press-releases/231.shtml

That's good news, since if they don't plan to use the money, they shouldn't be getting any at all...