Railroad Forums 

  • High-speed rail service derailed

  • General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.
It is currently Wed May 01, 2024 7:09 pm

High-speed rail service derailed

General discussion of passenger rail systems not otherwise covered in the specific forums in this category, including high speed rail.

Moderators: mtuandrew, gprimr1

High-speed rail service derailed

  by themallard
 
...High-speed rail got attention in the 1990s when the federal government started designating high-speed rail corridors around the country. Today, there are 11 designated high-speed rail corridors through 28 states.

Actual development of high-speed routes has slowed to a crawl or gone completely dormant. For example, Florida voters approved a high-speed rail project in 2000, then repealed it in 2004....

...John Spychalski, a transportation expert and professor at Penn State, says the problem is lack of political will. "People didn't bat an eyelash when we decided to build the interstate system in 1956."

He says high-speed passenger rail has technical, as well as financial problems. Railroad tracks in the USA are almost all privately owned by freight companies that run slower, heavier trains. "They aren't too keen on operating a 125-mph passenger train when they're running heavy freight trains at 30 to 70 mph," Spychalski says.
USA Today

MODERATOR'S NOTE

  by wigwagfan
 
MODERATOR'S NOTE:

Moved to the High-Speed Rail forum.

Thanks,

  by Patrick A.
 
Basically until Amtrak or other Passenger rail agencies wholly own lines like the NEC, we will never see considerable improvement in America for HSR.

Patrick

  by cloudship
 
The other alternative is completely independent tracks, at a different gauge, that would satisfy FRA regulations and allow for lighter trains.

  by george matthews
 
cloudship wrote:The other alternative is completely independent tracks, at a different gauge, that would satisfy FRA regulations and allow for lighter trains.
You don't need a different gauge. All modern high speed lines have been built to the standard gauge. Note that in Spain, where most lines are to a broader gauge, the new AVE lines will all be standard and will allow trains to come through from France.

Japan adopted standard gauge because their older lines are of Cape gauge and they realised that this narrow gauge was impeding development. The new lines were planned as far back as tthe 1930s.

You don't want a different gauge because high speed trains use part of the traditional lines for approaching city centre stations. Building entirely new stations is an unnecessary (huge) expense.

  by cloudship
 
And also subjects the trains in this country to FRA regulations, thus requiring heavy trains. By switching to a different gauge, you no longer run the risk of having a huge freight train and a lightweight HSR on the same track. Which is a lot more feasible to pass than getting the FRA to change it's regulations.

  by Lucius Kwok
 
You still don't need a different track gauge.

  by Nasadowsk
 
You don't need a different track gauge to get out from under the FRA's thumb (though, it's impressively effective). Theoretically, any non connected rail system can be branded as 'light rail', and even connected ones exist. I've also heard rumblings that the infamous time sepperation on the RiverLINE might not last forever.

The other rumbling? California might start pushing the FRA around a bit, w.r.t. Caltrain. Caliornia's got weight, too.

Also note the Stadler GTW cars on Austin's new commuter rail system.

Don't underestimate what political pressure could do, too.

  by george matthews
 
Lucius Kwok wrote:You still don't need a different track gauge.
What you do need is no road crossings at all. And lighter trains. Standard American trains are far too heavy. But you do also need to be able to enter main stations running on the heritage lines. If the political will ever happens to build a high speed network this problem has to be faced.

  by cloudship
 
Physically, no you do not need a separate gauge. But don't underestimate the power of a public regulatory agency. Yes you can have time or track separated systems, but those are not feasible, at least not to FRA regulations. Even if you laid a paralel high speed standard gauge track next to a normal freight track, and FRA regulations would still prevent you from running light trains. And noone is going to, at this point, be willing to give up regular running of freight trains to let passenger high-speed trains run.

But building a broader gauge system can be done now. Without any lengthy drawn out battles over regulations. Is it the best solution? Maybe, maybe not. But it gets things started, and I don't think we can affor any more time wasting on stopgap measures and complicated avoidance schemes. i's time to build a true infrastructure, however it has to be built.

  by Irish Chieftain
 
Even if you laid a paralel high speed standard gauge track next to a normal freight track, and FRA regulations would still prevent you from running light trains
Not if it's next to the rail line. FRA stipulates shared tracks. Fencing may be necessary, though.
building a broader gauge system can be done now
Broad gauge solves nothing and adds cost. Ireland's railways suffer from having 5' 3" gauge, especially since they import everything.

  by Lucius Kwok
 
Considering that most states balk at paying $1 million per mile of double-track to upgrade to a cab signal system necessary for high-speed operation, what makes you think they're going to pony up the $10-20 million per mile to build a completely separate line?

As I've said before, incremental upgrades are much more palatable to taxpayers and politicians and less risky than a completely new system.
 Return to “General Discussion - Passenger Rail: High Speed and Heavy and Light Rail Systems”
 - All times are UTC-05:00 -