Senior Member
High Speed Rail in America
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
Senior Member
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.
Member
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.
2500 Post Veteran
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
Last edited by mestevet; 12-25-2009 at 09:32 AM.
Member
Sorry Chuck,Originally Posted by CBF
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.
Senior Member
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.
Moving America one virtual train at a time.
Senior Member
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. ChuckSorry 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.
Member
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
Last edited by JLChauvin; 12-25-2009 at 11:58 AM.
Senior Member
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.
Mark Speer IV
Northern Electric Car Shops
Caltrain920.webs.com / Bay Area Locomotive Works
VirtualRailfan.net
Senior Member
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
