High speed Amtrak Chicago-NYC service

If the initial goal is to have New York-Chicago service, which shouldn't be confused with having better corridor services (say New York-Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh-Cleveland, and Cleveland-Chicago) in the short-term and New York-Chicago service in the long-term, then higher speed technologies such as maglev, which could be legitimately competitive with air travel for longer distance travel, should be pursued instead of an all-electrified New York-Chicago route IMO.

Considering the New York-Philadelphia-Harrisburg and Chicago-South Bend segments of a New York-Chicago route are already electrified, there's no sense in reinventing the wheel and NOT using these segments for an all-electrified corridor, if you pursue an electrified route piecemeal.

This whole topic can be labeled as "pipe dreams". It is not realistic to
even think that any type of high speed train service over this sort of a
distance would be really practical and it would come at a huge cost, the
highest even and still only serve one route and limited locations as well.
I think the way for passenger service in our country with the exception of
the existing long distance trains and maybe a couple more of them down
the road, should be limited to corridor type operations of at least three
trains each way, maybe more.
Item, over most of the former New York Central right of way there is still
room for two more tracks but the cost of acquiring the right of way and
building two tracks suitable for high speed operation would cost a fortune
which I for one in Florida would not tend to support even though I like
passenger trains very much.
There are loads of potential corridors where trains could and would work
if the authorities would just get their acts together but over 500 miles is a
no go in my opinion.
Noel Weaver

Were we to use the electrification already in place on South Shore and PRR/Amtrak as an above poster suggests, there would be some fire-related issues, specifically the train catching on fire because 11kv AC and 1500v DC systems are not compatible. However, the South Shore is actually fairly suitable for high-speed running, minus the streets of Michigan City.

Tadman wrote:Were we to use the electrification already in place on South Shore and PRR/Amtrak as an above poster suggests, there would be some fire-related issues, specifically the train catching on fire because 11kv AC and 1500v DC systems are not compatible. However, the South Shore is actually fairly suitable for high-speed running, minus the streets of Michigan City.

Oops, didn't know about that incompatibility.

I would guess it would be easier and significantly cheaper to tweak an existing electrical system than to build an entirely new electrical system.

Back during the first energy squeeze in the mid-1970's, the state of Ohio explored the possibility of linking its major cities by a high-speed rail network. A relevant link is included below.

http://www.ohiohistory.org/resource/sta ... /4070.html

Enthusiasm for the project quickly dimmed when the costs (estimated at about $2 billion, IIRC) were revealed and the price of gasoline stabilized.

If we take Ohio's population of about 12 million as 1/25 of the current US population and factor in an eightfold increase in construction costs, the bill for a new nationwide HSR system starts out at $400 billion - $1333 for every man, woman and child in America. -- that's before the cost of financing and the obstacle of NIMBY opposition which, I'm sure, will be much higher in today's litigation-obsessed society.

Tadman wrote:Were we to use the electrification already in place on South Shore and PRR/Amtrak as an above poster suggests, there would be some fire-related issues, specifically the train catching on fire because 11kv AC and 1500v DC systems are not compatible. However, the South Shore is actually fairly suitable for high-speed running, minus the streets of Michigan City.

Low voltage and high voltage trains are perfectly possible. MetroNorth trains run on both systems. In London trains south of the river run on 750vDC third rail and high voltage ac north of the river.

Eurostars can run on 750 v DC (not at high speed), 1500 v DC in Belgium or southern France and high voltage AC everywhere else.

But the South Shore is an interurban, not a mainline railway and would not be suitable.

NRGeep wrote:If we ever had a government willing to really invest the $ needed to build a dedicated electrified route between Chicago and NYC what abandoned or underused mainline (if any) could be converted into a truly highspeed route? Given the present debt the US is in this is an unrealistic dream at present but "down the road"...who knows?

A high speed network would not use the historic routes. I expect the best route would usually be to follow the motorways - Inter-state network. Don't forget that TGV routes in both Germany and France have considerable lengths of high gradients because the high powered and lightweight trains can cope with gradients.

LGV Nord from Paris to Lille runs alongside the main motorway and overtakes the cars and lorries at a huge rate..

Irish Chieftain wrote:Another statement for the record is that high speed rail (no matter the operator) is approximately six times more efficient per passenger than air travel. That could wean us off a good few of those those thirteen billion gallons of jet fuel we burn per year on domestic flights…as well as help cut spending on airports…

To the best of my knowledge, high speed rail and modern jet aircraft are just about equal in energy consumption per seat mile. Aviation has taken huge steps in saving fuel in the last decade, and rail has done little. What was once a sizable energy advantage for rail is now about a wash. The big advantage for high speed rail is that it typically electric propulsion that can come from various sources, some non-carbon. Aircraft are locked into highly refined petroleum fuel.

prr60 wrote:

Irish Chieftain wrote:Another statement for the record is that high speed rail (no matter the operator) is approximately six times more efficient per passenger than air travel. That could wean us off a good few of those those thirteen billion gallons of jet fuel we burn per year on domestic flights…as well as help cut spending on airports…

To the best of my knowledge, high speed rail and modern jet aircraft are just about equal in energy consumption per seat mile. Aviation has taken huge steps in saving fuel in the last decade, and rail has done little. What was once a sizable energy advantage for rail is now about a wash. The big advantage for high speed rail is that it typically electric propulsion that can come from various sources, some non-carbon. Aircraft are locked into highly refined petroleum fuel.

See this press release
http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/t ... rostar.jsp
High speed electric rail saves a great deal of carbon emissions - and that is going to count, even in the US quite soon.

George, although the South Shore started out as an interurban, and I still like to think of it as one, there's not that much any more to make it such - obvously the street-running and sole reliance on electric MU's is the most obvious interurban traits, but a trait shared between interurban and HSR lines is the high-degree of grade seperation from other railroads - most South Shore interchanges are not interlocked crossings, but rather a bridge and spur arrangement. I often think it would be wise for Amtrak to run their Michigan service trains on the South Shore from 115th in Chicago to the ex-MC junction in Michigan City - it's a double-track, 79mph, CTC setup with little freight interference, as opposed to the parallel NS that is thick with freights. But that's food for another thread.

george matthews wrote:

prr60 wrote:

Irish Chieftain wrote:Another statement for the record is that high speed rail (no matter the operator) is approximately six times more efficient per passenger than air travel. That could wean us off a good few of those those thirteen billion gallons of jet fuel we burn per year on domestic flights…as well as help cut spending on airports…

To the best of my knowledge, high speed rail and modern jet aircraft are just about equal in energy consumption per seat mile. Aviation has taken huge steps in saving fuel in the last decade, and rail has done little. What was once a sizable energy advantage for rail is now about a wash. The big advantage for high speed rail is that it typically electric propulsion that can come from various sources, some non-carbon. Aircraft are locked into highly refined petroleum fuel.

See this press release
http://www.eurostar.com/UK/uk/leisure/t ... rostar.jsp
High speed electric rail saves a great deal of carbon emissions - and that is going to count, even in the US quite soon.

It would be helpful if they showed their math. Notably absent is the makeup of the electric generation though we know that in France it's predominantly nuclear. Also, why is CO2 per passenger so much higher out of Gatwick vs Heathrow? What are the load factors? Where do they end up putting the spent fuel rods (big issue in the USA)? Lastly, I seriously doubt I'll see a carbon tax in my lifetime.

Noel Weaver wrote:This whole topic can be labeled as "pipe dreams". It is not realistic to
even think that any type of high speed train service over this sort of a
distance would be really practical and it would come at a huge cost, the
highest even and still only serve one route and limited locations as well.
I think the way for passenger service in our country with the exception of
the existing long distance trains and maybe a couple more of them down
the road, should be limited to corridor type operations of at least three
trains each way, maybe more.
Item, over most of the former New York Central right of way there is still
room for two more tracks but the cost of acquiring the right of way and
building two tracks suitable for high speed operation would cost a fortune
which I for one in Florida would not tend to support even though I like
passenger trains very much.
There are loads of potential corridors where trains could and would work
if the authorities would just get their acts together but over 500 miles is a
no go in my opinion.
Noel Weaver

So the question then, is, how does someone travel over 500 miles? By plane? Apparently aircraft emissions are a major problem, and in the future, that may not be possible like it was. Really, what is the option then? I doubt private cars in a world where aviation is no longer sustainable. The economy can change pretty quickly when certain prices change.

MudLake wrote:[It would be helpful if they showed their math. Notably absent is the makeup of the electric generation though we know that in France it's predominantly nuclear. Also, why is CO2 per passenger so much higher out of Gatwick vs Heathrow? What are the load factors? Where do they end up putting the spent fuel rods (big issue in the USA)? Lastly, I seriously doubt I'll see a carbon tax in my lifetime.

In France and Eurotunnel all the electricity is from nuclear. In Britain nuclear is about 20%. The rest is mostly coal and gas with some hydro and wind power.

I think that if the regime changes in the US you will see very considerable policy changes. The present denial of climate change can't last much longer.

Gatwick is probably a longer route. But the point is that electrified rail has considerable advantages over air. At present, unless one lives near the airport Eurostar city centre to centre is faster than air travel to Paris, and is about to speed up when St Pancras opens in November this year.

What do truck lines, bus lines, rail lines, and air lines have in common when moving goods or people? The longer the distance between start and stop points the better the return on investment. Thus Chicago to New York would be great for a high speed anything. But once you stop you cut into your profits. Thus airlines do best in this catagory, then truckers. Buses and trains have to make too many stops for "bottom liners" to want to invest. Still, we have not wrung out everything there is in rail effeciencies in this country to warrent the next step of a huge investment in so called "high speed rail", and especially between Chi. and NY. But, maybe and non stop Chi-St. Louis or Omaha 150 or 200 mph train might make it well enough. But Chicago to Toledo to Cleveland to Erie to Buffalo to Rochester to Syracuse to Albany to New York probably would cut into operating effeciencies (and the bottom line) enough not to be considered worth the investment in this country. As for rights of way, again, not in the east; not enough room for what we got nor have we fully developed to an effecient degree what we do have. High speed rail has a long way to go to prove its worth as an investment in the U.S. if you consider high speed rail in the 150+ mph dedecated ROW vein. But to improve what we do have to the highest effecient speed for marketable services, it has to be done. Soon.

Does this thread belong in the High Speed Rail Forum?

-otto-