Electrification of standard routings as the answer to HSR

Guess that answers my question. Too bad though, I think electrification might be the answer to high speed rail in the US.

BoilerBob wrote:Guess that answers my question. Too bad though, I think electrification might be the answer to high speed rail in the US.

High Speed rail is a different matter altogether. It requires new lines with no crossings by road vehicles. But it also requires greater frequency of service. (I have watched the NEC in Connecticut beyond New Haven. I am amazed at how few trains there are on that route. I am told it is because of restrictions in opening times of the numerous movable bridges on the route, but electrification of that kind of route ought to have several trains an hour.)

I think the Chicago-Milwaukee route would benefit from electrification. I am aware that the track authority is not Amtrak, but that could be got round by negotiation. The speed of that route is rather slow, though it still competes well with road speed when the road is congested. An electrified route could have higher speeds and would attract even more passengers (there is still the problem of road crossings).

BoilerBob wrote:Guess that answers my question. Too bad though, I think electrification might be the answer to high speed rail in the US.

It is. That's the problem. You need to electrify to get high speed rail. My complaint is: 110mph (~177hm/h) is not high speed rail. 125mph (~200km/h) is high speed rail. I guess noöne really knows that at Amtrak.

-Phil

Moderator's Note:

Comments vis a vis electrification in general being the path to High-Speed Passenger Rail have been moved to the HSR forum

Electrification is not "the answer" per se.

The FRA, since 1950, has required signaling superior to and in addition to CTC to permit train operation faster than 79 mph. NJ Transit's Morristown Line is no high-speed railroad, in spite of having 25kV 60Hz electrification, for example.

E-units dating from that time had optional gearing that would have permitted 120-mph operation. Due to DC traction and lower horsepower output of prime movers back then (needed two twelve-cylinder prime movers to produce 2200 horsepower; compare that to a single GEVO twelve-cylinder of nowadays), acceleration was rather slow with long trains and probably required additional B-units on longer trains. Result was that Es got regeared to 90 mph max. Modern diesels with AC traction and horsepower above the 4,000 mark (not particularly necessary though) could easily reach 125 mph or faster without having sluggish acceleration (the Talgo XXI hit 152 mph in tests; Britain's HST and Class 67 both hit 143 mph in tests).

Of course, no matter how fast you want to go on traditional rail corridors, there are a number of barriers. FRA has their Tier II crashworthiness specifications, as well as some other related specs, to permit a train to operate faster than 125 mph. Of course, once you cross that plateau, the FRA has installed a glass ceiling; trains may operate no faster than 150 mph on traditional rails.

BTW: "hm/h" would stand for hectometers per hour. A hectometer is a tenth of a kilometer.

I don't see why we can't update the rails on the coasts with electrification if need be to make HSR for nearly all pax routes such as MIA-BOS, PHL-CHI, CHI-STL,SEA-SAN to make speeds over 125mph. The other key is to update the older rails and bridges along said routes where there are spped restrictions such as only 30 or 45 on a 125+ route. Then we have maglev running from CHI/STL-SFO/LAX at 250-300mph making coast ot coast HSR. I think that if we invest in electrification and HSR technologies we can reduce the number of cars and planes who are guzzling up gas, when we can make renewable electricity.

Food for thought,
Patrick

Didn't Bombadier/Alstom develop a Diseil version of the Acella Express called Jet Train?

Seems to me that the money spent to install the wireing system (since in most places, except for Alexandria VA to DC where the Cantanry masts still sit like ghosts, could be better spent.

I personally feel the US is a long way from high speed rail. First and foremost, we need to get our trains running reliably at 79mph. A high speed train is only high speed until a slow moving CSX local gets in the way or CSX's abysmal track maintaince results in a slow order.

gprimr1 wrote: I personally feel the US is a long way from high speed rail. First and foremost, we need to get our trains running reliably at 79mph. A high speed train is only high speed until a slow moving CSX local gets in the way or CSX's abysmal track maintaince results in a slow order.

Generally a ligne de grande vitesse (LGV) does not carry freight, apart from mail or parcels in converted tgv cars. There must be no slow trains on the line.

I note that people sometimes mention in this forum that there are no available rights of way apart from the traditional lines. That's not true. LGV can be built alongside a motorway, or even above it.

"JetTrain" was Bombardier's attempt at making a lighter-weight higher-speed passenger locomotive. The reason it's called "Jet Train" is because instead of a diesel engine, it uses turbine power - like you would find under the wing of a commercial jetliner.

It seems to have failed for a number of reasons that are outlined in another thread.

george matthews wrote:Generally a ligne de grande vitesse (LGV) does not carry freight

AIR, the Neubaustrecken in Germany do.

I note that people sometimes mention in this forum that there are no available rights of way apart from the traditional lines. That's not true. LGV can be built alongside a motorway, or even above it.

Germany often builds their Neubaustrecken alongside autobahnen. However, interstate highways are not always straight enough to allow dedicated high-speed rail alignment construction—and the grades of these highways (sometimes as steep as 6%) can be prohibitive.

gprimr1 wrote:Didn't Bombadier/Alstom develop a Diseil (sic) version of the Acella Express called Jet Train?

JetTrain is a gas-turbine (not diesel) version of the Acela Express power car. (Diesel is a type of piston engine, not a fuel—there is confusion caused by the fact that gas-turbines such as this one, and the RTL III, can burn diesel-grade high-cetane fuel.) This power car was commissioned by the FRA to explore high-speed rail operation outside electrified lines—but given the lack of investment in the Acela Express proper, this power car ended up being a red-headed stepchild.

The P42 is already capable of 110 MPH, and does that between Montreal and Toronto (1). Put some tilting cars behind it, and you've got yourself a high-speed train (at least the US definition of high-speed). The tilting is necessary because otherwise the train would have to slow way down for every curve, taking away from its average speed.

Top speed of the LRC trains is still 100 mph.