Railroad Forums
Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1
It seems so much the cart before the horse to me. First we need to provide rail service in this state that is useful and affordable to a great number of citizens. Then we have to get them back on the train. If in this process some trains move more quickly from point A to B, that's a bonus. But it seems silly to me to make it the object.He apparently doesn't understand that you won't get people back on the train unless it's significantly faster than the alternatives (usually driving in the case of the distances involved here). Once you factor in the ride to/from the train station at either end of the journey, plus the waiting time, the train needs to maintain an average speed well above the auto's average speed of some 75 to 90 mph. This somewhat higher average speed requires even faster track speeds. In essence to match the auto's door-to-door travel time from NYC to Albany (142 miles) of roughly two hours the train probably needs to cover that distance in an hour. That means maximum speeds similar to those reached every day in Europe and Japan. If the train takes longer than the auto, the only way to attract customers will be if it is much cheaper. Even then, quite a few will opt for speed over price, and drive. The only way a train can not be high-speed, but equal or better auto travel time, is if it is a very long distance trip. The problem you run into there though is that in many cases flying becomes a more viable option, and you're back to having to increase the train's speed anyway to compete with air.
Irish Chieftain wrote:That's an average speed of 71 mph. Illegal on the highway, never mind the speed you have to do on local streets to fit that average. Sure would make a lot of troopers happy.You're right, but I'm just going by what's possible by car without traffic, not what's necessarily legal. This is really what the train is competing against. Nowadays doing 80 to 100 mph is just keeping up with traffic, and it's perfectly safe with modern cars and modern roads. It's only illegal because speed limits have been set by legislators since the national 55 mph limit in the early 70s rather than by traffic engineers. A 95th percentile speed limit, the standard which was used before the first fuel crisis, would dictate a speed limit around 80 to 100 on the majority of limited access interstate highways. Localities are reluctant to do this because of the obvious fall-off in revenue from speeding tickets since many have come to depend upon such revenue in the last 30 years. In Europe where speed limits are set more in line with such practices you have typical limits of 120 to 150 km/hr (75 to 93 mph). The 55 to 65 mph limits we have in most of the Northeast have little to do with anything except generating revenue. Studies have shown that the drivers with the lowest fatality rate per mile traveled are running in the 93 to 95 mph band. Those who drive 65 mph actually have a higher risk of dying for a variety of reasons. If you're curious, see this article which actually makes a fairly good case for no speed limit. Let's not forget that when the Interstates were laid out they were designed with 100+ mph travel in mind once automotive technology caught up. Well, in 2005 we've reached that point, provided we get rid of unstable vehicles like SUVs which are unsafe at any speed.
Irish Chieftain wrote:the auto's door-to-door travel time from NYC to Albany (142 miles) of roughly two hoursThat's an average speed of 71 mph. Illegal on the highway, never mind the speed you have to do on local streets to fit that average. Sure would make a lot of troopers happy.
Thomas I wrote:For an average speed of 71mph (114km/h) on a distance of 142miles (227km) you need to make longer distances on the motorway with about 90 - 100mph (144 - 160kmh) to adjust the time you need by leaving and entering the urban areas of Albany and NYC....Not true. When my grandmother used to live in Rome, NY (270 miles from NYC), my brother sometimes made the trip in 3 hours flat, usually no more than four, and he rarely drove much above 100 mph (yes, such speeds are perfectly possible and safe on US motorways even if not legal). Granted, this was usually in off-peak hours, but it illustrates that it's at least possible. Figure to reach Albany in 2 hours, it might take 30 minutes to go the first 15 miles from NYC. That leaves 90 minutes to go the remaining 127 miles. You only need to average 85 mph or so. Allowing for a few places where traffic is a bit slower, such as over the Tappen Zee Bridge or near Albany, that means cruising at 90 or 95 mph. This is only a bit faster than the prevailing speed of 85 or so on I-95. Illegal? Sure it is, but I think about one car in a hundred is actually obeying the speed limit on most highways these days. The limit should be set at the 95th percentile speed, not at whatever speed legislators "feel" is "safe". That system worked for decades until we abandoned it during the early 1970s. Thankfully, there's more and more public pressure to go back to it and have limits set by traffic engineers, with no legislated maximum. Funny in these discusions how nobody ever bothers to mention how many sober, non-sleep deprived drivers trying to keep to the old 55 mph limit ended up in ditches because they fell asleep behind the wheel. People drive the way they do now not because they want to break the law, but because they still feel safe at higher speeds, and more importantly keep more alert because the driving process is more challenging.
Thats not possible in the US. And in the Northeast already not!
jtr1962 wrote:To make 270miles in 3 hours you need an average speed of 90mph.Thomas I wrote:For an average speed of 71mph (114km/h) on a distance of 142miles (227km) you need to make longer distances on the motorway with about 90 - 100mph (144 - 160kmh) to adjust the time you need by leaving and entering the urban areas of Albany and NYC....Not true. When my grandmother used to live in Rome, NY (270 miles from NYC), my brother sometimes made the trip in 3 hours flat, usually no more than four, and he rarely drove much above 100 mph (yes, such speeds are perfectly possible and safe on US motorways even if not legal). Granted, this was usually in off-peak hours, but it illustrates that it's at least possible. Figure to reach Albany in 2 hours, it might take 30 minutes to go the first 15 miles from NYC. That leaves 90 minutes to go the remaining 127 miles. You only need to average 85 mph or so. Allowing for a few places where traffic is a bit slower, such as over the Tappen Zee Bridge or near Albany, that means cruising at 90 or 95 mph. This is only a bit faster than the prevailing speed of 85 or so on I-95. Illegal? Sure it is, but I think about one car in a hundred is actually obeying the speed limit on most highways these days. The limit should be set at the 95th percentile speed, not at whatever speed legislators "feel" is "safe". That system worked for decades until we abandoned it during the early 1970s. Thankfully, there's more and more public pressure to go back to it and have limits set by traffic engineers, with no legislated maximum. Funny in these discusions how nobody ever bothers to mention how many sober, non-sleep deprived drivers trying to keep to the old 55 mph limit ended up in ditches because they fell asleep behind the wheel. People drive the way they do now not because they want to break the law, but because they still feel safe at higher speeds, and more importantly keep more alert because the driving process is more challenging.
Thats not possible in the US. And in the Northeast already not!
NYC to Albany in two hours is probably not possible during rush hours, but then again isn't the whole point of trains to beat the best possible car travel time, and not the worst? If we're serious about getting people out of their cars, and we should be for a bunch of reasons, we need to be keenly aware of that. Just look at the NYC-Boston Acela service. Even at its best, it only averaged some 70 mph. That just isn't enough to lure many people out of their cars given that the car is door-to-door but the train isn't.
Anyway, sorry about taking this off-topic, but I like to keep the discussion honest. Cars are not going to slow down to legal limits any time soon just so that our slow trains in America can beat them. The trains are going to have to compete on an even footing. Amtrak's 79 mph in most of the US just doesn't cut it.
Thomas I wrote:To make 270miles in 3 hours you need an average speed of 90mph.The trip was mostly closed highway (I-95), with a few minutes of local driving on either end, and the only times he could make the trip in 3 hours was in the middle of the night with almost no traffic. He didn't go 130 mph at any time. I think he was going 100 to 110 mph for most of the trip. When we made the trip in 4 hours we were usually just keeping up with traffic (~85 to 90 mph). I remember many times reaching Albany about 2 hours after we left. The NYS Thruway is two lanes in each direction for most of its length, and traffic usually flows along pretty well.
I dont believe he starts traveling 90mph (144km/h) in front of your grandmothers House in Rome, makes the wohle distance with 90mph without any need to drive slower and drives with 90mph through NYC to his home...
To have an average speed of 90mph you need to speed up to a maximal speed of minimum 130mph.
And i dont believe that many drivers drive a speed which is 35mph (56km/h) over the legal speed limit.If you have the time read this. Very interesting study. Here is one paragraph I consider relevant:
Even in Germany you would lose your driving licence for month if you makes such an exceeding of speed limit.
The current automotive mean on most rural interstates is 75 mph, and applying the urban interstate relative risk curve: the safest speed would be 87; the vehicles least likely to be involved in an accident are those traveling between 75 and 93-95 mph. Translated, the overwhelming numbers of speeding citations are issued to the safest drivers.The mean speed means that half the drivers are going faster, half are going slower. That means fully half the drivers are exceeding a 55 mph by at least 20 mph, or a 65 mph limit by at least 10 mph. Also, the article mentions somewhere that the CHP is increasingly giving summons for 100+ speeds, or at least 35 mph over the legal limit. So to answer your question, yes, the majority of drivers here, probably over 90%, exceed the speed limit, and quite a few exceed it by 20, 25, even 35 mph. The reason is as the study says-the limits are just set too low. In Germany they're stricter about the limits because they're set more reasonably. I believe in the places where your autobahn has a speed limit, the limit is 130 km/hr (81 mph), for example. If America set limits in accordance with sound traffic engineering practices then 95% of drivers would be at or under the legal limit, and those exceeding it would only be doing so by a few mph. There's a lot of good information in that study. I recommend that everyone read it before discussing a topic like this.
To compete with an system of nationwide multi-lane divided higways with no general speedlimits a train need to have average speed higher than 100mph on longer travels (more than 300miles) and higher than 125mph on shorter travels (70 to 300miles).I agree 100% but where are these trains in America? It seems that very few people understand facts like you presented. I really want us to build a national high-speed rail system like Europe and Japan have. I would travel more frequently if they did. I don't drive and refuse to fly. Remember that for those of us like me a train is really the only way to get around but trains in America today are just too slow and unreliable.
Gas-prices, car-assurances-prices, car-tax, car-prices etc. are also a question: in Germany going by train is cheaper than making an 85mph-average door-to-door-speed-trip with an diesel-powered car in the class of Mercedes C, VW Jetta or BMW 3xx...Of course the train is cheaper, and I might add much better for the environment. I just wish NYS would start building something like your ICE or the TGV already instead of studying it to death.
jtr1962 wrote: In Germany they're stricter about the limits because they're set more reasonably. I believe in the places where your autobahn has a speed limit, the limit is 130 km/hr (81 mph), for example.That means 1/3 of all drivers go on with 150 - 169km/h (up to 40km/h faster than the limit you get only a fine and points...)
jtr1962 wrote:I agree 100% but where are these trains in America? It seems that very few people understand facts like you presented. I really want us to build a national high-speed rail system like Europe and Japan have. I would travel more frequently if they did. I don't drive and refuse to fly. Remember that for those of us like me a train is really the only way to get around but trains in America today are just too slow and unreliable.Better look at the shinkansen or TGV-System. ICE ist mostly too slow to be an door-to-door-competitor for cars (except on fridays...)
Gas-prices, car-assurances-prices, car-tax, car-prices etc. are also a question: in Germany going by train is cheaper than making an 85mph-average door-to-door-speed-trip with an diesel-powered car in the class of Mercedes C, VW Jetta or BMW 3xx...Of course the train is cheaper, and I might add much better for the environment. I just wish NYS would start building something like your ICE or the TGV already instead of studying it to death.[/quote]
Thomas I wrote:In Germany we also have a discussion about limits like 140 or 160km/h because the distance between 120/130km/h (highest limits now) and 250 - 300kmh ist very big. And if the road administration doesnt like driver to go a fast as maybee 200km/h they can only make an 130km/h limit also if the road is good enough maybe for 160km/h...There are actually that many people who drive at 250 to 300 km/h on the unlimited portions of the autobahn? Now I know in Germany they're much stricter about vehicle condition and the drivers are much better as a rule than in America, but that seems really fast. Also interesting are the discussions about 140 to 160 km/h limits. I think most American drivers would be perfectly happy with limits set in that range.
Better look at the shinkansen or TGV-System. ICE ist mostly too slow to be an door-to-door-competitor for cars (except on fridays...)Point taken. If I'm not mistaken, isn't the problem that the ICE can't accelerate up to speed as quickly as the TGV or shinkansen, thus killing average speeds?
Most of people doesnt go faster than 20mph over the limit by car. So a tilting train with a maximum speed of 140 - 150mph and an average speed of 110 - 120mph on existing lines will be a real competitor for cars.I like that idea. Unfortunately, as you may or may not be aware the majority of lines in America are not electrified. A tilting train running at 150 mph would require a major upgrade (i.e. electrification) of most lines. And after that you run into the problem of scheduling these trains around freight trains running on the same line. When all is considered, for most corridors you're better off just building a whole new line. The tilt train idea would only work on the few electrified lines which exist in the US.
I dont believe that speed limits over 85/90mph will be introduced in the USA in the next 20 - 30 years...It depends upon how much the public wants the limits raised, and also on the ability to reeducate the public on some fundamental traffic engineering facts instead of having self-interested parties scaring them with the "speed kills" nonsense. In a way, the public has already voted against present limits by exceeding them even if many talk to the contrary. It's just a matter now of getting the politicians and special interest groups out of the business of setting limits and returning it to the traffic engineers. Once that's done, the public can simply vote for slower limits by driving slower, or faster limits by driving faster. Every five years or so you just measure the traffic speed, and adjust the limits up or down accordingly.
jtr1962 wrote: There are actually that many people who drive at 250 to 300 km/h on the unlimited portions of the autobahn? Now I know in Germany they're much stricter about vehicle condition and the drivers are much better as a rule than in America, but that seems really fast. Also interesting are the discussions about 140 to 160 km/h limits. I think most American drivers would be perfectly happy with limits set in that range.My car at time does'nt make more than 225km/h and i drive this if possible - and there are driver who pass me because they are faster (bigger BMW. Mercedes, Porsches, bigger Audi, Lexus...
) In the case of ICE-1 and ICE-2 it is an deficit in acceleration - and they have to much stopps...
Point taken. If I'm not mistaken, isn't the problem that the ICE can't accelerate up to speed as quickly as the TGV or shinkansen, thus killing average speeds?
I like that idea. Unfortunately, as you may or may not be aware the majority of lines in America are not electrified. A tilting train running at 150 mph would require a major upgrade (i.e. electrification) of most lines. And after that you run into the problem of scheduling these trains around freight trains running on the same line. When all is considered, for most corridors you're better off just building a whole new line. The tilt train idea would only work on the few electrified lines which exist in the US.In Germany the can manage thes tilting ICEs Hamburg - Berlin on the same line with 100 - 120km/h freight-trains and 120 - 160km/h regional trains - and there are only 2 tracks!
In Germany we have also a new type of limitation called "Verkehrsbeeinflussung". A computer-system calculated the best speed-limit from data over weather and traffic volume.
It depends upon how much the public wants the limits raised, and also on the ability to reeducate the public on some fundamental traffic engineering facts instead of having self-interested parties scaring them with the "speed kills" nonsense. In a way, the public has already voted against present limits by exceeding them even if many talk to the contrary. It's just a matter now of getting the politicians and special interest groups out of the business of setting limits and returning it to the traffic engineers. Once that's done, the public can simply vote for slower limits by driving slower, or faster limits by driving faster. Every five years or so you just measure the traffic speed, and adjust the limits up or down accordingly.
And to keep this more on topic, you do the same for railways. The government or whomever is funding the project simply says they want a travel time of so many hours between such and such points. The engineers lay out the line, design the trains, and set the speeds such that those goals can be met. I think it's idiotic for politicians to say they want a 125 mph train , or a 150 mph train, etc. Just say you want to go from NYC to Albany in 2 hours, or 1 hour, 10 minutes, or any other arbitrary time. The engineers will tell you if its possible, and how much it will cost.100% agreement!
I think a good first step would be upgrading some heavily traveled existing corridors like Boston-Washington to at least 100 mph average speeds, and more importantly keeping the trains to these schedules on a daily basis. Once successful, we can then try building some state of the art HSR. NYC to Albany seems like a great place to start.I often heard about famous trains like the Hiawatha ore the Empite Stae Builder which make speeds up to 120mph in times in Europe most of the trains dont make more than 75mph...
jtr1962 wrote:It is worth noting that the Interstate system at present cannot be "safe" over about 80mph or so.I dont believe that speed limits over 85/90mph will be introduced in the USA in the next 20 - 30 years...It depends upon how much the public wants the limits raised, and also on the ability to reeducate the public on some fundamental traffic engineering facts instead of having self-interested parties scaring them with the "speed kills" nonsense. In a way, the public has already voted against present limits by exceeding them even if many talk to the contrary. It's just a matter now of getting the politicians and special interest groups out of the business of setting limits and returning it to the traffic engineers. Once that's done, the public can simply vote for slower limits by driving slower, or faster limits by driving faster. Every five years or so you just measure the traffic speed, and adjust the limits up or down accordingly.
MDNFan wrote: What does this mean for traffic in the future? We can either:Given the way gas prices are headed I personally think we'll probably see (3) unless there is a massive switch to battery-electric cars with decent range plus quick recharge ability. In that case, what would happen will probably be something between (1) and (2). We'll never have no-speed limit roads here, but upgrading the Interstates to allow comfortable travel at maybe 100 to 110 mph would be a low-cost solution since many of these highways are approaching the point where they'll need to be rebuilt soon anyway (unless they fall out of use). Streamlined electric cars would be pretty efficient at those speeds.
1) drive slower, take longer, and maintain the current system.
2) revamp almost the entire "I" system to allow higher speeds, upgrade maintence & driver requirements to allow safe travel at Autobahn speeds, and burn a lot more fuel than we do now (A= (motive force - bv)/m)
3) build HSR and relegate cars to intracity & rural use.
Which do you think is more likely?
Thomas I wrote:My car at time does'nt make more than 225km/h and i drive this if possible - and there are driver who pass me because they are faster (bigger BMW. Mercedes, Porsches, bigger Audi, Lexus...That must be very interesting to be passed when you're already flying along.
And maybe - if others pay for it - the freight-train companys will endorse electrification? Oil will not become cheaper in the future....It may actually happen as oil prices continue to rise. Even when oil was cheaper, running an electric railroad costs less than running a diesel one, but the payback time for electrification is too long for the short-sighted CEOs to consider it. I think higher oil prices are going to make electrifying all heavy freight lines in the US very attractive sometime in the next decade, and then half the problem for higher speed trains is already solved.
And distances like NYC - Buffalo or Detroit - Chicago are far enought to make it economically to change from diesel to electric...
New build lines are at a first beginning only there needable where the common lines cant be upgarded for tilting trains....Yes, there's a lot that can be done to increase speeds over existing lines. Tilting trains, straightening curves where possible, getting rid of bottlenecks in the system, reducing dwell times at stations, etc. I'm sure we can get average speeds over the existing NEC up to the 100 mph level or better by doing those things.
The TGV Bordeaux - Paris isnt a tilting train and makes only 1/3 of the distance on a new build HSL, but he has an average speed of more than 110mph...
