SEHSR Southeast High Speed Rail Corridor

David Benton wrote:the hst power cars are 70 tonne each . thats 154 000 pounds each , so 308 000 tinnes for the 2 . 9 cars at say 20 tonne each , 180 tonne equals 396 00 pounds . so around 700 000 pounds for the hst trainset . i make that 14 hp per tonne . dont forget this is 25 year old technology , the hsts were replaced by pendinlino trainsets to achieve better power to weight ratios , and hence accleration .

From what I've read, the HSTs were about the only 125mph diesels ever produced by anyone. Cramming the Paxmann prime movers into them was also quite a challange, as the British loading gauge is quite restrictive.

In any case, I'm not sure if there was ever any regular operation of diesels in the US at anywhere approaching 125mph (EMD's fastest gearing was 117mph on E units, most were geared for 103mph, or less). The HSTs certainly did and still do operate at those speeds.

20 tonne might be abit light , 26 tonne seems to ring a bell ,but i'd be surprised if they were over 30 tonne each .
i dont think there was much spare room in the power cars ! . there were some cooling problems , though more with the valenta replacement engines i think . the latest replace is a 16 cylinder mtu diesel .
the australian version was derated to 2000hp and 100 mph , to cope with the heat there . though the 100 mph limit was more to do with track conditions . i think one ws clocked at 108mph in testing .
anyway it all goes to show 125 mph is possible with diesels , not so sure if it is with fra weight requirents though .

Looking at some books of rolling stock, I've seen the BREL Mark 3 listed as weighing 35 long tons (which is over 35 tonnes).

US diesels are given a certification for a certain top speed. Testing at Pueblo CO would reveal just how fast they are truly capable of. They aren't short on horsepower or tractive effort, as I already said.

This progress is because North Carolina is bloody amazing on rail. They are the most pro-passenger-rail state in the nation, and their Department of Rail -- with full government support -- has been basically pushing SEHSR continuously, and almost singlehandedly, for years. Virginia has sort of been dragged along in their wake! The Virginia-end upgrades which have actually been funded are mainly being made for the benefit of the commuter service, VRE, but the SEHSR people have managed to integrate plans with VRE so that the VRE upgrades will be suitable to provide capacity and speed for the future HSR.

Meanwhile, NC has taken the lead in doing the studies even for the Virginia portion of the track from Raleigh to Richmond. Their stated intent is to design the rebuilt line to the highest feasible track speeds which don't require massive extra civil engineering. The target of 110mph max is planned largely because of train equipment and signalling -- but they want the line to be ready for future speed increases. Don't be fooled; 110 is an interim goal for the far-seeing NC Department of Rail, not a final goal. It was decided (probably correctly) that a good track alignment was priority one, and they've been pouring money into curve straightening even on the currently-operating segments like the NCRR.

Unfortunately service from Fredericksburg to Richmond to Petersburg is sort of getting the short end of the stick -- largely designed, just unfunded by Virginia -- and I'd be surprised if Virginia actually ponied up its full share of the money for the Petersburg-NC border segment, barring a change of government. I think NC, unlike some states, is legally able to spend some of its money on the other side of the border, so they may do so (better connections from NC to Virginia and DC give more value to NC than to Virginia).

Will this project need Federal funding?

Chafford1 wrote:Will this project need Federal funding?

Good question. It would seem logical for the federal government to at least do a 50/50 match. After all, improving the speed and frequency of rail travel from Charlotte to DC would make rail travel a more attractive alternative to flying and driving. This, in turn, would reduce petroleum consumption, which can be considered a matter of national security---i.e., less petroleum consumed = less petroleum imported from countries with unstable governments (many of whom don't like us).

Yes, Federal Funding will be required. There's no way the states can pull this off on their own. Look for VA/NC to seek a 50-80% partnership from the Feds.

villager wrote:Yes, Federal Funding will be required. There's no way the states can pull this off on their own. Look for VA/NC to seek a 50-80% partnership from the Feds.

That would be 130 % funding, which is a good deal! You probably meant 20-80? Anyway, hats off to NC and VA for improving capacity and infrastructure [effect and cause].

The upgrade for Washington- Charlotte will cost $2.5 - $4.5 billion

Okay, I could have written that better. Expect NC/VA to seek a contribution of 50% to 80% of project costs from the Feds, with NC/VA supplying 20% to 50% of the costs.

This is a very modest scheme by world standards (China is spending $32 billion on its 800mile Beijing - Shanghai 220mph high speed rail link which will be completed in 2013) so I would hope it would have a good chance of completion - the young guy has said he is keen on high speed rail.

Chafford1 wrote:This is a very modest scheme by world standards (China is spending $32 billion on its 800mile Beijing - Shanghai 220mph high speed rail link which will be completed in 2013) so I would hope it would have a good chance of completion - the young guy has said he is keen on high speed rail.

Yes, we know! Thanks for "rubbing it in".. We could all list a dozen countries, some of whom we'd consider Third World, who are outspending the US of A.

Chafford1 wrote:This is a very modest scheme by world standards (China is spending $32 billion on its 800mile Beijing - Shanghai 220mph high speed rail link which will be completed in 2013) so I would hope it would have a good chance of completion

Obviously written by somebody who doesn't know how uninterested South Carolina and Georgia are on funding their part of the SEHSR corridor.

Maybe someone will point out to these two states the need for an alternative to car and air travel along this entire, rapidly growing corridor (Washington, DC to Atlanta). HSR satisfies this need very well since it's faster than car travel and (especially if electrified) doesn't use as much petroleum as air travel. (Thus freeing up the world's fixed supply of petroleum for long distance air travel.)

The point I'm trying to make is that this is an entirely realisable scheme given the right support from the top, which may be forthcoming in November. Perhaps the new Talgo train would be suitable:

http://www.talgoamerica.com/talgo_xxi.asp

And who knows, the Californians may even be riding in the new AGV in a few years time!

Chafford1 wrote:The point I'm trying to make is that this is an entirely realisable scheme given the right support from the top, which may be forthcoming in November. Perhaps the new Talgo train would be suitable:

http://www.talgoamerica.com/talgo_xxi.asp

And who knows, the Californians may even be riding in the new AGV in a few years time!

I'm not really sure of the quality of the things that Alstom builds in europe, but all that I have to say is that everything that they have built in the states, is JUNK. New Jersey Transits CV's were a complete disaster.

I rather see one of these trains running in california
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:FASTECH_360-S.JPG

(not going to happen, thanks to the FRA, but one can always dream!