My thoughts on the current state of high speed rail in America

I was bored, so I wrote down some of my thoughts in the form of an article!

https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/does-hig ... ew-johnson

Nicely written, Matt.

Thanks, I did my best to turn my knowledge of random railroad trivia into some sort of coherent narrative.

On that immediate point, Mr. Johnson, I believe you succeeded well. Lest we note, on LinkedIn. you were not "preaching to the choir" but rather to a diverse group of professionals in any number of industries or professions.

I note your mention of the CHI-STL G,M,&O Alton Route. I think it a crime how the Union Pacific had taxpayer $$$ appropriated under ARRA09 for high speed passenger service used to build Uncle Pete an additional route over which to serve Chicago. As a minimum, the once existing double track should have been restored with "Unk" ponying up for any additional costs over the single track that was deemed sufficient to support the anticipated passemger train requirements. "Five a day @79mph" is likely the only passenger service the line will see.

disclaimer: author holds Long position UNP

Thanks, appreciate the feedback!

I was highly optimistic regarding the CHI-STL upgrades, but at this point I'm doubting whether we'll actually see triple digit speeds on the route. 90 mph maybe, but if that's the end goal then taxpayers did not get a great deal there!

Nice piece .
Seems California might agree on the HSR way forward there.

https://www.mercurynews.com/2019/08/01/ ... -bay-area/

David Benton wrote: ↑Mon Aug 05, 2019 6:17 pm Seems California might agree on the HSR way forward there.

Might agree is a far cry away from agreeing. Does California remember what they are supposed to be building? A clean, electric powered 200 mph HSR train, not a 120-125 mph faster dirty diesel power train. 125 mph trains are not going to show proof of concept and get California taxpayers ready and willing to pay even more taxes to finish building its' HSR dreams.

If a "dirty Diesel train" takes highway traffic off the roads now rather than waiting for the US equivalent of the Shinkansen to materialize at some vague date in the future, I think I'd take the trade off now rather than wait. Don't forget those Diesels will be Tier 4 compliant.

Jon

I think the last sentence of electricron's post is probably valid--the skeptics are not going to be impressed by 125 mph in the Central Valley in the way people are impressed by HSR abroad. Nobody's going to drive back to LA thinking "why can't we have trains like that?"

I agree on that, I think they should at least electrify and run a section at high speed. People will try it and demand more. As I said on the California forum , I think they are overstating the savings of not electrifying. I have since found an article that explains the savings come from other avenues as well.
viewtopic.php?f=60&t=57463, contains link to Fresnobee article.

jonnhrr wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:11 am If a "dirty Diesel train" takes highway traffic off the roads now rather than waiting for the US equivalent of the Shinkansen to materialize at some vague date in the future, I think I'd take the trade off now rather than wait. Don't forget those Diesels will be Tier 4 compliant.
Jon

Dirty diesels are already running on the Central Valley rail corridor at almost 80 mph speeds, their ability to reduce highway traffic already exists, and it is not that effective. No doubt slightly faster trains will slightly reduce traffic, but really faster trains should really reduce traffic.

electricron wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 8:54 pm

jonnhrr wrote: ↑Tue Aug 06, 2019 10:11 am If a "dirty Diesel train" takes highway traffic off the roads now rather than waiting for the US equivalent of the Shinkansen to materialize at some vague date in the future, I think I'd take the trade off now rather than wait. Don't forget those Diesels will be Tier 4 compliant.
Jon

Dirty diesels are already running on the Central Valley rail corridor at almost 80 mph speeds, their ability to reduce highway traffic already exists, and it is not that effective. No doubt slightly faster trains will slightly reduce traffic, but really faster trains should really reduce traffic.

California has to make the best out of a bad situation with high-speed rail. I don't think a transfer at Merced makes sense. Maybe they could use dual-modes running on electric south of there. In any case, all of that infrastructure for what is basically an upgrade of the San Joaquins is what they will get, and I suspect that will be all for the foreseeable future.

Don't forget that in any corridor frequency is every bit as important as speed. Knocking a half-hour or so off the transit time doesn't generate a lot of traffic if there's more than an hour between trains; four or five trains a day don't give a good indication of a route's potential.

On the topic of high speed rail in America, I have two words:

PRIVATE. BUSINESS.

Look at Brightline and Texas Central Railway. Since they are both private corporations, similar to the private corporations which used to run quality passenger service in the U.S. back in the day and still run the class I freight railroads of today, they are more successful than government-funded rail operations such as Amtrak and the California High Speed Rail project, both of which are at the mercy of the government for enough funding. If they do not, then in the case of Amtrak, they have to start making cuts since they wouldn't have enough money to operate certain systems, and in the case of California, that means delays, increased costs, and shorter starting distances for the high speed line.
Private businesses should run railroads in the U.S. Period.