High Speed Amtrak

cloudship wrote:I don't think a demo is a good guarantee of success. Didn't work for the Flexliner, didn't work well for Colorado Railcar. Certainly not for the ICE or X2000.

I don't think the original intent was for Amtrak to purchase one of those trainsets off-the-shelf; but rather to show them to their customers, and elicit feedback for an "American" design HSR trainset. So, no - Amtrak didn't purchase the Flexiliner or the ICE-I or the X-2000, but they did get information from testing each of those trainsets, and was able to use that to design the Acela Express trainset.

Colorado Railcar is an entirely different story - and they don't market their product as "high-speed" but as a transit vehicle.

Amtrak probably never did have any intention of purchasing any one of them. But they were stil demo units, and the only one that had any sales at all was the CRC. So I don't think it is true that to sell a train, you need a demo unit. The one really new train in the US, the Acela Express, never had one.

We are nowhere on American HSR. SO long as there is not dedicated lines without grade crossings the FRA insists that train sets meet crash standards the require weight that eliminate to possibility of HSR. There is no possibility of funding dedicated lines until and unless the national government pays the several hundred billion bucks it would take to build a HSR network, which politically is currently impossible.

Unfortunately some folks have taken Florida and California's plans for HSR seriously. They will never happen because states cannot afford to build HSR. If the National governement builds HSR states can afford to opperate them, but that is the extent of their financial capacity.

icgsteve wrote:Unfortunately some folks have taken Florida and California's plans for HSR seriously. They will never happen because states cannot afford to build HSR. If the National governement builds HSR states can afford to opperate them, but that is the extent of their financial capacity.

California's economy is the fifth-largest in the world (the U.S. being first; of which California represents 13% of the total U.S. economy; the next largest state is New York, which is 60% that of Calfornia, or about 7.8% of the total U.S. economy). Only Japan, Germany and the U.K. have larger economies than California.

On the other hand, France, Italy, and China (yes!) have smaller economies than California. Yet, Japan, Germany, France and Italy all have true HSR; the U.K. has medium-speed rail (up to 125 MPH IIRC), and China is developing an HSR route.

To suggest that HSR is out of the reach of a state to pursue on its own - for most states that would be correct, but I think California is fully capable of doing so should it develop the passion of doing so. But to do so requires a tremendous amount of effort by the elected officials in Sacramento, plus the attitude and willingness of the voters to fund a project, which may include the increase of fees and taxes on private motor vehicles to cross-subsidize HSR, as is commonplace in other countries.

Honestly, I think California would have an easier time developing intrastate HSR than the nation would, as the cost per person would be lower - California residents have a higher per-capita income than the nation as a whole; and since the state leans liberally, government involvement to acquire land would be easier than the country as a whole. Of course, California's drawback is higher land prices.

wigwagfan wrote: On the other hand, France, Italy, and China (yes!) have smaller economies than California. Yet, Japan, Germany, France and Italy all have true HSR; the U.K. has medium-speed rail (up to 125 MPH IIRC), and China is developing an HSR route.

In Britain, and the rest of Europe, Climate Change is rising up the political agenda rapidly. This has profound implications for government policy. There is increasing demand to do something about air travel, which is rising rapidly. Transport in general will have to be included. The British government is probably going to introduce a Climate Change Bill next week, which will set up an Office for Climate Change to have priority over all government domestic planning. Al Gore has a role as a government advisor.

If implemented this ought to lead to increased spending on rail, higher costs for road and air and capital for new rail lines (electrified). We shall see if the government is serious about this but all the political parties are now agreed on climate change as the overall problem.

I expect the United States will eventually catch up and then there should be incentives for more electrified high speed rail (and many other things).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/6098362.stm

One should note that the French development of High Speed Rail is a part of the government's energy policy. After the 1973 oil shock the French government determined on reducing their exposure to imported oil. The solution they chose was building many nuclear power stations, so that something like 90% of French electricity is from nuclear - indeed they export it.

The same policy was to electrify as much public transport as possible. New tramways have been built in all the major cities, and even in some fairly minor ones. The motorway network is almost all subject to tolls. There is an experimental programme to rent electric cars, mainly in Rochelle.

The first TGV route, Paris-Lyons resulted in a closure of the air route between those towns - well, reduction of frequency. The same is true of Paris-Brussels. Short distance air traffic is reduced overall, even for Paris Marseille. This too has been the intention from the beginning.

The French government structure includes institutions that create continuity of policy over much longer periods than the electoral cycle so that these long term plans can be thought up and implemented.

It makes no sense to talk about small European nations with HSR as entities that have created HSR. European HSR is a network, and it was planned and built as one. The nations are part of the partnership sure, but the EU as a nation type entity plans and funds European HSR. The individual nations write the checks but in a highly bureaucratic environment with mega doses of wealth redistribution.

California is a financial mess, with loads of debt and unfunded obligations, and an appetite for spending far more on prisons than it can afford. The people will demand that the universities be fully funded after two decades of financial abuse before they will spend that same money on a HSR network. California needs to clear debt, establish the ability to draw more wealth into the public sector (regain the ability to raise taxes in particular for the cities and the counties), downsize the prison system, and fix the universities before it will have money for HSR. The figure thrown around for a HSR network is criminally low, it will take at least $100 billion for what they have planned, and together with reality this makes California HSR a daydream and nothing more.

European HSR is a network, and it was planned and built as one

Since when? Care to explain the differences between TGV trainsets and ICE trainsets, or why France uses 25kV 50Hz catenary wires while Germany uses 15kV 16.67Hz wires…? or how about Spain's Talgo 350? If what you say is true, then Ireland (as one of the EU nations with the most vibrant economies) should be seeing high-speed rail lines; but they aren't.

The figure thrown around for a HSR network is criminally low, it will take at least $100 billion for what they have planned

Japan's built their Shinkansen network for far lower than that, over more challenging terrain than in CA.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

European HSR is a network, and it was planned and built as one

Since when? Care to explain the differences between TGV trainsets and ICE trainsets, or why France uses 25kV 50Hz catenary wires while Germany uses 15kV 16.67Hz wires…? or how about Spain's Talgo 350? If what you say is true, then Ireland (as one of the EU nations with the most vibrant economies) should be seeing high-speed rail lines; but they aren't.

The figure thrown around for a HSR network is criminally low, it will take at least $100 billion for what they have planned

Japan's built their Shinkansen network for far lower than that, over more challenging terrain than in CA.

The French network is planned as a system. (However, as Alan Williams has pointed out in November's Modern Railways, the rest of the French rail network is fading away - the TGV connects the main cities but the smaller towns get buses or slow trains.

The Thalys network is also expanding to a plan. It uses the French TGV network as far as Lille and then the extension to Brussels. Soon the Belgium extension to Antwerp will open, and on to Amsterdam, and Koeln.

The extension of the TGV southwards will be a connection to Barcelona (standard gauge) and then an addition to Madrid - which may open before the TGV line. Spain is also planning a TGV line to Portugal. That will also be standard gauge.

The main problem in Europe is different standards for electrification. Britain and the newer systems use 25kv AC, but there are large areas of DC 3000v in Belgium and 1500v in Netherlands, which for example Eurostar has to be designed to use. In the middle is the German, Austrian, Swedish, Norwegian group of countries with a different AC network (whose details I can never remember, but the voltage and Hz rate are odd). And then Italy has 3000v (I think)DC, as also Poland and some other east European systems. New lines are standardised at 25kv AC.

Multi-voltage locomotives and trains are common. Then there are signalling systems. The European Commission would like to standardise these, but it will take a long time to do so.

Britain of course has another problem, with a rather narrow and low loading gauge so that trains from the mainland can't pass most of our tracks. The CTRL will bring mainland standards as far as St Pancras London.

The Belfast-Dublin line is signalled for 100 mph. The NIR (Northern ireland Railways) would like to have 125 mph but that would take money.

The French network is planned as a system

Not a European system. The high-speed lines have been developed independently one from another, and are being joined together as best as possible.

BTW, Spain's lines are called AVE.

The Belfast-Dublin line is signalled for 100 mph

Current max speed is 80 mph; the Enterprise goes no faster than that.

Dublin-Cork was supposed to have been the first 100-mph line, but operating GMD (Canada) JT42HCWs (a freight locomotive in essence) as power for the passenger trains is an impediment to smooth operation thereof. Ireland yet has to attain the service that the Deltics in Britain originally provided, and it's the 21st Century already…

Before Europe got started on HSR there was a loose agreement on a final network, on the ability of each nation to have its own flavor of HSR, that the wealthy nations would help fund HSR in less well off nations, that technology and expertise would be transfered as needed, and that this was a European effort not a bunch of individual efforts. It was in part a test to see if European countries could work together, it was exercise to see if the dream of a greater Europe in the form of the European Union was workable in practice. European HSR got a big boost from what was going on politically just as much as American HSR suffers from what is going on politically.

On Japan: I don't know what they system cost, but I do know that the 150 miles they are building now is expected to cost $6billion http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:ru28 ... =clnk&cd=7 and I do know that the original segments were paid for by a World Bank loan which supports my case that small govermental agencies cannot build HSR without outside financial help. California said that they could do it with loan on the commercial market, and we all know what that did to costs. Most of the price of the network was in finance charges. Add finance charges to the California plan and you end up with $100 Billion easy.

Irish Chieftain wrote:

The French network is planned as a system

Not a European system. The high-speed lines have been developed independently one from another, and are being joined together as best as possible.

BTW, Spain's lines are called AVE.

The Belfast-Dublin line is signalled for 100 mph

Current max speed is 80 mph; the Enterprise goes no faster than that.

Dublin-Cork was supposed to have been the first 100-mph line, but operating GMD (Canada) JT42HCWs (a freight locomotive in essence) as power for the passenger trains is an impediment to smooth operation thereof. Ireland yet has to attain the service that the Deltics in Britain originally provided, and it's the 21st Century already…

There is a general plan by the European Commission. It is called Trans-European Network (TEN). I am not sure of the details as I don't read all the Commission stuff but they have a website.
The forerunner of the High Speed system were the Trans-Europe Expresses (TEE). These were special fastish trains, equipped to run across frontiers, where possible withut locomotive change. Their main market was businessmen. I believe one of the last surviving trains has been sent to Canada, possibly for the Ontario Northern line.

Generally it is French technology that has the largest spread. The new lines in Spain (yes, AVE) are based on the TGV design. So, is Eurostar, modified to fit the third rail system and narrower loading gauge in Britain. The Thalys are French TGV trains with a special red livery (equipped for extra voltages).

The German ICE trains aren't travelling as far outside Germany. They do connect to Switzerland.

Forget voltages - catenary issues alone are enough of a problem Different min/max heights, pan widths, etc.

IIRC, most new multisystem locos have 4 pans on them, and none are redundant.

Interoperability was never a part of the European network on purpose. There was enough resistance to the concept of the EU, and enough doubt about its success, that all nations wanted to maintain to ability to revert back to the old ways. Plus, the very existence of say a tgv on German soil, especially if Germany did not have a HSR trainset of its own, would have caused massive political problems.

If the EU makes it another decade I am sure that we will see the next generation of rail to be a true Pan-European creation.

icgsteve wrote:Interoperability was never a part of the European network on purpose. There was enough resistance to the concept of the EU, and enough doubt about its success, that all nations wanted to maintain to ability to revert back to the old ways. Plus, the very existence of say a tgv on German soil, especially if Germany did not have a HSR trainset of its own, would have caused massive political problems.

If the EU makes it another decade I am sure that we will see the next generation of rail to be a true Pan-European creation.

There is now a European Commission Directive requiring interoperability. It will take time but it implies standardising signalling systems, and more multi-voltage trains.

I assure you the EU is not going to go away.

george matthews wrote:
There is now a European Commission Directive requiring interoperability. It will take time but it implies standardising signalling systems, and more multi-voltage trains.

I assure you the EU is not going to go away.

25 years on, with the EU being a success, this makes sense. Do you have an opinion on the question of interoperability being politically possible when the building of HSR started, and if it could have been done should it have been? I think that there is a case that the politicians took the easy way out, and that Europe is paying uneeded retrofit costs because if this.