High speed Amtrak Chicago-NYC service

thanks for that . I take it cp35 is Croton Harmon .?

its two interlockings north of Croton Harmon, about one mile .
so 23 miles out of how many miles are electrified ??

2nd trick op wrote: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.

Well lets look at it in context. The federal government spent $441 billion on the military in fy2006, not including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Having a high speed rail system is a national security issue in the sense that it provides a way to weene ourselves off of oil. We are currently held at the whim of OPEC. Right now, if there is a huge spike in oil prices (lets say to denmark prices of $6-8/gallon), our economy would be in shambles.

Moreover, such a project would pay off huge economic dividends both in terms of construction jobs as well as the integration of the connected cities' economies.

finsuburbia wrote:

2nd trick op wrote: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.

Well lets look at it in context. The federal government spent $441 billion on the military in fy2006, not including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Having a high speed rail system is a national security issue in the sense that it provides a way to weene ourselves off of oil. We are currently held at the whim of OPEC. Right now, if there is a huge spike in oil prices (lets say to denmark prices of $6-8/gallon), our economy would be in shambles.

Moreover, such a project would pay off huge economic dividends both in terms of construction jobs as well as the integration of the connected cities' economies.

Article on how urgent it is going to get to do something about climate change by a former British environment minister. He says we must tackle it with the same focus as a major war. I agree with him.
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/clima ... 87,00.html

Last Tuesday was primary election day in Pennsylvania. Interest was somewhat higher than the average, due primarily to a revenue package promoted by Gov Rendell.

Essentially, the proposal promised property tax relief (but not just yet, and only to those within certain income ranges), in return for an immediate increase in income taxes (which under the state constitution, must be levied at a flat rate).

The measure was overwhelmingly rejected, state-wide, with some of the highest margins of rejection in the fastest-growing regions (Poconos, and ex-urban regions of the Southeastern counties)

In Pottstown, a small city of 30,000 experiencing exurban influx from Philadelphia, Alllentown, and Reading, most of the school board was voted out despite cross-filing under both parties. The reason? A contoversial plan to close the district's five elementary schools and replace them with a central campus where, supposedly, the power and doctrine of the National Education Association could be more easily spoon-fed. The price tag? Only $54 million. (When divided by 30000, that's $1800 per person, not far from the national HSR "bait" previously mentioned.)

Suspicion of expansive, not to mention expensive, central planning, directed by a credentialled few, is alive and well in most of America. If a rail-centered transport alternative is to be developed, it has to begin by evolving from what is either currently in place or can be developed at a moderate cost. Then, despite Mr. Nader's prosletysing we, the real consumers, will decide what's good for us.

MudLake wrote: 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.

Its also a question of money and speed!
Speed isn't the question because speed limits in the US are low, especially in the North-East.
Also a 110mph-train will permit a faster door-to-door travel speed as a car.

The other point is money.
Fuel prices in the US are also low, and so long they are low the train will will remain successless as competitor.

MudLake wrote: 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.

How long you will need for 140miles with your car?

A train who can go up to 100 - 110mph for the largest part of the distance will do 140miles in about 1 hour and 30minutes.

I think a car will need 2 hours or more!

Fuel prices in the US are also low

They've gone above $3 per US gallon again. In New Jersey, too, who has the lowest gasoline tax.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

Fuel prices in the US are also low

They've gone above $3 per US gallon again. In New Jersey, too, who has the lowest gasoline tax.

Thats low.

Today:

Germany: 7,00 $ per US gallon. (95 octane)
France: 6,50 $ per US gallon (95 octane)
Great Britain: 6,96 $ per US gallon (95 octane)
Netherlands: 7,16 $ per US gallon (95 octane)
Poland: 6,09 $ per US gallon (91 octane)

Per this site, I figured out Germany's average price to be about $6.72 per US gallon, and that's not the highest in Europe. (About $3.30 of that is taxes. The US fuel taxes are really low compared to that sum.) Since average wages in the US are going down, and the populace is more driving-dependent (and goods transportation is so trucking-dependent), that's a comparatively big economic burden.

funny how Norway and The Netherlands have highest prices and are also highest involved countries in oil production and refinery.

ne plus ultra wrote: Cool map. It'd be tough to draw a line from New York to Chicago that went through fewer major towns. Wow! After Akron and Youngstown, I'd be hard pressed to tell you what is the next highest population center, excluding the Indiana suburbs of Chicago and the Jersey satellites of NY. I can tell ya it ain't North Judson, IN, but I just can't really say what it would be. Maybe Corning, NY.

Binghamton, NY, hands down.

Getting back to the general topic, I think it's clear that high-speed Chicago-NY service should stop in Cleveland; it's just too important a location. There's serious questions about what route it should take from Cleveland to NYC.

Well, if it's really going to be high speed, the only logical route is the 'water level route'
Major cities to be served would be Chicago, Gary, South Bend, Toledo, Cleveland, Erie, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse Albany and NYC. Perhaps add-on 'spur HS lines' Cleveland to Pittsburgh, Toledo to Detroit. Trying to use the old B'way Ltd route, to me, would not make sense because of all the grades and curves to overcome for a true HS operation. Of course, mandatory grade separations would also have to be taken into account.

FYI, regarding distance, I was just looking, and when/if France completes the Montpelier-Perpignan connection, there will be a complete high-speed rail connection from London to Madrid, which is about the same distance as NY-Chicago.

Irish Chieftain wrote:Per this site, I figured out Germany's average price to be about $6.72 per US gallon, and that's not the highest in Europe. (About $3.30 of that is taxes. The US fuel taxes are really low compared to that sum.) Since average wages in the US are going down, and the populace is more driving-dependent (and goods transportation is so trucking-dependent), that's a comparatively big economic burden.

Since those days, the USA has been through average fuel prices of above $4.50 per US gallon along with crude oil prices in the $170/bbl range. And ironically, both retail and crude prices are on their way down again.

Thanx, Tadman, for linking to that Erie Lackawanna route map (it's on the first page of this thread). It's necessarily rather schematic; it would be difficult to show that route's twistings and turnings in upstate New York as it goes through the mountains there. The ex-NYC Water Level Route that CSX and Amtrak use would be much more suitable, as CarterB had noted.

And there are some existing HSR proposals that use this route, though in segments:

The Empire Corridor: NYC - Buffalo
The Ohio Hub: Buffalo - Cleveland/Toledo
The Midwest Regional Rail Initiative: Cleveland/Toledo - Chicago

Since these are separate projects, would one have to change trains along the way? Or would there also be some trains that go the whole distance, like Amtrak's Lake Shore Limited?