Washington Post

http://www.truthout.org/030909O

High-speed rail has emerged as the cornerstone of Obama's ambitious attempt to remake the nation's transportation agenda, which for half a century has focused primarily on building highways and roads. Nearly half of the $48 billion in stimulus money for transportation projects will go toward rail, buses and other non-highway projects, including $1.3 billion for Amtrak and its successful rapid rail service, Acela. The Transportation Department also would receive $2 billion more under Obama's proposed 2010 budget, most of it for rail and aviation improvements.

A quite upbeat article.

If only it was for real high speed rail. Most of the proposed projects, actually, just about all of them, are for simply upgrading conventional Amtrak lines to '110mph'. The only thing is, unless you're going literally 10 or 20 miles at 110mph, you get very little improvement over 80mph, AND the performance of the existing fleet is way too low to make use of a shorter run of 110mph track. Assuming you get there in the first place - the empire corridor can generally hit 110mph, but with anything more than 4 or 5 cars, it takes so long to get there that you end up spending a minute or two art 110, then slowing for the next restriction. until this country gets over its fear of high performance rail equipment, any attempt to speed up conventional lines isn't going to do much - even the much flaunted Acela is not really much faster - the speed gains are because it doesn't stop at every outhouse along the coast...

i think its that magical 100mph mark that makes the difference .
People can relate to 79 mph in thier car , they may not drive that fast , but then again they could do . 100 mph is fast , most people would not contemplate going that fast in thier car . faster than that is high speed to most people ( here it is still the "ton" 100 mph or 160 kmh , that is the benchmark for speed , not 150 , or 200 kmh ) .

It's the average speed that makes the difference. Via runs a train that's faster overall than the Acela (roughly an 80mph average), but only tops at 100mph.

An average speed of 80 - 90mph applied to Amtrak's network suddenly looks like a real winner. What SHOULD be done is setting a goal of an average in that range, then look at what needs to be done to get it there in the lowest cost way possible. Realistically, that means high performance trains (i.e. light, high power), short dwell times, and getting rid of as much sub 80mph track as possible. That'll bring the average up a lot. Then, you look at going to higher speeds to get the rest of the way.

But we're asking for this in a country that doesn't even have basic technical standards for passenger trains, such as platform heights, brake distances and rates, acceleration rates, etc. We don't even have a common conventional signaling system, no unified cab signaling standard, no standards for inter car communication (even within an operator's fleet!). The best is some APTA and ARR 'guidelines' written some time before man set foot on the moon, plus the FRA's 1800's vintage regulatory mind set.

Until we get a solid technical basis for passenger rail, and run our existing lines to their potential, all this talk about 'high speed rail' is just talk and wasted money.

Via runs a train that's faster overall than the Acela (roughly an 80mph average), but only tops at 100mph

Depends on the part of the railroad. Acela runs at an average speed of 82 mph between New York and Washington DC.

the FRA's 1800's vintage regulatory mind set

Elsewhere is more regulated. The FRA didn't exist in 1800; the ICC did, and the rules were more relaxed than nowadays.