Faster Trains Maybe, but Still....

From Holiday Inn W Boca Raton--

Today's New York Times has a comprehensive article detailing various world wide HSR initiatives. The conclusion appears to be the US, even should the California initiative move forth, will still be behind others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/20rail.html

Mr. Norman, Greetings to you in sunny Florida.

I would tend to agree with the NYTimes article, comparatively. However, even getting some corridors up to 90-110mph ave speed, could be a real boon to corridor's rail travel. Milw-Chi-StL, Chi-Det, NYP-Buf come to mind as well as the California corridors, with such high populations. Even though this just barely gets up to the average run-of-the-mill regional trains in Germany, it's still a step in the right direction. Looking at corridor/s spending that facilitate future upgrades could also be a boon. Such as the NYP-Buf and Chi-Det possibly allowing onward link/s such as DET-CLE-BUF and CLE-CIN and CIN-CHI.

Gilbert B Norman wrote:The conclusion appears to be the US, even should the California initiative move forth, will still be behind others.

By the same measure, many European countries are "still behind" the United States in terms of rail freight.

It is foolish to contemplate a dedicated "high speed rail" without certain prerequisite levels of population density, and population distribution, and unless current conventional trackage is approaching full capacity utilization. These are precisely the conditions that lead to the construction of the first TGV lines in France. However, these conditions are entirely absent in most of the United States, with the possible exception of the Northeast Corridor - and in any case, service there approaches the speed of a dedicated "high speed rail" line, albeit with existing infrastructure.

In the end, many of the current high speed rail proposals border on ludicrous, and even the California proposal is fundamentally flawed when you consider how population distributions there are unfavorable to rail transit, and how the rail passenger infrastructure is nowhere near full utilization. Moreover, the state of California is in such a deep fiscal dilemma, that even if the system was constructed solely with Federal funds, it seems unlikely that California could reliably subsidize its operation.

High densities are less of a concern than aggregate regional population, IMHO. There's little in the way of high densities on most European HSR lines between the stations, as the rails themselves traverse hundreds of miles of countryside before reaching major population centers. As for the prerequisite of existing track reaching full utilization before such systems are considered in the US, I find this to be a spurious indicator of latent demand. A better proxy would be airline pax numbers between city-pairs within a region.

The same demographic trends that make regional flights and large hub international airports work today in the US are the same trends that lend themselves naturally to the development of regional high-speed rail corridors to serve those same centers of commerce, tourism and trade. The business model that made Southwest Airlines one of the only consistently profitable airlines in aviation history was built on short-haul regional flights (think Dallas-Houston or Dallas-Austin), and there's little evidence to conclude that a reasonably fast, grade and traffic-separated passenger rail infrastructure serving similar city-pairs & regions wouldn't be likewise successful, at least in terms of ridership.

/2 cents

from Holiday Inn W Boca Raton, Temp 74dg (home tomorrow)---

Mr. Biggins, I wholly concur that any variant of the proposed "Texas Triangle" (or intersecting triangles if Austin were to be served from both Dallas AND Ft Worth) closely resembles the European HSR model. Although it's been a few years since "I've been over", I can recall how once fifteen miles out from a major city such as Paris, there was not too much population, and hence not much (political) call to have TGV's calling at any "Jerkwater Junctions" en route.

By the contrast, the NEC is confronted with "why cant we have Acela service to, say, Princeton Jct?" (or even Edgewood, as is the case with an MSTS game I have). The model of the two only really established Corridors here in the USA, namely the NEC and Santa Barbara-San Diego, clearly represent a "sword" through the length on the population center. This means the business is there, but then so is the call to have service at, say, Chatsworth (remember when Rye was an NEC stop?).

FinAlly OT, any of you "wizards" have occasion to use the HP SiteKiosk OS? I don't know who they sell it to (well this hotel), but count me out. Oh well, since Ido not have a laptop, I take what I get from the various hotels at which I stay - at least here it's free (there's a Hyatt in Greenwich CT at which I have occasion to stay - be assured it is "not exactly" free there; try $.50/min after 5min free time)

Gilbert B Norman wrote:From Holiday Inn W Boca Raton--

Today's New York Times has a comprehensive article detailing various world wide HSR initiatives. The conclusion appears to be the US, even should the California initiative move forth, will still be behind others.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/20/us/20rail.html

Why are they quoting Mr Vranich?

“What are we trying to achieve?” asked Joseph Vranich, a rail expert who wrote “Supertrains” (St. Martin’s Press, 1991). “If we really wanted to have high-speed rail in this country, and have it be a great success, then what we would do is concentrate the funds on the New York-Washington corridor, which is the top corridor in the country.”

Joseph Vranich, Former (disgruntled) Amtrak employee gone sour, no credibility what so ever.

DutchRailnut wrote:Joseph Vranich, Former (disgruntled) Amtrak employee gone sour, no credibility what so ever.

But the Times writer presumably thinks he has something useful to say.

That article wasn't exactly comprehensive, though it's a bit hard to compete with Wikipedia's list of high-speed trains.

As to densities, why doesn't goodnightjohnwayne find the numbers for us? He'll need to find them for European nations and American states, which are approximately comparable in size.

But what makes a high-speed-train route worthwhile is a big- city on one end and at least a moderately-big city on the other. In between could be uninhabited without making any difference.

I once found out that first TGV-connected pair of cities, Paris - Lyon, is roughly comparable to Chicago - St. Louis:
Paris - Lyon: 12.1m - 289 mi - 1.8m
Chicago - St. Louis: 9.8m - 297 mi - 2.8m
(Populations: metropolitan areas from Wikipedia. Distances: Google Maps highway distances. Amtrak has 284 mi for CHI-STL)

And this is not exactly the Northeast Corridor. I don't have the inclination to make lots of city-pair comparisons; perhaps some of you people could take on that challenge.

As to Joseph Vranich, I remember liking his book Supertrains. So has he become disillusioned with high-speed trains?

lpetrich wrote: As to densities, why doesn't goodnightjohnwayne find the numbers for us?

Do it yourself.

lpetrich wrote:He'll need to find them for European nations and American states, which are approximately comparable in size.

Personally, I've traveled in Europe enough to understand how different population densities are there. You simply don't see the same conditions of urban sprawl, and quite frankly, urban centers either develop along rail lines, as in the case of the New York metropolitan area, and much of the rest of the eastern seaboard that is service by the Northeast Corridor, or development is determined by highway access, which happens to be the case in much of the rest of United States.

In other words, the patterns of development and population densities along the Northeast Corridor conform closest to European norms, and unsurprisingly, geographic, economic and population factors make the Northeast Corridor the most suitable venue for high speed passenger rail. Arguably, the Northeast Corridor is the only suitable North American venue for European-style high speed rail/

lpetrich wrote:But what makes a high-speed-train route worthwhile is a big- city on one end and at least a moderately-big city on the other. In between could be uninhabited without making any difference.

I once found out that first TGV-connected pair of cities, Paris - Lyon, is roughly comparable to Chicago - St. Louis:
Paris - Lyon: 12.1m - 289 mi - 1.8m
Chicago - St. Louis: 9.8m - 297 mi - 2.8m
(Populations: metropolitan areas from Wikipedia. Distances: Google Maps highway distances. Amtrak has 284 mi for CHI-STL)

Other than route mileage, there's no grounds for comparison between Chicago-St. Louis and Paris-Lyon. In the French example, conventional passenger rail demand was very near the point of full capacity before the TGV was constructed. Moreover, the population distributions in France were tied far more closely to the rail system than to the automobile. Quite the opposite is true in the United States, and despite the resurgence in commuter rail in the Chicago area, or the far more limited resurgence of passenger rail travel between Chicago and St. Louis, passenger rail demand is nowhere near the limits of the current conventional infrastructure.

goodnightjohnwayne wrote:

lpetrich wrote: As to densities, why doesn't goodnightjohnwayne find the numbers for us?

Do it yourself.

Since it was your claim, I was hoping that you'd rise to the challenge. But I've gone ahead and found some Wikipedia articles:
List of U.S. states by population density
Area and population of European countries

Personally, I've traveled in Europe enough to understand how different population densities are there. ...

I prefer to look at numbers for population density, because appearances from railroad lines could be deceiving -- they could be run through the more populated areas.

In other words, the patterns of development and population densities along the Northeast Corridor conform closest to European norms, and unsurprisingly, geographic, economic and population factors make the Northeast Corridor the most suitable venue for high speed passenger rail. Arguably, the Northeast Corridor is the only suitable North American venue for European-style high speed rail/

I disagree. All one needs is big cities separated by a few hundred mi/km.

Here are the larger European nations with active HSR efforts:

• Germany: 233/km^2
• Italy: 192/km^2
• France: 109/km^2
• Spain: 88/km^2

Using Spain as a cutoff, I find 12 US states with higher population densities: New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Florida, Ohio, Pennsylvania, California, Illinois.

The Northeast Corridor states I've italicized; this list contains every one that's on the Amtrak electrified NEC mainline. It also contains four states that are away from the NEC, including three that are nowhere near it.

Using France as a cutoff ends the list at Florida; Italy, Maryland; and Germany, Connecticut.

Other than route mileage, there's no grounds for comparison between Chicago-St. Louis and Paris-Lyon. ...

Your point seems to be that Americans are less willing than Europeans to ride trains, because American cities are more sprawled than European ones. Is that a reasonable statement of your position?

And I doubt that Chicago-St. Louis Amtrak service was really comparable to pre-TGV Paris-Lyon service -- the latter was likely faster and more frequent.

Having gone to Europe each year at least once, for the past twenty three years, and having traveled extensively there by rail,
my observation is that population density or distance between centers, has much less to do with the argument of Europeans' usage of rail travel than 'connectivity'. In Europe, most urban areas are covered well by timely urban (tram, subway) or suburban (Sbahn, etc.) services that go frequently to a Hauptbahnhof (main train station) Thus, it is very easy to walk a few minutes from your home, to a local rail, then 'cross platform transfer' to an intercity or regional high speed train. I have often taken a U bahn from my home in Hamburg suburbs, to an S bahn, to the Hauptbahnhof, and boarded an ICE to Munich or where-ever, with never more than a ten minute "dwell time" wait in between any train. Thus, high speed rail in any corridors in the USA could and would work best in areas/cities with good centralized urban/suburban services. Chicago certainly has this, St. Louis, Detroit, Milwaukee less so. Most NEC cities have such.
Looking back in history, it was the 'feeder' system that made rail travel in the USA so popular and convenient prior to air, and interstates. If corridor speeds could be improved to equal to or less than time it takes to drive, or to get to from airport and fly, USA rail travel can not only be viable but successful. So whether it's 90mph or 125mph isn't as much a factor as the 'timeliness factor' of trips IMHO.

I was in France this past September, and I would agree with Mr. Norman that there is a lot of rural and agricultural land just outside of cities, despite Europe's population density. This was pretty typical scenery...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAzW5cWHX9w

Matt Johnson wrote:I was in France this past September, and I would agree with Mr. Norman that there is a lot of rural and agricultural land just outside of cities, despite Europe's population density. This was pretty typical scenery...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAzW5cWHX9w

Most European states have strict planning laws that prevent building on farm land. Thus unplanned suburbs don't spread over the land. I find Florida deeply depressing the way orange groves disappear under ticky tacky from one year to the next (or did in the past, before the financial collapse).

Looking back in history, it was the 'feeder' system that made rail travel in the USA so popular and convenient prior to air, and interstates. If corridor speeds could be improved to equal to or less than time it takes to drive, or to get to from airport and fly, USA rail travel can not only be viable but successful. So whether it's 90mph or 125mph isn't as much a factor as the 'timeliness factor' of trips IMHO.

There used to be inter-urban electric rail services to connect smaller towns to the main line.

There must be a number of branch lines that could be viable with light weight DMUs or rail cars - but once again you have those weight problems.