High speed Amtrak Chicago-NYC service

If we ever had a government willing to really invest the $ needed to build a dedicated electrified Amtrak 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?

I think that we need to catch up with the rest of the world and build high speed rail throughout the whole country. I think that we should do the following:
-Build a comprehensive network of high speed track throughout the country.
-Have shorter distance trains run at least 5 times a day, like Cincinnati to Chicago or Chicago to Cleveland
-People can either transfer between short distance routes or take long distance routes, such as Chicago to New York, which would run 1-2 times a day
-Long Distance routes would only stop at major cities, maybe 7 stops in all, such as Chicago-Indianapolis-Cincinnati-Pittsburgh-Harrisburg-Philadelphia-New York or even less, like Chicago-Cincinnati-Pittsburgh-Philadelphia-New York
-Long Distance equipment should be Japanese built bullet trains
-Short Distance routes, which would stop more frequently, would use equipment similar to the Acela

In order of "unused-ness" (imho)

1. Erie
2. PRR
3. NKP
4. B&O
5. NYC

Erie is almost fully abandoned while NYC is super-busy. However, the Erie didn't go thru many major cities - it skips Fort Wayne, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and for that matter, New York City (termination in NJ instead) Check out this map http://erielackhs.org/Erie/ErieLargeMap.html

I understand the original poster is aware this isn't a near-future issue, but a ballpark figure, based on the fact that around 1995 it cost $15m/mile to build light rail tracks, we're lookinig at $11.8 billion as a bare minimum to lay track to light rail standards, including catenary. I have no idea what HSR trackage and catenary costs, but you can bet it's at least 50% higher.

based on the fact that around 1995 it cost $15m/mile to build light rail tracks

How much of that figure is right of way acquisition? Also FTR, most new "light rail" is built with 115 lb/yd rail, concrete ties and 750-volt DC overhead wires. Most new systems also need new yard and maintenance facilities.

What kind of average speeds are you looking at? The average speeds of Regionals on the NEC, if applied to a traditional rail route from New York to Chicago, would get you from one city to the other in ten hours. This is possible even with P42DCs and Amfleets, therefore.

How about developing modern day interurbans? They may be less cost intensive than heavy duty HSR? Now I'm really "going out on a limb!"

Tadman wrote:In order of "unused-ness" (imho)

1. Erie
2. PRR
3. NKP
4. B&O
5. NYC

Erie is almost fully abandoned while NYC is super-busy. However, the Erie didn't go thru many major cities - it skips Fort Wayne, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, and for that matter, New York City (termination in NJ instead) Check out this map http://erielackhs.org/Erie/ErieLargeMap.html

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.

If the country wants true High-Speed Rail, new ROW's would have to be constructed. If a system could be developed that parallels the interstates, it would be optimal. The Germans seemed to pull it off with the Autobahn and the ICE.

NRGeep wrote:How about developing modern day interurbans?

Officially, the Oregon Department of Transportation's Rail Plan (Passenger Section) proposes such an "interurban" line from Portland to Eugene, following the old SP Westside Line (via McMinnville and Corvallis), complimenting a mainline service between Portland and Eugene, via Salem and Albany (following either the UP, which Amtrak now uses, or the former Oregon Electric Railroad, a portion of which is being rebuilt as Oregon's first commuter rail line).

For the record, national HSR is just not worth it - HSR routes from the Pacific Northwest to either the mid-west or to California would still offer little to no benefit over air travel, and would come at major costs.

The I-5 corridor between Seattle and the Bay Area is already well developed, so building HSR within the same corridor would be extremely difficult at best. The I-5 route through the Siskiyous is hardly a high-speed route as well; with numerous switchbacks and horseshoes, and significant and severe grades. And that is the highway's fourth reincarnation!! (There's a reason Southern Pacific built the Natron Cutoff. Unfortunately Medford is a much larger city than Klamath Falls is.)

wigwagfan wrote: For the record, national HSR is just not worth it - HSR routes from the Pacific Northwest to either the mid-west or to California would still offer little to no benefit over air travel, and would come at major costs.

I think instead of "for the record," you meant "in my opinion." Those two can be easy to mix up.

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…

in my view , the only way high speed passenger service would be viable for most of the United Sataes , would be in conjunction with high speed frieght services .

Let's think never because of airline and highway lobbies. Oh, don't
forget the largest group of Nimby's ever.

What if I want my opinion on record... [sarcasm]

I think the Erie line is the worst route-choice for HSR, but had Conrail seen the amount of non-stop high-speed intermodal present in 2007, they would have been wise to retain a single-track CTC Erie - no cities or urban sprawl and less crossings to worry about, and the train has no stops to make on a straight shot to Oak Island. oops. But that's one of those "If I had only known microsoft was gonna be huge" things.

I've thought about this some.

It seems to me that the PRR is the way to go, at least to Pittsburgh. From there, there are multiple options to Cleveland-Toledo-Chicago, including possibly branches Detroit or Ft. Wayne. (It could also go right through Ft. Wayne directly.)

I like this route because it is direct and it serves some big metros. Most of the benefit of a NYC-Chi route would not be travel between New York and Chicago, but rather the points in between. This route directly serves Philly, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Toledo, and northern Indiana cities (South Bend or Ft. Wayne). It could easily serve Youngstown or Akron. Connecting at Philly would be better for Washington or Baltimore passengers. A branch to Detroit would be pretty efficient. You could consider it the Boston-Milwaukee (Sam Adams-Schlitz) route too, since the NEC just continues through NYP and there is direct Chicago to Milwaukee service.

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)

And this would be a big challenge, although it is something than can be done incrementally, one section at a time, with ever shorter travel times.

Remember that HSR has the potential to climb much steeper grades that freight trains; quick changes in grade a the real problem.