[Plantagenet]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('bencole', '
')I think he is putting the money out there to see if industry and the public will bite, I honestly don't think he is trying to deliberately delay high speed rail, he realizes that the only way to get it started is to stir up considerable interest. This will have to be a massive effort across the board with cooperation on all levels, I don't think the Federal Gov. can simply mandate it into existance.

[TheDude]

I see that the Acela was cobbled out of shorter Amtrak lines, including their very first which opened in 1971. Not exactly cutting edge.

Providence to Boston is 51 miles. Cheapest air fare is $341...

Paris to Lille is 140 miles. TGV fare is £33.50/$50 USD. Rail Europe for more info.

Even on long distances this obsession with speed is a bit overblown, and just heaps on the additional costs. I'm curious what Alan Drake is saying about all this over at TOD, as he's a big rail booster in the PO crowd, who takes a dim view of HSR, at least in the initial stages - much more sensible to double track and electrify freight for a start.

Interurbans worked! We led the way in Oregon:



Portland to Corvallis is 81 miles, in 1917 that was 3 1/2 hours by train, compared with 1 1/2 hours driving. What's the hurry? Red Electrics

[ReverseEngineer]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Plantagenet', '
')
Meanwhile, the Japanese are ACTUALLY BUILDING the world's most modern mag-lev rail system that will operate at speeds over 300 mph. Obama's failure to lead on the high speed rail issue means the Japanese will get the high paying jobs and the Japanese will lead the world in this industry, and the Chinese and the EU will be right behind them, and the US will be building and developing nothing comparable, thanks to Obama's misplaced priorities.


Japanese maglev train

[nobodypanic]

it seems to me that high-speed rail is just a waste. rather, we need more work-horse rail, the kind that moves a ton of bulk freight 400+ miles on a single gallon of fuel.

[emersonbiggins]

A good primer for why high-speed rail is a non-starter, at least under the current regulatory environment in the US:

How the FRA is Regulating Passenger Rail Out of Existence

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', '
')What if the FAA required that jet aircraft be able to survive crashes into the ground?

Or if the FHA said automobiles had to survive any head-on crash at 60 mph into a tractor trailer without deformation?

Even if such vehicles could be engineered, they would be far too costly to operate. But for passenger trains, that is precisely what the FRA has been doing.

It is an arcane government agency few ever heard of. The Federal Railroad Administration was created in 1966 to set and enforce railway safety standards. And certainly in terms of safety, the FRA has been wildly successful passenger rail is perhaps the safest mode of transport in the US. But many rail advocates argue that the FRA regulations have not only come at too high a price (by making rail prohibitively expensive) but in many cases are completely nonsensical.
...

Then, in 1999 with Acela planning fully underway,
the FRA pulled the rug out by issuing regulations for high-speed rail service requiring trains to withstand 800,000 pounds force without deformation. The 800,000 figure is an arbitrary number dating back to the 1920s; this mandate has since been increased to 1 million pounds.

The buffering requirement confounded Bombadier. Train weight is of crucial importance as it affects the amount of track wear, noise, and energy costs. To meet the buffering regulation, the train would have to be significantly bulked-up. The result was a highspeed train nearly twice as heavy as its European counterparts. As such, the Acela has been described variously as a tank-on-wheels and a bank-vault-on-wheels. Indeed, an overweight train like Acela would be banned from the European high speed rail network.

[Newfie]

Emmerson,

While much of what you say is true the FRA still serves an important role in enforcing safety inspections.

Generally, if it ain't a fine it ain't attended to. There are non-FRA properties that demonstrate the point.

[emersonbiggins]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('Newfie', 'E')mmerson,

While much of what you say is true the FRA still serves an important role in enforcing safety inspections.

Generally, if it ain't a fine it ain't attended to. There are non-FRA properties that demonstrate the point.

[Newfie]

Yes, in general I believe you will find most high speed rail lines are on dedicated and special built Right of Way.

You CAN share a rail infrastructure through "time of day" exceptions, there are a couple of examples. That gets you around the crash regulations. But then you have to share and there goes your throughput.

Your #2 is the best way to go, but as you say, very expensive. Else wise you don't really have high speed rail. You have the Amtrak NE corridor all over again, the highest speed attainable on an old freight ROW.

And much of the problem with the NE corridor has to do with the curves which can't be straightened.

[emersonbiggins]

While the necessary curve radii of a high-speed train is far above that of the specifications of the interstate highway system, I think that we could utilize many of the straightline stretches of interstate ROW for high-speed rail, offering a lower-cost option to the #2 choice, listed above. This option would work especially well in flat-terrain states like Oklahoma that have wide interstate medians (in many places well over 100' wide). Urban stretches, though, are obviously the caveat, and mixed-mode seems hard to avoid entirely in these areas.

Especially dense areas like the Northeast would need special attention to achieve new grade-separated rail lines, and might never be realized but for the cost of lawsuits, delays, etc.

[Tyler_JC]

Taking just a local example.

The MBTA (Boston's mass transit agency) wanted to expand a commuter rail line using existing ROW on existing tracks down through the South Shore of Massachusetts.

The tracks already existed and they were effectively just restoring service, not building new lines.

However, property owners were furious that railroad tracks next to their houses would actually be used to move trains around.

The people sued and delayed construction for years.

Eventually one of the richer towns relented, on the condition that the rail go underground for an 800 foot stretch below the shopping district. The cost of this particular tunnel? $40 million.

Other issues with soundproofing homes, overpasses, environmental concerns, and lawsuits pushed costs up even further.

The total project ended up costing well over $500 million, nearly twice as much as was originally budgeted.

And this was to improve a mere 17 miles of track in a suburban area, much of which was little more than forests and marshes.

And these trains can hardly be described as "high speed", they travel at only 50MPH.

[emersonbiggins]

I disagree re: density, Gasmon.

Paris - Lyon is a very well traveled rail line, and that city-pair is not too much larger than Dallas - Houston (15 million vs. 11 million, respectively), which generates about 5,500 passengers to/fro via short-haul flights daily. The distance traveled between Dallas and Houston is about 220 miles, easily within the optimal range of high-speed rail. The 5,500 shuffling between Dallas and Houston merits about 10 fully-loaded duplex TGVs per day, to say nothing of supplanting some of the vehicular traffic between the two cities. I would easily say that 15-20 trains could traverse the line, if built, or about one per hour or two during peak times.

Other city-pairs within the South Central Region, and their current airline passenger figures to/fro:

I-35 trunk line - south - 270 miles in distance
Dallas - San Antonio (8 million combined) - 270 miles apart - 2,100 passengers daily +
Dallas - Austin (8 million combined) - 190 miles apart - 2,000 passengers daily

I-35 trunk line - north - 550 miles in distance
Dallas - Oklahoma City (7.5 million combined) - 210 miles apart - 600 passengers daily +
Dallas - Tulsa (7.5 million combined) - 270 miles apart - 1,100 passengers daily +
Dallas - Kansas City (8 million combined) - 550 miles apart - 1,100 passengers daily


I-10/US 290 trunk line - 250 miles in distance
Houston - San Antonio (7 million combined) - 250 miles apart - 1,000 passengers daily
Houston - Austin (7 million combined) - 180 miles apart - 1,000 passengers daily
...


And, now, for no particular reason, some sexy eye candy:

[alokin]

As far as I know, the German ICE runs on the usual tracks whereas the TGV on a separate system.
The German ICE has not necessarily increased overall travel speed. Only if you must go from Hamburg to Munich. But if you have to go somewhere in between then 1930 you might would have been quicker.
The travel time does not mainly depend on the speed of the train but on the density of the net, the number of stops and the frequency.

The German ICE system has a huge advantage to the French TGV.
In Germany you simply hop on the next train (it might be crowded, but you can head home) but TGV tickets needs to be booked in advance. So you can't simply hop in a train an hour sooner or later.

The biggest disadvantage of the high speed trains is the price. As they are expensive to build (even if on the usual tracks, because they must then be changed in many cases) passengers have to pay significantly more. And they will decrease the frequency of the usual rail to fill their high speed rails.

But I guess no president would say, we're upgrading a bit the rail. That simply does not sound sexy enough.

[emersonbiggins]

Good points from both Gasmon & alokin.

A map I posted a while back (from trains.com, I think) shows the current amount of rails that are double-tracked in the US. It is truly pathetic that not even ONE fully dual-tracked rail line exists from coast-to-coast, when compared with the 42,000 miles of the interstate system that are virtually all 4-lane and fully grade-separated, demonstrating, if nothing else, the power of a government in action (no pun intended).

[argyle]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('alokin', 'A')s far as I know, the German ICE runs on the usual tracks whereas the TGV on a separate system.
The German ICE has not necessarily increased overall travel speed. Only if you must go from Hamburg to Munich. But if you have to go somewhere in between then 1930 you might would have been quicker.
The travel time does not mainly depend on the speed of the train but on the density of the net, the number of stops and the frequency.

The German ICE system has a huge advantage to the French TGV.
In Germany you simply hop on the next train (it might be crowded, but you can head home) but TGV tickets needs to be booked in advance. So you can't simply hop in a train an hour sooner or later.

The biggest disadvantage of the high speed trains is the price. As they are expensive to build (even if on the usual tracks, because they must then be changed in many cases) passengers have to pay significantly more. And they will decrease the frequency of the usual rail to fill their high speed rails.

But I guess no president would say, we're upgrading a bit the rail. That simply does not sound sexy enough.

[emersonbiggins]

As peepers posted over a year ago - $357.2 billion gets it done, in regard to a national high-speed rail network link

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'W')ASHINGTON (Map, News) - A federal transportation policy commission is recommending a $357.2 billion investment - or $8.1 billion a year - to significantly expand intercity passenger rail service by 2050.

The recommendations were released Thursday by the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Commission's passenger rail working group. The ideas have been adopted by the entire commission and will be part of its final report to Congress, said Frank Busalacchi, Wisconsin's secretary of transportation and the commissioner who convened the working group.


The country should rebuild and expand its rail network to meet a growing demand for alternatives to congested highways, the report said. It cited several benefits of train travel, including safety, energy efficiency, and the need to provide alternatives to driving as the population ages.

[TheDude]

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('emersonbiggins', 'A') good primer for why high-speed rail is a non-starter, at least under the current regulatory environment in the US:

How the FRA is Regulating Passenger Rail Out of Existence

[emersonbiggins]

Agreed; with absolute safety (an absurd notion), comes a price - and one that's currently too high for high-speed rail to be successfully developed in the US.

[Graeme]

Obama wants nationwide high-speed rail system

$this->bbcode_second_pass_quote('', 'P')resident Obama mentioned an $8 billion investment in high-speed train systems across the country in his State of the Union speech on Wednesday.

Details released Thursday said the investment would be grants from the government's $862 billion economic stimulus package to begin the planning and initial work on creating the first nationwide program of high-speed intercity passenger rail service.