High Speed Rail in America

[J. Muenster]

Don't know if anyone else saw it or not, but tonight on the Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Secretary of Transportation Ray LaHood was interviewed.

When asked about exciting new projects Secretary LaHood responded with "this is the beginning of high-speed rail in America." I think this would be a great thing, and without turning this into a political debate does anyone else have thoughts about how high-speed rail would go over in the US?

John Muenster

[CBF]

The trouble is that high speed rail in the US is talked of in terms of 150MPH, which is not very fast in world terms. Unless speeds are mentioned, they are not really talking about high speed trains. Russia just introduced a French made system from Moscow to St. Petersburg which will operate at 300KPH(162MPH) and can do 350 KPH(189MPH). Cheers; Chuck F.

[styckx]

Long distance high speed rail in America is pure gamble. Most Americans aren't sold on public transportation and much rather turn a key, get in a car, sit in traffic and complain. Amtrak still can't make a profit for itself and relies on the Government.

What is working in America is small EMU/DMU lines.

[mestevet]

It's all in the asterisk

High Speed Rail*

* (Defined in the US 90mph or faster)

The funny thing is there WAS high speed rail meeting this definition in the US. I recall reading a comparison once of rail passenger service that required trains to exceed 90mph to maintain the published schedule and that the 1920's and 1930's far exceeded what is accomplished today in number of routes.

My understanding is that the trick of going faster than 90mph is largely based on regulations, that anything over 89mph requires positive train control or something like that.

To my understanding, it's infrastructure (rails, signals, roadbed, electrical systems where applicable) that play the biggest part, not the train technology itself. The Acela is an example of a train that could go faster if the infrastructure was in place on the NEC in more places to allow it to hit 150mph+. I'm certain there are other places in the US where improvements in signaling alone could allow speeds over 100mph (like the Surfliner route LA-San Diego) at least in sections. My understanding there was that the positive speed control was just too prohibitive because the freight trains operating on the route would ALSO have to be so equipped. I believe that may be true of other corridors as well.

True HSR is not going to come to the US until some agency with a deep pocket book and the will of the public to build a dedicated right of way, a la France and the TGV network. As long as passenger trains in the US share tracks with freights, they will be hobbled by the requirements of frieght operations.

Simply put, I don't buy that Americans won't go along with public transport. Americans will do what's most convenient and economical. If trains were a viable option for more Americans, meaning frequent service and available within a much shorter distance than is available now, we'll use them. The problem is that Amtrak has developed into this "serve the big city" only mentality. There are no feeders from the medium sized cities not on the "main". It's great if you want to go from Philly to New York, but what if you want to go from Allentown to White Plains? Your options are a lot fewer.

Steve

[JLChauvin]

The trouble is that high speed rail in the US is talked of in terms of 150MPH, which is not very fast in world terms. Unless speeds are mentioned, they are not really talking about high speed trains. Russia just introduced a French made system from Moscow to St. Petersburg which will operate at 300KPH(162MPH) and can do 350 KPH(189MPH). Cheers; Chuck F.

Sorry Chuck,
This Russian train is not a French Alstom TGV, this is a German Siemens ICE.
But both are sharing the same TGV EST route between Paris and Strasbourg operating at 320 km/h (199MPH). Hight speed long distance routes are common across Europe, in France, Germany, Great-Britain, Italy, Spain, Belgium,...

PS: 300 km/h = 186 MPH and 350 km/h = 217 MPH. For now, the fastest commercial speed limit is 320 km/h.

[kmanc21]

As Steve notes until passenger and freight rails are seperated and the infrastructure, signals, rails and even relocation or overhaul of stations, are upgraded high speed rail is a dream. Then as styckx points out that until there is a paradigm shift by the American public building high speed rail, with the possible exception of both coasts, is a huge financial gamble. A successful high speed rail system would also require a shift in the thinking that every town the train passes through requires a stop. That is a political issue and I believe that that shift will never take place, so the system would be crippled and doomed from the outset. But, those of us that would love to see high speed rail can continue to work to encourage that a viable system be planned and eventually built.

[CBF]

Sorry Chuck,
This Russian train is not a French Alstom TGV, this is a German Siemens ICE.
But both are sharing the same TGV EST route between Paris and Strasbourg operating at 320 km/h (199MPH). Hight speed long distance routes are common across Europe, in France, Germany, Great-Britain, Italy, Spain, Belgium,...

PS: 300 km/h = 186 MPH and 350 km/h = 217 MPH. For now, the fastest commercial speed limit is 320 km/h.

Sorry you don't like my info, but that is what was contained in the news release I read. FYI, the metric/standard conversion I used is from an on-line converter 300KPH=161.99MPH and 350KPH+188.98MPH. Chuck

[JLChauvin]

Sorry you don't like my info, but that is what was contained in the news release I read. FYI, the metric/standard conversion I used is from an on-line converter 300KPH=161.99MPH and 350KPH+188.98MPH. Chuck

Please Chuck, don't get on your high horse. This was not a personal attack, only a friendly correction of the information.

Siemens Velaro:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemens_Velaro#Velaro_RUS
- http://w1.siemens.com/pool/en/whats_...velaro_rus.pdf

For the speed conversion, 1 MILE = 1 609.344 m.
161.99 MPH = 260.6976 km/h
188.98 MPH = 304.1338 km/h


JL

[amtk775]

I don't know about you guys, but I rather like the technology where it's currently at. I'm more than happy with a diesel chugging behind me, as opposed to a high-speed electric train. In fact, if it were an option, I'd love to go back to steam, and the quality that came with that era. Amtrak does not do passenger railroading a justice, and it has become a company of rip-offs and raw deals. The public finds airlines to be much more convenient, at about half the cost. Until Amtrak can get their heads out of their butts and think about how to make American passenger rail a more viable source of public transportation, whether it be by creating feeder lines, reducing costs, some other miracle, or all three, I do not see High Speed Rail as a good choice for the country, especially in this economy. What good would it do? It'd just create something else to point the debt finger at. And, until such time when Amtrak can make a profit off of current operations, I don't even find it prudent to discuss.

[jac_murphy]

I don't know about you guys, but I rather like the technology where it's currently at. I'm more than happy with a diesel chugging behind me, as opposed to a high-speed electric train. In fact, if it were an option, I'd love to go back to steam, and the quality that came with that era. Amtrak does not do passenger railroading a justice, and it has become a company of rip-offs and raw deals. The public finds airlines to be much more convenient, at about half the cost. Until Amtrak can get their heads out of their butts and think about how to make American passenger rail a more viable source of public transportation, whether it be by creating feeder lines, reducing costs, some other miracle, or all three, I do not see High Speed Rail as a good choice for the country, especially in this economy. What good would it do? It'd just create something else to point the debt finger at. And, until such time when Amtrak can make a profit off of current operations, I don't even find it prudent to discuss.

You're letting your railfan bias cloud your judgement. Hell, I'd love to steam make a large-scale return as well, but for all practical purposes, it's not gonna happen. Likely the same thing will happen with diesels and electrics if passenger rail operations start to make any long-term growth.

Get a 200MPH high-speed train operating on, say, relatively dense corridors of 600 miles or less, and it'll easily be time-competitive with the airlines. High-speed trains in France, Germany and China have just about completely killed off regional flights in the areas they serve, because for your average traveler, a downtown-to-downtown hop is much more convenient and stress-free than a ride out to a suburban airport, security, baggage check-in, etc, etc that one deals with at your average airport.

That being said, I don't think Amtrak is necessarily the best option for running such an operation - but as with other countries, the government should provide funding for the initial infrastructure construction (let's face it, large-scale projects like this aren't especially attractive to private concerns since they don't generate much in short-term profits.) Given the current budget situation, I wouldn't expect much more than what's already been provided so far this year.

Oh, as an aside, Jean-Louis' conversions are the correct ones. A simple marker is that 50MPH is almost exactly 80km/h.

-Jacques

[amtk775]

I guess you're right...silly pipe dreams.
Well, considering the government already gave Amtrak about a trillion dollars for the repair of equipment, etc...

[mestevet]

High speed rail in the US already works. Amtrak service on the NEC between Washington and New York has the largest share of the travel market between those cities.
(here's just one article I searched up: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m.../ai_n25409504/)

If you live within a 20 minute drive of an NEC Amtrak station, like I do, you'd be nuts not to choose Amtrak over the airlines (note that I live about the same distance from Philly International Airport). My wife travels on the Acela for business to New York all the time, and regularly beats colleagues who foolishly choose the air travel option. Plus she can arrive 5 minutes prior to train time and still comfortably get on the train. Driving to NYC? Crazy, it would take way longer, be more stressful, and much less reliable (traffic).

Likewise, when we lived in LA, for travel to San Diego, we wouldn't consider any other option than the train, for the same reasons, and the Surfliners don't even qualify as "HSR".

Of course, these are only options for folks who live in those areas. Outside So Cal and the Northeast, the performance of Amtrak is laughable, perhaps with a few exceptions. But we can't say it won't work in the US because it already has, perhaps not on the scale seen elsewhere, but there IS a model for success.

Let's also not forget that STATE sponsored HSR (by the American definition of >90mph) is another place where there has been a success already: the "Keystone Corridor" between Philly and Harrisburg - electric trains regularly operate at speeds in excess of 90mph on the ex-PRR Mainline, and the ridership has grown sharply since the line was improved and electric service re-introduced in 2006.

We're highly unlikely to see success in HSR between NY - Los Angeles, that's where the airlines shine. But LA-SF? Milwaukee - Chicago - St. Louis? or other corridors where there are city sets within 500 miles? There are opportunities there to really make an impact.

I'm not certain any HSR initiative will be successful in the US without government sponsorship (either state or federal). It's hard for me to point to a single completely privately funded HSR initiative ANYWHERE. Let's just be real, private companies just don't have the capital or guts to undertake anything like that anymore. Long gone are the days of transportation mega-profits like in the early part of the 20th Century. So if you want it, you've got to accept that it's going to take a dose of "socialism" to get it; not unlike the success of airlines relying on government funded airports and air traffic control system, or trucking companies relying on government funded interstate highways. Yes, I know, everyone pays their fair share, but when was the last time you heard of a trucking company building an interstate? or an airline building an airport?

Steve

[amtk775]

It might be a little effective in SoCal, the fact that it connects San Diego with the Central Coast and Downtown L.A. and all. But, some of the densest areas are left in the dark, the West Side being one of them.

[beltontigers]

American passenger railroading died in 1971.

I don't care how much Washington D.C. says they want it, I don't care how much you people say you want it, it ain't going to happen. The Class I's won't let it happen.

Unless somebody builds their own track, Hi speed rail is a dead subject, because the Class I's will not share their rails with anybody if they can help it.

Another thing I have yet to see mentioned in this thread is this. SIZE. Please pull out your world maps and take a look at Europe. High speed rail excels in Europe due to the size of the area. It's relatively easy and quick to travel from country to country due to the small size of the countries.

Now take a look at the United States. Oh my, look at that, it's quite a bit bigger. Even a 190 MPH train would take quite a bit of time to go LA-NY. This country is just not set up for it.

Sorry for bursting bubbles, happy boxing day!

[PORU333]

Wait, I thought the Government stopped funding to Amtrak?