Gas-turbine HSR vs electric

Champlain Division wrote:JetTrain didn't fail because of its technology; it failed becaused at least 50% of the people in the United States are, and always have been, politically dis-inclined to paying for the infrastructure that would have made it a success.

Bombardier gave a "sales pitch" to VIA too. The JetTrain didn't fail because Amtrak or VIA couldn't convince politicians and taxpayers to fund them. Both were buying new diesel locomotives at the time (GE P42s). They had the money to buy JetTrains is they had desired.
It's that the JetTrain provided maximum speeds that was unattainable over the existing freight owned corridors both Amtrak and VIA run upon. Upgrading the existing freight corridors for higher speeds isn't as easy as some believe. Everything within the corridor has to be rebuilt or replaced to achieve 150 mph maximum speeds; tracks, signals, crossings, and all the railcars. The costs are the same as building a brand new corridor, except the costs for the land (corridor) itself. Just about every American and Canadian freight railroad suggests maximum speeds of 90 mph over existing mostly freight corridors, using as much of the existing infrastructure as possible. Amtrak limits maximum speeds to 110 mph on corridors they own with grade crossings. I believe that's the maximum allowed for VIA on it's Toronto to Montreal corridor as well. Speeds that the cheaper P42s can achieve - therefore JetTrains weren't needed.

What politicians, taxpayers, and stockholders have problems with is scrapping most of the infrastructure already in place on a corridor in good working order and replacing it with brand new equipment. It'll be far easier to get acceptance if the infrastructure in place was falling apart. Alas, the freight railroads usually maintain their busy corridors in good working order.

Champlain Division wrote:

JetTrain didn't fail because of its technology; it failed becaused at least 50% of the people in the United States are, and always have been, politically dis-inclined to paying for the infrastructure that would have made it a success.

It failed because it's a solution in search of a problem which does not make sense on an economic basis. No freight railroad is going to sign off on 150mph passenger trains operating around their own trains because the liability alone would kill them. Thus you have to build a dedicated right of way to take advantage of whatever improvement the JetTrain offers over a P42 or any other existing 110mph diesel passenger locomotive. But once you undertake the cost of constructing a new-build right of way, the additional cost of electrification and operation between 186 and 220mph is a fairly marginal cost increase which can by offset by lower operating cost, greater market share, and corresponding higher revenue over the long term. There simply is no market for fossil fueled high speed rail trains which require extensive infrastructure to achieve its maximum speed.

well... there may be another option - a HSR DeMU - in the UK Virgin rail has a Bombardier 125 MPH Diesel-electric MU trainset - these use their FLEX TRAK HS bogies which are avialable seperately - and with that last thought in mind ...

US Rail Car of Columbus OH plan on making a DeMU (diesel electric MU) using the above FLEX TRAK bogie - made in America - fuel efficient - meets all current emission standards in the US - bi-level - meets full FRA requirements www.usrailcar.com

these DeMUs will use (much) less fuel than an equiv gas turbine powered HSR trainset like the new Bombardier 'jet' train or... the old Amtrak Turboliners (no mention of these)

bigK wrote:US Rail Car of Columbus OH plan on making a DeMU (diesel electric MU) using the above FLEX TRAK bogie - made in America - fuel efficient - meets all current emission standards in the US - bi-level - meets full FRA requirements www.usrailcar.com

these DeMUs will use (much) less fuel than an equiv gas turbine powered HSR trainset like the new Bombardier 'jet' train or... the old Amtrak Turboliners (no mention of these)

Again, another HSR diesel locomotive with no market. Haven't we already settled that existing diesel locomotives can already go faster than what the freight railroad companies will ever allow? The P42 locomotive used by Amtrak has a top speed of 110mph, yet it rarely goes faster than 79 mph, and on just a few rail corridors, it reaches 110 mph.
The limiting factor isn't the locomotive, it's the track and signaling on the corridors.

I might add, USrailcar offered SMART transit 9 triples (DMU) at $131.5 Million, with a top speed much less than 125 mph. Sumitomo/Nippon Sharyo offered SMART 9 triples (DMU) for $82.8 Million, a savings of $48.7 Million, or nearly $3.5 per triples. US railcar will have to be more competitive on price if it wishes to survive long. SMART eventually ordered just 6 married pairs (12 DMUs at $3.3 Million each) while allowing GO to pick up 12 options (6 married pairs) for Pearson Airport service.

More info at http://www.sonomamarintrain.org/userfil ... 092111.pdf

its more acceleration i think , id hate to think how long a p42 would take to get to 110 mph .

Like electricron says, there aren't any places off the Corridor that can currently host 125 mph. If Amtrak did have a suitable track, the rolling stock is already here (Amfleets and Horizons), and it might even be possible to regear the P42 for higher speeds. With two on each fairly lightweight train, there shouldn't be a huge problem with acceleration.

With a long, straight stretch of track, say the ex-Pennsylvania mainline between Chicago and Akron, and given CWR and the proper signals, Amtrak could do 125 mph with diesel power all day.

mtuandrew wrote:With a long, straight stretch of track, say the ex-Pennsylvania mainline between Chicago and Akron, and given CWR and the proper signals, Amtrak could do 125 mph with diesel power all day.

Okay, if that's the case, how come Amtrak doesn't use that route now? For the bulk of the last 20 years they've used mostly either the current Lakeshore/Capitol Limited routing or the CSX ex-B&O mailine. NS owns most of the line you're talking about and, afaik, Amtrak hasn't run on it in a long time.

Champlain Division wrote:

mtuandrew wrote:With a long, straight stretch of track, say the ex-Pennsylvania mainline between Chicago and Akron, and given CWR and the proper signals, Amtrak could do 125 mph with diesel power all day.

Okay, if that's the case, how come Amtrak doesn't use that route now? For the bulk of the last 20 years they've used mostly either the current Lakeshore/Capitol Limited routing or the CSX ex-B&O mailine. NS owns most of the line you're talking about and, afaik, Amtrak hasn't run on it in a long time.

I brought that route up because it's well-built if not well-maintained, and is very underused. It also has been studied as an HSR corridor in part and in whole, and would make sense as a diesel HSR testbed either before or in lieu of electrification.

The reasons Amtrak doesn't use the line now... well, it gets more ridership from Cleveland, Toledo and South Bend than they did from Fort Wayne, Lima and Canton. Also, the LSL already uses the ex-NYC from Cleveland to Chicago, so Amtrak doesn't need to maintain twice as many stations and trackage rights. Finally, Conrail downgraded the ex-PRR line (and forced Amtrak onto the ex-B&O) because they had spare capacity on the ex-NYC. Since CSX and NS don't need the spare capacity either, it's not maintained anything like The Standard Railroad Of The World once was.

BTW: in my last post, rather than Akron, an Erie town, I meant to say Canton. Mea culpa.