USDOT Vision for HIGH SPEED RAIL in America

fauxcelt:

For over 50 years by government regulation, passenger train speeds of 80 mph or greater have triggered the expensive addition to the railroad and its locomotives a special signal system which generally neither the freight railroads nor Amtrak can economically justify installing anew.

On many stretches of railroad, such special signal systems have been removed to save on maintenance costs. In such places, Amtrak must observe the maximum speed of 79 mph.

What do you need to make a success of high speed rail?

1. Faster than driving. That's the key. In 1973-4 when 110mph running became widespread on Britain's West Coast main line, that was the point at which taking the train up to London rather than driving became invariably faster, and a very wide range of towns got direct services to London. Pushing to 125mph and boosting frequency again, beyond 2002, didn't do much to roads; what it did instead was decimate the airlines, who dropped from an 80 percent rail-air share from Manchester to London (190 miles) to a 30 percent share.

2. Comfort. This is very important. If you've ever traveled in Britain and had the opportunity of comparing a 125mph diesel-electric multiple unit such as a Class 221 Super Voyager to a local hauled train such as the InterCity 125 with streamlined diesel locos at both ends of the train, you'll notice the IC125 is far better on a number of counts. The cars are straight-sided, so there's more shoulder room. The cars are longer, which is used for more legroom. There's more luggage storage space. And above all, the IC125 is incredibly smooth -- very quiet and an exceptionally good ride. With a Super Voyager, no matter what car you're in, you're being vibrated by a 750hp diesel that's directly underneath. I actually think Amtrak could be in for a nasty surprise with high-speed rail if they try to use something like the Super Voyager here. The multiple unit is fine for 79mph commuter running, but at 125mph the diesel becomes very intrusive in the cabin. That said, if they can produce a spacious, smooth and quiet running diesel-electric multiple unit at 110-125mph, I'd be all in favor of it. They're a bit better on power-to-weight ratio, have more redundancy against a breakdown, and should be a bit cheaper overall.

3. Connectivity. Stations need to connect with other public transport. Chicago's connectivity with the 'el is unacceptable, for example. Even LA is a bit iffy because of the odd way the rapid transit system stubs together downtown. The model you're looking to achieve is Washington, NY, Philadelphia or Boston, where you have convenient connections downtown and at several other places around the metro area.

4. Don't shy away from electrification. If dedicated high speed rail is to be a reality anywhere in the United States outside California, eastern Texas, southern and central Florida and the Northeast Corridor, it is essential that conventional lines be electrified first, so that future high-speed lines can tap into the existing network. The Midwest has France's population density but what it does NOT have is the density and concentration of population to support a standalone high-speed system like Japan's. Also there's no question that electric trains are smoother and quieter for the passenger, and cheaper and easier to maintain for the railroad. Also, the old chestnut about not being able to fit double-stack freight under the wire is no longer true; modern pantagraphs can handle wire as high as 25 feet off the track. Indian Railways are ahead of anybody on these high-reach pantagraphs, because of their practice of doing doublestack on a conventional flat car rather than a gondola, for better aerodynamics, lower energy use and shorter trains due to the containers being close to one another rather than having a substantial gap. So electrification is not incompatible with passengers and freight sharing track. And last, but not least, electric trains can be wind and solar powered. Diesel trains cannot.

5. Incremental. In most of the US, we have to build up the network we have first. That's the prerequisite for successful dedicated high-speed rail in the future. Just as it would be no good to have an interstate highway without feeder roads, it's no good to have an LGV-standard railroad without feeder lines.

decisivemoment wrote:Then another stretch of new line around and south of Springfield into St. Louis. Then, the last step, filling in the gap. But you provide these schemes in order of the seriousness of bottlenecks.

I doubt you'll ever see a Chgo-St. Louis route that bypasses Springfield. The boardings at Springfield are close to the numbers boarding in St. Louis, and the overall travel figures by all modes are in the same ballpark. It simply will never happen. You'll sooner see a Chgo-Louisville route bypassing Indy than a Chgo-St. Louis route bypassing Springfield.

decisivemoment wrote:What do you need to make a success of high speed rail?

1. Faster than driving. That's the key. In 1973-4 when 110mph running became widespread on Britain's West Coast main line, that was the point at which taking the train up to London rather than driving became invariably faster, and a very wide range of towns got direct services to London. Pushing to 125mph and boosting frequency again, beyond 2002, didn't do much to roads; what it did instead was decimate the airlines, who dropped from an 80 percent rail-air share from Manchester to London (190 miles) to a 30 percent share.

2. Comfort. This is very important. If you've ever traveled in Britain and had the opportunity of comparing a 125mph diesel-electric multiple unit such as a Class 221 Super Voyager to a local hauled train such as the InterCity 125 with streamlined diesel locos at both ends of the train, you'll notice the IC125 is far better on a number of counts. The cars are straight-sided, so there's more shoulder room. The cars are longer, which is used for more legroom. There's more luggage storage space. And above all, the IC125 is incredibly smooth -- very quiet and an exceptionally good ride. With a Super Voyager, no matter what car you're in, you're being vibrated by a 750hp diesel that's directly underneath. I actually think Amtrak could be in for a nasty surprise with high-speed rail if they try to use something like the Super Voyager here. The multiple unit is fine for 79mph commuter running, but at 125mph the diesel becomes very intrusive in the cabin. That said, if they can produce a spacious, smooth and quiet running diesel-electric multiple unit at 110-125mph, I'd be all in favor of it. They're a bit better on power-to-weight ratio, have more redundancy against a breakdown, and should be a bit cheaper overall.

3. Connectivity. Stations need to connect with other public transport. Chicago's connectivity with the 'el is unacceptable, for example. Even LA is a bit iffy because of the odd way the rapid transit system stubs together downtown. The model you're looking to achieve is Washington, NY, Philadelphia or Boston, where you have convenient connections downtown and at several other places around the metro area.

4. Don't shy away from electrification. If dedicated high speed rail is to be a reality anywhere in the United States outside California, eastern Texas, southern and central Florida and the Northeast Corridor, it is essential that conventional lines be electrified first, so that future high-speed lines can tap into the existing network. The Midwest has France's population density but what it does NOT have is the density and concentration of population to support a standalone high-speed system like Japan's. Also there's no question that electric trains are smoother and quieter for the passenger, and cheaper and easier to maintain for the railroad. Also, the old chestnut about not being able to fit double-stack freight under the wire is no longer true; modern pantagraphs can handle wire as high as 25 feet off the track. Indian Railways are ahead of anybody on these high-reach pantagraphs, because of their practice of doing doublestack on a conventional flat car rather than a gondola, for better aerodynamics, lower energy use and shorter trains due to the containers being close to one another rather than having a substantial gap. So electrification is not incompatible with passengers and freight sharing track. And last, but not least, electric trains can be wind and solar powered. Diesel trains cannot.

5. Incremental. In most of the US, we have to build up the network we have first. That's the prerequisite for successful dedicated high-speed rail in the future. Just as it would be no good to have an interstate highway without feeder roads, it's no good to have an LGV-standard railroad without feeder lines.

Well said! However, on point number four, don't forget nuclear.

decisivemoment wrote:What do you need to make a success of high speed rail? And last, but not least, electric trains can be wind and solar powered. Diesel trains cannot.
.

But it is unacceptable if trains do not run when there are calm winds and/or a cloudy day. Which means that there must be backup generation from other sources. The cost of both the solar and wind technology coupled with that necessary backup is substantial, and to the extent allocated in electric rates to rail, significantly influences the economics. I believe that the emphasis by rail advocates should be on electrification, leaving the power source issues to energy interest groups.

Before we start "dissing" coal as an energy source around here, and If the interests of the Class I railroad industry are of any concern (and times I wonder if such is the case with all members here), one had best recognize that 21% of the revenue and 44% of the ton-miles come from hauling that stuff.

Delvyrail, thank you for your reply explaining why passenger trains don't run faster than 79 MPH in the U.S.

fauxcelt wrote:Delvyrail, thank you for your reply explaining why passenger trains don't run faster than 79 MPH in the U.S.

let it be clear, passenger train do run over 79 MPH, just the majority of the system is 79 MPH running. On the NEC the acela travels up to 150 MPH, with the regional service running @ 125 MPH. Also the Southwest Chief (which runs on BNSF railroad) runs at 90 MPH for most of its route. The Lincoln service (CHI-STL) runs at 110 MPH in some sections.

hi55us wrote:The Lincoln service (CHI-STL) runs at 110 MPH in some sections.

Maybe someday, but not now. They upgraded some track for 110 mph, and were working on signal upgrades. They ran a test train at 110, but never raised revenue speeds beyond 79 mph.

Chicago - Detroit trains hit 95 mph on a stretch of track near Kalamazoo, MI with the ultimate goal being 110 mph operation there.

What allows the southwest cheif to run at 90 mph , and why cant that be done on other lines ?.

The Chief route has an Automatic Train Stop (ATS) system that enables speeds up to 90MPH. The system is quite old, has non-trivial maintenance costs, and isn't necessary for most freight service. BNSF (and ATSF before it) left the system installed on much (but not all) of the route between Chicago and LA (sometimes only on one track, or in one direction). It could be installed on other lines today - in fact, Metrolink is in the process of installing it now in response to its recent mishaps - but it is ancient technology and only buys you 10mph, so it wouldn't be cost effective.

ne plus ultra wrote:

decisivemoment wrote:Then another stretch of new line around and south of Springfield into St. Louis. Then, the last step, filling in the gap. But you provide these schemes in order of the seriousness of bottlenecks.

You'll never see a Chgo-St. Louis route that bypasses Springfield. You have no sense of where people travel. It simply will never happen. You'll sooner see a Chgo-Louisville route bypassing Indy than a Chgo-St. Louis route bypassing Springfield.

That's certainly not what I meant at the time -- "Around" for me means "in the area of", not "bypassing." However, to sustain rail service through Springfield, upgrades are required such as elevating or trenching the track (it's a bit difficult to see the city of Springfield being happy about high-frequency running down city streets), and it's worth pointing out that the majority of Paris-Lyon TGV services bypass Dijon, a city about the size of Springfield that is about the same distance from Paris that Springfield is from Chicago and the same distance from Lyon that Springfield is from St. Louis.

Also, don't fling around comments like "You have no sense of where people travel." It doesn't help the atmosphere on the board. Besides, Springfield is not even the largest intermediate destination on the route as it is today, and as speeds rise, a higher proportion of passengers will be end-to-end.

decisivemoment wrote:

ne plus ultra wrote:

decisivemoment wrote:Then another stretch of new line around and south of Springfield into St. Louis. Then, the last step, filling in the gap. But you provide these schemes in order of the seriousness of bottlenecks.

You'll never see a Chgo-St. Louis route that bypasses Springfield. You have no sense of where people travel. It simply will never happen. You'll sooner see a Chgo-Louisville route bypassing Indy than a Chgo-St. Louis route bypassing Springfield.

That's certainly not what I meant at the time -- "Around" for me means "in the area of", not "bypassing." However, to sustain rail service through Springfield, upgrades are required such as elevating or trenching the track (it's a bit difficult to see the city of Springfield being happy about high-frequency running down city streets), and it's worth pointing out that the majority of Paris-Lyon TGV services bypass Dijon, a city about the size of Springfield that is about the same distance from Paris that Springfield is from Chicago and the same distance from Lyon that Springfield is from St. Louis.

Also, don't fling around comments like "You have no sense of where people travel." It doesn't help the atmosphere on the board. Besides, Springfield is not even the largest intermediate destination on the route as it is today, and as speeds rise, a higher proportion of passengers will be end-to-end.

Umm last time I checked Springfield was the capital of Illinois with lots of government travel between CHI-SPG. What intermediate destination on the lincoln service is bigger than Springfield?

Bloomington/Normal has (slightly) higher ridership than Springfield. In the Dijon example, note that Dijon is the capital of Bourgogne, just as Springfield is the capital of Illinois. Of course, Dijon currently has hourly (half-hourly in rush hour) TGV service to Paris, even though it's not on the TGV main line. Springfield has five-a-day.

The problem is political. A rerouted suburban station might not fly with state legislators. Springfield is the state capital on a corridor service that is state-subsidized. With the federal-matching formula for HSR, the states are built into the decision-making process. France, in contrast, has power concentrated at the national level, and also has a history of centralized planning, through Socialist and Gaullist governments alike.

France, in contrast, has power concentrated at the national level, and also has a history of centralized planning, through Socialist and Gaullist governments alike.

Note that in recent years, since Mitterrand, transport is one of the services devolved to the Regions. I have seen it reported that the Regional Councils are demanding better services from SNCF and have the power to put services out to tender to other companies. I only have recent experience of the Calais-Lille service and it does seem to be improving, with better trains since the change.