daily menu » rate the banner | guess the city | one on oneforums map | privacy policy | DMCA | news magazine | posting guidelines

Go Back   SkyscraperCity > Infrastructure and Mobility Forums > Railways

Railways (Inter)national commuter and freight trains



Global Announcement

As a general reminder, please respect others and respect copyrights. Go here to familiarize yourself with our posting policy.


View Poll Results: Should the US build or improve it's HSR network?
Yes 249 89.57%
No 29 10.43%
Voters: 278. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools
Old December 18th, 2007, 04:41 AM   #381
bmfarley
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 54
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by Euklidisk View Post
Isn't it also about how american cities is constructed (New York and mabye other cities not included) - A wery small central business district and an enormous sprawl surrounding it, i.e. a structure not suitable for public transport and particular rail. Why build HSR between CBD's when people want's to go from "arbitrary" sprawl area 1 to "arbitrary" sprawl area 2. Where are people going to park their cars downtown?! The airport position within the sprawl is as good as the CBD, offer plenty of parking, and the plane goes 900 km/h.

This is about opposite paradigms, the car/plane won in the US and is now inherit US cities and regions. Changing this will cost, and mabye it's not worth it?
No. There's no HSR as of yet because of two functions only.... insufficient funding and political will.

However, as you say, there are arguments against HSR. You named one that is probably commonly spoken to among naysayers.

I'd argue that there are probably a handful of corridors where HSR would be very effecient here in the US... the Northeaster corridor, California (San diego-LosAngeles-Central Valley-San Francisco) to name a couple. There may be others too.

I doubt very much there is sufficient rider demand to crisscross the US! Rider trips that are 300-500 miles (approximately) compete very well with air travel. Rider trips covering longer distances on trains, even HSR trains, would simply take too long to be competitive with air travel. And there certainly are not that many tourists or persons scared of planes that would make those HSR trains crossing middle america financially feasible.
bmfarley no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old December 18th, 2007, 02:30 PM   #382
sarflonlad
Registered User
 
sarflonlad's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: London
Posts: 1,086
Likes (Received): 68

110mph is a good speed for travelling within states. Whoever called this "disgusting" should grow up and look at this in context.

The trouble with HSR and America is that your average American is not aware of what HSR can achieve. There is a perception of long distance train travel as something backpackers or the retired do for leisure. I can't imagine Americans, who have become so accustomed to flying, following Europeans and sleeping overnight on a train in order to get a business meeting the next morning.

If the masses of Americans wanted HSR you can be certain the politicians would do something about it. The US government is very reactive to public ("media") opinion.

From my own experience, here in Britain we want HSR. We look with envy at our European counterparts. We upgrade a line to 125mph and build a small new one at 200mph and sell it with bells and whistles whilst France and Germany storm way ahead. To have all our lines 110mph would in my view be a dream. What's holding us back? Part money, part geography and part the complex and (perhaps) overly democratic processes involved in building railways.

110mph is a step in the right direction of improving speed. Some on here shouldn't be so arrogant however and assume that railways are the right direction for transportation in the US. It's geography and population sparsity are vastly different from the Europe.
sarflonlad no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2007, 02:27 AM   #383
oberoende
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
Connecticut is an integral part of the NEC, and there is much synergy and traffic between suburban headquarters in Connecticut and the heart of Manhattan. You simply cannot just cut it off.
I did not say that traffic would cease through Connecticut. My idea is that local trains (that stop at intermediate stations) would continue along the present tracks in Connecticut. Express trains would take the shorter, faster new route through Long Island.
oberoende no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 22nd, 2007, 02:40 AM   #384
oberoende
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 34
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
bridge/tunnel would be too expensive
Three tunnels or bridges of maybe 3+13+5=21 km plus another 30 km of new tracks is certainly expensive, but it must be compared to straightening out the track curves along 200 km of heavily populated Connecticut coastline, which is probably even more expensive and accomplishes less.
oberoende no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2007, 05:20 AM   #385
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,172
Likes (Received): 10384

I think an inland route would help. Most of the rail in inland Connecticut is north-south however. So a new line would need to be built probably from Danbury, Waterbury, to Hartford. This could connect with the NEC in one of the coastal cities.

Just improving the New Haven-Springfield line may help too. Electrifying it would be start.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 23rd, 2007, 08:17 PM   #386
czm3
Automobile lover
 
czm3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NYC/Miami
Posts: 381
Likes (Received): 147

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
Looking at population densities, it would probably makes sense via Hartford. then from Hartford straight to Providence. It is less densely populated than the corridor hugging the Atlantic coast.




Nice map, but in a region that 90% white I doubt the black male population over aged 20 is relevent here. Did you even bother to attempt to see what your map displays??
czm3 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 24th, 2007, 07:55 AM   #387
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,172
Likes (Received): 10384

Well, it somewhat is a replica of the population density here. That was the main point.

...and Connecticut is definitely not 90% White.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 25th, 2007, 04:12 PM   #388
grimesdr
Registered User
 
grimesdr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by aquablue View Post
Back on topic please -- which routes do you think could be doable through CT?
I hope someone reads this, but one thing here is the need for 2 addtional tracks that keep Freight on their own tracks. now as to the route, the current route is fine until you get to New London, then it follows the shoreline and here is when it needs to branch off and follow I-95 once it leaves Groton,CT it should go over a new Railline bridge that crosses the Thames River and connect back up just after you cross the Connecticut River. The curve going in and out Groton & New London requires the train to go only 30 mph. While fixing this sections they could also do major I-95 improvements to better handle current and future traffic.
grimesdr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2008, 02:18 PM   #389
grimesdr
Registered User
 
grimesdr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Posts: 26
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10ROT View Post
I think an inland route would help. Most of the rail in inland Connecticut is north-south however. So a new line would need to be built probably from Danbury, Waterbury, to Hartford. This could connect with the NEC in one of the coastal cities.

Just improving the New Haven-Springfield line may help too. Electrifying it would be start.
Maybe a route that went from Worcester MBTA stop and somehow followed I-84 to Hartford and on down to New Haven would be good. Otherwise it would need to run from Worcester MBTA to Springfield and then a run that went to Hartford to New Haven. But New England as a whole needs better mass transit all over. In Connecticut you have I-84, I-91, I-95, I-395, Route 15 and Route 2, traffic with people having to drive their cars to and from work because there is no other choices. A total solution to our troubles with traffic will take good planning, lots of $$ and political will that so far the USA has very little of. The highway lobbyist will come out of the wood work and say negative things about the solutions and the people suggesting it, so they can protect their huge highway contracts. But none of this matters if we keep sending jobs and our $$ out of this country faster then it is coming in.
grimesdr no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 18th, 2008, 05:17 PM   #390
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by czm3 View Post



Nice map, but in a region that 90% white I doubt the black male population over aged 20 is relevent here. Did you even bother to attempt to see what your map displays??

Quote:
Originally Posted by 10ROT View Post
Well, it somewhat is a replica of the population density here. That was the main point.

...and Connecticut is definitely not 90% White.
xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 21st, 2008, 07:16 PM   #391
ChrisH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 351
Likes (Received): 12

Not sure if this is the right place to post this but here's a quick sketch of how high-speed rail in Canada and the US could be built... preferably in a somewhat integrated fashion

Google Map link
ChrisH no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 06:09 PM   #392
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisH View Post
Not sure if this is the right place to post this but here's a quick sketch of how high-speed rail in Canada and the US could be built... preferably in a somewhat integrated fashion

Google Map link
Interesting proposal, but:

(1) Northern and Western New York have extremely difficult terrain. It would perhaps be only marginally more expensive to simply build more direct lines that branch from Albany (i.e., NYC-Albany-Toronto; NYC-Albany-Montreal)

(2) Any proposal would involve political suicide in New York State without a good connection between economically depressed upstate with the motor of the NYS economy, Downstate NY including the NYC metropolitan area. So, the NYC-Albany-Toronto direct route would obviously go through Syracuse, Rochester, and Buffalo.

(3) I think that building a connector from the main north east corridor to the NYC-Albany line would allow for, albeit not the most directly route, to have high speed trains go between Boston and Montreal

(a) Boston and Montreal via Albany would be about 3 hours to cover a distance of about 450 miles assuming an average speed of 150 miles per hour which should be reasonable with a designated route of HSR.
xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 07:06 PM   #393
elfabyanos
Dracuna Macoides
 
elfabyanos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brighton
Posts: 1,814
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
Interesting proposal, but:

(3) I think that building a connector from the main north east corridor to the NYC-Albany line would allow for, albeit not the most directly route, to have high speed trains go between Boston and Montreal
That was the first thing I thought looking at the map. If the Boston branch headed straight west to the NY-Canada line, it would add at most 20 minutes, if that, with the obvious benefit of having Boston - Canada services.
elfabyanos no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 07:52 PM   #394
ChrisH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 351
Likes (Received): 12

I wondered that when plotting the line... I chose to take the more southerly route on the understanding that Boston-NYC traffic would be much higher than Boston-Montreal.
ChrisH no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 08:27 PM   #395
xote
BANNED
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 1,198
Likes (Received): 5

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChrisH View Post
I wondered that when plotting the line... I chose to take the more southerly route on the understanding that Boston-NYC traffic would be much higher than Boston-Montreal.
I don't think perhaps they need to be the same grade, in order to save costs. I agree that Boston and New York would have MUCH more traffic than Boston and Montreal.

But, the way you save costs is that you have a dedicated 320 kph line between Boston and New York via Hartford. From Hartford, you would then have a mixed-traffic 240 kph line that connects with the 320 kph line from New York City to Montreal via Albany.

Overall it was a good attempt. How do you do that with Googlemaps by the way, that was great!
xote no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 22nd, 2008, 08:39 PM   #396
Xusein
 
Xusein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 26,172
Likes (Received): 10384

Quote:
Originally Posted by grimesdr View Post

Maybe a route that went from Worcester MBTA stop and somehow followed I-84 to Hartford and on down to New Haven would be good. Otherwise it would need to run from Worcester MBTA to Springfield and then a run that went to Hartford to New Haven. But New England as a whole needs better mass transit all over. In Connecticut you have I-84, I-91, I-95, I-395, Route 15 and Route 2, traffic with people having to drive their cars to and from work because there is no other choices. A total solution to our troubles with traffic will take good planning, lots of $$ and political will that so far the USA has very little of. The highway lobbyist will come out of the wood work and say negative things about the solutions and the people suggesting it, so they can protect their huge highway contracts. But none of this matters if we keep sending jobs and our $$ out of this country faster then it is coming in.

Unless the DOT has the balls to build a totally new railroad, the best thing to do is to improve and electrify the railroad between New Haven and Springfield, and then on to Worcester like you said. That way, Hartford would be connected to the MTA and MBTA. I don't think that it would cost much...a spur line to Bradley Intl Airport is entirely possible as well.
Xusein no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2008, 06:04 AM   #397
rob_1412
I know, I know!
 
rob_1412's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Fort Wayne, Indiana
Posts: 162
Likes (Received): 1

Winter Morning, waiting for a train to Chicago

A few shots I grabbed while waiting for my train this morning at Carroll Avenue in Michigan City, Indiana:





__________________
My web site, lots of urban and rural photos and other odds and ends.

I'm generally optimistic, even if I do take breaks to brood now and then.
rob_1412 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2008, 07:40 AM   #398
Railfan
steamer
 
Railfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Guayaquil
Posts: 14,808
Likes (Received): 93

Nice Pic
Railfan no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2008, 09:01 AM   #399
Svartmetall
Ordo Ab Chao
 
Svartmetall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Past: Northampton, UK (19 years), Auckland NZ (7 years), Now: Stockholm, Sweden
Posts: 14,074
Likes (Received): 8794

Is it just me, or does that train have an amazing number of pantographs?

Nice shots by the way!
Svartmetall no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old January 23rd, 2008, 02:47 PM   #400
ChrisH
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 351
Likes (Received): 12

Quote:
Originally Posted by xote View Post
I don't think perhaps they need to be the same grade, in order to save costs. I agree that Boston and New York would have MUCH more traffic than Boston and Montreal.

But, the way you save costs is that you have a dedicated 320 kph line between Boston and New York via Hartford. From Hartford, you would then have a mixed-traffic 240 kph line that connects with the 320 kph line from New York City to Montreal via Albany.

Overall it was a good attempt. How do you do that with Googlemaps by the way, that was great!
That's a good point about mixed levels of service. Other lines could be electrified/upgraded to cut off corners.

Making maps on Google is easy now: click on "My Maps" and select lines, points or areas and play around
ChrisH no está en línea   Reply With Quote


Reply

Tags
amtrak, desertxpress, fly california, high speed rail, northeast corridor, texas triangle, united states

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Related topics on SkyscraperCity


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 06:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Feedback Buttons provided by Advanced Post Thanks / Like (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2018 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.

SkyscraperCity ☆ In Urbanity We trust ☆ about us | privacy policy | DMCA policy

tech management by Sysprosium