USDOT Vision for HIGH SPEED RAIL in America

2nd trick op wrote:There are probably any number of places out there, particularly in the flat areas between the two major mountain ranges, where new capacity for both passenger and freight service can be redeveloped without the work being too capital-intensive or the NIMBY pressure too great. That, in turn, could downplay the public- vs. private-sector conflict, and pave the way for some serious discourse on the fringes of the major cities where the two services will have to co-operate more.

Certainly there's abandoned ROWs, as well as land to make entirely new rights-of-way, but I think you underestimate the power of the Not-In-My-Back-Yarders. Most don't understand how their Lexii, their Starbucks and their MacBooks are linked to rail transport, and would rather see rail lines become rail trails. Though the recent CSX TV and radio ads are helping, railroads are notoriously bad at PR, and expansion efforts (specifically by the DM&E in Rochester, MN) have been ham-handed and inconsiderate of residents... the government would need to tread carefully with using abandoned ROW. Should there be one more mega-merger cycle leaving us with two continental freight rail systems (CN-BNSF-NS and CP-UP-CSX... mix and match as you please) that would be a golden opportunity to snipe some parallel lines for Amtrak and VIA use. Otherwise, freeways are the best possibility, and many new lines (the New Mexico RailRunner for instance) are built in reconstructed medians. The Interstate system is starting to need massive repairs and expansion, and that's the obvious place to build the American high-speed rail network - government-owned land, little eminent domain and very little NIMBYism.

Nasadowsk wrote:IMHO, the best 'bang for the buck' right now, before anything else, would be to get level boarding at as many stations as possible. For off the NEC, this means 550mm platforms (superliner compatible, actually a touch too high, but that can be handled in a few easy ways).

Why specifically 550 mm, out of curiosity? It looks like 1' 4"/~400 mm would be enough to bring a platform nearly to the bottom edge of a Superliner door, though I'm only going from inference off an AAR plate diagram. Otherwise I agree, and further remind the good folks here that such platform doesn't need to be absolutely level (not sure on ADA compliance, but I believe a 1:10 slope would be permissible) nor very wide.

550mm is the (emerging) standard height in Europe, and is the highest you could practically build without freight interference, and gives a bit of a structural advantage over the Superliner's height. And builders know how to deal with it already, since everyone else does it anyway. It's also just slightly higher than a Superliner floor, by about 2 inches I believe. Actually, I'd build them to SL height in places where those are what's used exclusively, and put the standard for any other new stock at 550mm. How do you rectify the difference over time at 'lower' Superliner platforms? Easy - when a line gets new equipment, put a brick / tile walkway on top of the existing platform

As far as not being perfectly level, realistically, it should be level with the floor on the car, and there's very little reason not to, especially given what a low step-up we're talking about.

Looks to me a good argument to build Disney style ramps for ticketed passengers. The ramp makes it easier for those less abled or wheeled to board a train. The MCS uses a portable ramp with a crewperson to get wheeled chairs on board. Anything to cut dwell times to lead to better average speeds.

She was just an ordinary person, entirely mobile, who had probably not travelled by train before. She was standing in the wrong part of the platform and didn't notice that only one door was available for boarding. The train pulled away. To my shame I didn't notice her problem until it was too late.

In my experience in other countries, you can board a train by the nearest door. If necessary you can then walk through the train until you find your seat, or else just sit anywhere if it is unreserved, like most trains.

Mr. MTUAndrew, two admittedly off topic points coming to mind after reviewing your insightful material above:

1) Ask your friendly Lexus dealer for confirmation, but, lest the temptation to drive away in an LS460 too great, accept my word that Lexus (singular) is also Lexus (plural).

2) Here are videos and reprints of the current CSX ads you note:

http://www.csx.com/?fuseaction=about.tomorrow_moves

mtuandrew wrote: Certainly there's abandoned ROWs, as well as land to make entirely new rights-of-way, but I think you underestimate the power of the Not-In-My-Back-Yarders. Most don't understand how their Lexii, their Starbucks and their MacBooks are linked to rail transport, and would rather see rail lines become rail trails. Though the recent CSX TV and radio ads are helping, railroads are notoriously bad at PR, and expansion efforts (specifically by the DM&E in Rochester, MN) have been ham-handed and inconsiderate of residents... the government would need to tread carefully with using abandoned ROW. Should there be one more mega-merger cycle leaving us with two continental freight rail systems (CN-BNSF-NS and CP-UP-CSX... mix and match as you please) that would be a golden opportunity to snipe some parallel lines for Amtrak and VIA use. Otherwise, freeways are the best possibility, and many new lines (the New Mexico RailRunner for instance) are built in reconstructed medians. The Interstate system is starting to need massive repairs and expansion, and that's the obvious place to build the American high-speed rail network - government-owned land, little eminent domain and very little NIMBYism.

.....................................................................................

It sure seems logical that the interstate highway rights of way, something the government (state and federal) already own, would be a good place for new rail construction. Obviously, some of the grades will be a problem, but I would think that some of the money saved by not needing to acquire right of way could be used for tunnel construction in some areas for trains. While I enjoy the meandering of a train through mountains, that does not equal "high speed" rail. If one looks at old maps showing the rail lines that existed just a few decades in the past, one sees the shear number of rights of way that were there (and may possibly still be there) all across the country. Combining those with the interstate highway system would probably result in some reasonably efficient routes. Regardless of where it might be built, there would be significant, and vocal, opposition. Much of that opposition would have nothing to do with the financing of the construction either.

Matt Johnson wrote:

george matthews wrote:Speed attracts customers.

Absolutely. That's why we need to get speeds up above 79 mph and into triple digits. But I don't think speed alone accounts for the Acela's success. Would people be willing to pay a significantly higher fare for a mere 15 minute advantage between New York and Washington DC were it not for the Acela's more modern appearance and amenities?

I don't think 'folks' typically are willing to pay it even with the appearance & amenities. Much of it is business travelers on the company dime. I only took it when the recent sale made it cheaper than the regional in some cases.

But I do think 'folks' are willing to pay somewhat more than driving to get somewhere moderately faster than they could driving.

grades are not really a problem for high speed rail . other than becoming airborne at the crest of a steep grade .

David Benton wrote:grades are not really a problem for high speed rail . other than becoming airborne at the crest of a steep grade .

Especially if you have a frequent service and regenerative braking.

It sure seems logical that the interstate highway rights of way, something the government (state and federal) already own, would be a good place for new rail construction. Obviously, some of the grades will be a problem, but I would think that some of the money saved by not needing to acquire right of way could be used for tunnel construction in some areas for trains. While I enjoy the meandering of a train through mountains, that does not equal "high speed" rail. If one looks at old maps showing the rail lines that existed just a few decades in the past, one sees the shear number of rights of way that were there (and may possibly still be there) all across the country. Combining those with the interstate highway system would probably result in some reasonably efficient routes. Regardless of where it might be built, there would be significant, and vocal, opposition. Much of that opposition would have nothing to do with the financing of the construction either.

Yes, the easiest place to build a new High speed line is near, beside or on top of an existing road. The LGV Nord in France is alongside the main motorway (and the cars seem to be standing still as the train speeds by). The High Speed One line in Britain is also alongside the M2 and M20 for some of its route. German lines are also built beside autobahnen.

David Benton wrote:grades are not really a problem for high speed rail . other than becoming airborne at the crest of a steep grade .

Go to Bahntv.com and watch the video of the Frankfurt to Koln high speed line. The line was build right along side the Autobahn and has some pretty steep grades. The grades are of course no problem for the ICE3 trains.

http://www.bahntv-online.de/btvo/site/i ... ids=141107

I would think the problem with building next to a highway wouldn't be the grades, but the curves. Highways make some pretty sharp turns, whereas I've always understood that a truly high-speed rail line has to be fairly straight. How do they do it in France and Germany--mostly straight track or curves compensated with super-elevation and tilting?

travelrobb wrote:I would think the problem with building next to a highway wouldn't be the grades, but the curves. Highways make some pretty sharp turns, whereas I've always understood that a truly high-speed rail line has to be fairly straight. How do they do it in France and Germany--mostly straight track or curves compensated with super-elevation and tilting?

Between Lille and Paris both the TGV Nord and the Autoroute are fairly straight. Most modern motorways are also fairly straight.

travelrobb wrote:I would think the problem with building next to a highway wouldn't be the grades, but the curves. Highways make some pretty sharp turns, whereas I've always understood that a truly high-speed rail line has to be fairly straight. How do they do it in France and Germany--mostly straight track or curves compensated with super-elevation and tilting?

The light rail in Denver(although not high-speed) parallels a good portion of highway and city streets.

I think that high speed corridors along side highways are very practical outside of the NEC where their is lots of space around highways that are long and straight.

travelrobb wrote:I would think the problem with building next to a highway wouldn't be the grades, but the curves. Highways make some pretty sharp turns, whereas I've always understood that a truly high-speed rail line has to be fairly straight.

*shrug* NJT Turnpike's pretty darn straight, actually, a lot of interstates are. It's only in urbane areas where they get curvy, and generally for a reason. Like, you know, hills, buildings, etc.

Hills? If only there were a magic machine that could put a hole through them....

Heck, ever drive through Nebraska? There's a reason all those jokes about the 55 mph limit causing people to get killed by falling asleep at the wheel, exist....

My bigger worry with a highway median would be car/truck accidents getting ejected into the ROW, and wind blast effects from passing trains. Plus you *know* some Darwin candidate would want to see if his whatever (and, frankly, I can think of a particular variety of motorcycle that seems to attract these folks like moths to a lightbulb...) can keep up with the train...

But the train blowing past you like you're standing still - and you've got the cruise set at 80 - is nonetheless great advertising. On the flip side, the train barely keeping up - and you're just about doing 40 - is the worst message you could send (though, the real message is your transit line sucks...)

Why 79 MPH? Is it set in concrete and/or engraved in stone that passenger trains in the United States must never, ever go faster than 79 MPH (except in the NEC)? I don't mean to sound ignorant but I only recently discovered railroad.net last week and have been reading through some of the discussion threads. Yes, I have ridden a train from Newport News, Virginia to New York City and back to Newport News as well as riding some of Amtrak's other passenger trains.