gokeefe wrote:Europe has precisely the same problems with real estate and alignment that is just as expensive and (even worse) chock full of layer after layer of ancient ruins.
In some cases the Europeans (and lately the Chinese) punt and build a high speed terminal outside the urban core (St. Pancras in London). In other situations (Germany) the urban core was bombed so badly that the opportunity arose to build new through the middle of the city (Munich is a perfect example).
Realignment is not a joke anywhere and alignment issues are often controversial. In China they take your house and might pay you if you keep quiet. In Europe and the U.S. it's a very different story.
Measuring the efficiency of the Northeast Corridor by top speed alone is in my opinion always a mistake. What makes the NEC so special is the mixed traffic operations to include a nearly infinite combination of power, motor configurations (EMUs etc), equipment speed ratings, agencies, freight operators, labor unions and even signal systems.
You simply will not find a comparable peer anywhere else in the world. Everyone else mitigates complexity through temporal/spatial separation, uniform equipment, uniform construction, uniform signals, single agency operators and/or single mode.
Mr. Gokeefe,
Yes, you're right that it's more challenging to run the NEC--and to stay on topic--a fast Acela service--than on a non-mixed-use-line. However, other countries frequently have redundant commuter lines adjacent or near to the HSR lines, where needed. Having an un-necessarily complicated operating paradigm may be impressive from a "wow, no one else does this", stance, but not from an efficiency stance. Other countries are able to move more people, faster, and more cheaply, because of the LACK of complexity. FRA crash standards take into account that an Acela might hit a slow train or a freight train..or a car...which generally won't happen in Europe. That makes the Acela heavy, expensive, and power-hungry. And complexity breeds cost. Just ask the airlines. WN, NK, F9...all single type or single type certification operators. The Acela would be faster, and more competitive and useful, were it not impeded by old signals, catenary, track alignment, and mixed running. Is the NEC an indispensable resource for the functioning of the Northeast Megalopolis? Absolutely. But that doesn't make it an "efficient" system when you define efficiency as the combination of capacity and high overall speeds. The Tokaido Shinkansen has three levels of high-speed service...Kodama, Hikiri, and Nozomi. The Kodama is basically a high-speed NJ Transit train...it stops all the time, whilst the Nozomi is a super express. But, because there's standard equipment and signaling, you can easily travel between both major metro centers, and minor intermediate stops, while keeping a fast and on-time service that plays well between "faster" and "slower" trains. Acela stuck behind an MU set? Oopsie, guess we're taking the scenic route till the next interlocking! The NEC is a *versatile* system. Whether that's the optimal configuration for the NE US is up for debate.
-AC
