High speed Amtrak Chicago-NYC service

Otto Vondrak wrote:Does this thread belong in the High Speed Rail Forum?

-otto-

Since this is not an existing or even on the drawing board project, I think it should remain on the Amtrak forum.

It's not clear to me that there's a real market here. Just about anyone who's interested in speed is going to fly between Chicago and New York as it's only 2+ hours. When the air travel network and providers start to have significant issues in meeting the needs of the traveling public, then the public will start demanding new solutions. How much would this cost? I know one back of the envelope guess was around $17 BILLION for this one rail line. That's a lot of money.

MudLake wrote:It's not clear to me that there's a real market here. Just about anyone who's interested in speed is going to fly between Chicago and New York as it's only 2+ hours.

The main reason for building a NY-Chicago HSR system would NOT be to accommodate a large amount of traffic between the two end points (well, maybe if we get it up to 180 mph plus). The purpose would be to provide effective travel between middle point travel markets like:

Cleveland-Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh-NY
Toledo-Philly
Chicago-Cleveland

This would be an effective corridor even with a 110 mph limit and today's somewhat roundabout route (I'm looking at the PRR), although incremental improvements over the years could bring huge improvements.

For comparison, consider how many passengers ride the entire length of the NEC from Washington to Boston. Not many. They are going to NY, or Philly, or maybe even providence.

OK,

What's the economic analysis which justifies this level of spending?

How many passengers per year for how many years to pay off construction debt?

jsmyers wrote:

MudLake wrote:The purpose would be to provide effective travel between middle point travel markets like:

Cleveland-Pittsburgh
Pittsburgh-NY
Toledo-Philly
Chicago-Cleveland

This would be an effective corridor even with a 110 mph limit and today's somewhat roundabout route (I'm looking at the PRR), although incremental improvements over the years could bring huge improvements.

There are around 25 flights per weekday between Chicago and Cleveland and some are extraordinarily low in fare even after the 10% to 15% in taxes and fees. So why do you say that we should spend an enormous amount of money "to provide effective travel between..."?

Trains generally don't replace automobiles for multi-passenger trips unless there's a real encumbrance with an auto (New York, Washington, Boston, etc.) or someone simply wants to take a cross-country leisure trip. Instead, trains replace airplanes. That can be done competitively on the NEC and a few other corridors because the dead time involved with flying can be quite lengthy. For reference, no one flies between Cleveland and Pittsburgh unless they have to change planes. It's not an end-to-end market that draws anyone out of a car.

MODERATOR'S NOTE:

I agree with Otto; there isn't much relevance to Amtrak here. Moving to the HSR forum...

As long as the US government operates all interstate passenger service this topic has EVERYTHING to do with Amtrak. And so it goes...

One other possibility that hasn't been addressed would be to route the proposed service directly west from the NY/Metro area to the Akron/Youngstown area of Northeastern Ohio. While this alternative would forsake both the former NYC and PRR routes, it would allow Pittsburgh, Cleveland and Detroit to be accessed by relatively short feeders. And most of the tunnelling and grade problems would be confined to a relatively short stretch in Northwestern Pennsylvania.

With regard to Mr. jsmyers post:

Between Harrisburg and Pittsburgh, there would be a number of new grades and tunnels. The goal would be to shorten the route by cutting off some of the more circuitous sections. (For example, this section between Altoona and Huntington: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&l ... 92139&om=1)

The grade for the former PRR H&P Branch, which accessed Hollidaysburg via Alexandria and Frankstown, is still intact, as is the Muleshoe Curve line to the west. But Altoona and Johnstown are both mature, auto-oriented communities with limited growth prospects, as opposed to State College, which the "I-80" routing could serve directly. In addition, the northerly route passes within 40 miles of Allentown, Reading, and Scranton/Wilkes-Barre, not to mention within 60 of Harrisburg.

I think if you added 12 hour overnite express frieght trains to the mix , then the economics would look alot better . these would be short and light , i guess they could be mixed frieght / sleeper trains . and an auto train .

A NY-CHI route doesnt have a chance of happening without major changes to the way most people in this country think. Desire and thus money simply is not there to complete.

Amtrak has yet to follow thru on their promise of NY-BOS in 3 hours which was the justification for electrification from NHV-BOS.

NY state has yet to do anything to replace the Turboliners or provide a more timely service from SYR, ROC, or BUF.

Amtrak cant get money to replace 75 year old catenary on the NEC.

Somewhat promising to see the Keystone corridor re-done though. Calif has also come a long way with their services. However, of the dozens of proosals for HSR over the last 40 odd years, the only one that has ever come to fruition and upheld its promise was the Metroliner.

Perhaps a good start would be high speed ny - albany ? then the next section , and so on .

Yes, a section by section approach could work nicely. NY-ALB already has up to 110mph which is good. Unfortunately, NY State has been proposing such an approach for years but never seem to get anywhere with it.

Pennsylvania let their Keystone corridor degrade for decades before finally bringing it back.

NY, PA, and VA would be logical choices for additional upgrades. We need a federal govt that recognizes this too. It cant be done alone.

Isnt the Albany line already partially electrified ? as far as Poughkeepsie ?

what system voltage is ised ? overhead or 3rd rail ?

Isnt the Albany line already partially electrified ? as far as Poughkeepsie ?

what system voltage is ised ? overhead or 3rd rail ?

No, Poughkeepsie is not electrified. The third rail electrification ends at Croton-Harmon.

NYP to CP12 no electrification ,only first 500 yards in Empire tunnel have catenary and LIRR over running third rail at 700 volt
CP12 to CP35 NYC style third rail 700 volts under running.
CP35 to Renselear no electrification.
Renselear to Buffalo no electrification.