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 November 29th, 2009, 12:34 AM   #841
LtBk
Registered User
 
LtBk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Greater Baltimore
Posts: 3,102
Likes (Received): 3705

Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, and Philly to some extent has good rapid transit(by US standards) to get around.
LtBk no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old November 29th, 2009, 01:08 AM   #842
Snowguy716
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bemidji, Minnesota
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by hans280 View Post
Sure, but in these climate-conference times there is a consensus building in most countries (perhaps not the US?) that collective traffic should increase and (polluding) car traffic should diminish over the next 10-20 years.

I'll grant you in the case of North America it's not obvious that this can be done through a handful of flashy new highspeed railways lines. This has worked in a few European countries plus Japan BECAUSE these countries have an extremely tightly knit subway architecture in all their major cities. Hence, once you arrive to Paris/Tokyo/Madrid/whatever by bullet train you walk down one flight of stairs and take the "metro" straight to the doorstep of your destination. In the United States, I believe, only NY and the Windy City have that kind of density in their urban public transport networks? Anyway, I personally would hate arriving to, say, Los Angeles by highspeed train and... then stand there like an idiot. Almost anywhere I go within the LA agglomeration I'd need a car.
Most midwestern cities have extensive bus networks. The Twin Cities has an efficient, dense bus transit network (map here: http://metrotransit.org/sysmap/map_system.pdf )

With numerous light rail and commuter rail projects completed in recent years and many more coming with connecting bus routes, you'd have no problem getting around in a clean and efficient manner.
Snowguy716 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 03:07 AM   #843
Snowguy716
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bemidji, Minnesota
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 1

Here is a link to the Midwest High Speed Rail Association website. This organization is one of the best as far as helping to coordinate rail projects throughout the midwest.

http://www.midwesthsr.org/index.html

Here's a map of what they envision for an extensive Midwest rail network:
http://www.midwesthsr.org/images/net...un09_large.gif
High speed (150-220mph) through the major cities with "regional high speed" (110mph) to smaller cities and conventional speeds on existing routes or on less populated routes.

Also: good info on the national network that connects regional networks together with transcontinental sleeper trains (like Amtrak's California Zephyr, Empire Builder, and Southwest Chief... all based out of Chicago and connected to the Cardinal, Lakeshore Limited, etc. to the east)
http://www.midwesthsr.org/network/national.html
Snowguy716 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 11:45 AM   #844
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 755
Likes (Received): 172

Thanks, Snowguy. It looks more ambitious than I thought: in the past a lot of states have mumbled about HS rail and then gone on to suggest an upgrade of existing lines to 110 mph, which may be a good idea in itself but has little to do with highspeed. At least in the midwest some people seem to be thinking all the right thoughts. That said...

...they cannot build this entire network all at once. It would take several decades. Do you have any idea where - if at all - they plan to start? I've been thinking to myself that it might be best to start modestly and pragmatically with a HS connection between Chicago and Milwaukee. The cost would be bearable, the passengers are manifestly there and a neat little initial success would, judged by the experiences of other countries, vet the appetite of a skeptical public for more railway investment. However, from the website you provided links to it looks like plans are more progressed for a longer line connecting Chicago and Saint Louis?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LtBk View Post
Boston, Washington DC, San Francisco, and Philly to some extent has good rapid transit(by US standards) to get around.
Hum... I guess we shall have to agree to disagree (although you hedge your bets with the words "by US standards") because DC is one of the cities I think of as having an insufficient metro-infrastructure. OK, if you come as a tourist, or you happen to live between K Street and the Smithsonian, then you're home and dry. But, for example, a student neightbourhood like Georgetown seems to have been left behind, and as soon as you move a bit away from Penn Ave you're nowhere near the unofficial objective of Paris and London that no one should live more than 500 metres from a station.

Last edited by hans280; November 29th, 2009 at 12:00 PM.
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 02:32 PM   #845
Snowguy716
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bemidji, Minnesota
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 1

Well they will do it incrementally. Right now the plans are pretty well set in stone for upgrades to 110mph service from St. Paul to Chicago.

The state has also begun thinking about a dedicated, purpose built high speed corridor from the Twin Cities to Rochester since the Mayo Clinic has broadly supported that idea.

I think first you will see 110mph service in most areas on shared freight trackage and then new purpose built rails with true high speed service after that.

Even a 110mph network would be successful, I think.
Snowguy716 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 04:57 PM   #846
gramercy
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,823
Likes (Received): 799

yea, but WHEN?
gramercy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 05:41 PM   #847
hans280
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Paris
Posts: 755
Likes (Received): 172

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowguy716 View Post
Well they will do it incrementally. Right now the plans are pretty well set in stone for upgrades to 110mph service from St. Paul to Chicago.
Hum... then I hope that they won't get any federal money for the project. 110 mph is not high speed in my book.

Seriously, though: the map you linked speaks of speeds between Chicago and St. Louis of more than 150 mph. Is that all hogswash? I somehow don't think that they will pay billions for a line upgrade to 110 and THEN go on to replace the whole thing.
hans280 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 29th, 2009, 06:46 PM   #848
MarcVD
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Brussels
Posts: 1,069
Likes (Received): 192

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowguy716 View Post
110mph service from St. Paul to Chicago.
This is the speed that was offered by the Hiawata services with steam traction some 60 years ago, isn't it ? Hardly an "upgrade" in my naive eyes...
MarcVD no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2009, 02:59 AM   #849
Snowguy716
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bemidji, Minnesota
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 1

Okay, so there are two organizations in the midwest.

Midwest Regional Rail Initiative: This is made up of the various states in the midwest that has been planning and has already begun work on upgrading existing tracks and signaling systems so trains can run at 110mph. This is basically a quick fix, if you will. It would shorten trip times between major cities to be significantly faster than driving and competitive with flying in certain routes.

This initiative is expected to be completed within the next several years.

For example, the Chicago-Milwaukee-Twin Cities trip would be reduced from over 8 hours to 5 and a half, allowing for up to 6 round trips daily along the route.

Then there's the Midwest HIgh Speed Rail initiative. This organization has seen some participation by the states and is gaining more participation as Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Inidana, and Ohio have all expressed interest in true high speed rail linking their cities.

They envision a system like I posted previously with 220mph lines linking major cities with the 110mph "regional high speed" routes expanded to serve smaller towns and cities where no rail service is currently available.

The federal government has provided grants and funding for preliminary studies into these truly high speed corridors... but the states are really the backbone behind this.

With 220mph service, Chicago to St. Louis would be 1 hour and 54 minutes while Chicago to St. Paul would be just under 3 hours. That makes it time competitive with flying.
Snowguy716 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2009, 05:40 AM   #850
Snowguy716
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bemidji, Minnesota
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by MarcVD View Post
This is the speed that was offered by the Hiawata services with steam traction some 60 years ago, isn't it ? Hardly an "upgrade" in my naive eyes...
The government killed our passenger rail system, and should be responsible for helping bring it back.

Over regulation and high taxes on railroads as well as huge subsidization of alternative forms of travel like highways and airports.. saw demand for passenger rail fall through the floor. This discouraged investment by the railroads after being stung after WWII when they put big investments into new trains only to see nobody ride them.

When the railroad administration put in new rules limited trains to 79mph or less without new cab signaling systems, the railroads saw little reason to upgrade their trains that were already money pits, so they just slowed their speeds to 79mph.. except in the NEC where cab signaling was already in place.

On top of this, the government prevented the railroads from discontinuing passenger service without a lengthy approval process that could take years.. so the trains continued to run, ever shorter and with older locomotives until the money pit of a passenger rail system finally started to bring the entire railroads down.

That's when the government stepped in and formed Amtrak... which cut 60% of passenger service that was left in 1971 and operated a largely piecemeal system of slow, old trains that saw very little investment because the government, while not wanting to be responsible for ending passenger rail, also didn't want to do anything to improve it.

Only now since Obama has become president has Amtrak been guaranteed proper funding... and even still they are struggling.

Amtrak will never be profitable and the private railroads will never get back into the passenger rail market because the way our economy is set up right now with massive subsidization into all transportation options just won't allow profitable trains to be run.
Snowguy716 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old November 30th, 2009, 12:41 PM   #851
gramercy
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,823
Likes (Received): 799

The government should own and build the railroads themselves. Then the operation of services could be done by private sector and could even be profitable.

Start with HSL and commuter rail.
gramercy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2009, 11:46 AM   #852
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,090
Likes (Received): 286

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowguy716 View Post
When the railroad administration put in new rules limited trains to 79mph or less without new cab signaling systems, the railroads saw little reason to upgrade their trains that were already money pits, so they just slowed their speeds to 79mph.. except in the NEC where cab signaling was already in place.
Why was they so strict? In England we have 125Mph trains in no incab signalling. The limit here is 140mph for it i think.
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2009, 11:47 AM   #853
poshbakerloo
***Alexxx***
 
poshbakerloo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: London, Manchester, Cheshire, Sheffield, Moscow
Posts: 5,090
Likes (Received): 286

Quote:
Originally Posted by gramercy View Post
The government should own and build the railroads themselves. Then the operation of services could be done by private sector and could even be profitable.

Start with HSL and commuter rail.
I agree. Virgin trains has done real well with the WCML and invest loads of their own money into it aswell.
__________________
"BEFORE WE MARRY...I HAVE A SECRET!"

I <3 London
poshbakerloo está en línea ahora   Reply With Quote
Old December 1st, 2009, 01:28 PM   #854
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Quote:
Originally Posted by poshbakerloo View Post
Why was they so strict? In England we have 125Mph trains in no incab signalling. The limit here is 140mph for it i think.
The max without full in cab signalling is 125mph, unless there are two drivers then it is 140mph on some stretches of the ECML. *correction* 140mph is no longer allowed at all on the ECML, the 140mph seems to have been a trial that was not taken forward.

But the US rules may actually relate to incab signalling aids, like ATP and AWS which we require, rather than full incab signalling. Would be interesting to know. I'm sure vast areas of the US do not have and do not require incab aids perhaps.

Last edited by makita09; December 1st, 2009 at 03:16 PM.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2009, 08:26 AM   #855
Snowguy716
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Bemidji, Minnesota
Posts: 78
Likes (Received): 1

Quote:
Originally Posted by makita09 View Post
The max without full in cab signalling is 125mph, unless there are two drivers then it is 140mph on some stretches of the ECML. *correction* 140mph is no longer allowed at all on the ECML, the 140mph seems to have been a trial that was not taken forward.

But the US rules may actually relate to incab signalling aids, like ATP and AWS which we require, rather than full incab signalling. Would be interesting to know. I'm sure vast areas of the US do not have and do not require incab aids perhaps.
Yes, I believe it is the ATS that the trains would need to operate above 79mph... and then you are beholden to the quality of the track for speed.

Most trackage in the U.S. is only built to class 4 standards which has a speed limited of 60mph for freight and 80mph for passenger rail... so even if they installed the ATS in the trains, many corridors wouldn't allow faster train travel anyway.

The busiest freight routes outside of the NEC are currently mostly class 5 which allows freight speeds up to 80mph and passenger travel up to 90mph.

The current higher speed initiative in the midwest would upgrade the tracks to class 6 which allows passenger trains to drive at 110mph.

Currently, the highest class trackage in the U.S. is in small, recently built stretches of the NEC, which is class 8 trackage, allowing passenger train speeds up to 160mph.

These use concrete ties, welded rails, and are precisely measured so that the gauge is rather constant given any distance.

The tracks for the new California high speed rail will be beyond any classification by the FRA as the class 10 rails allow speeds up to 200mph while the CA project will see trains operating to 220mph. At the same time, I'm not 100% sure about that because since the system will be self enclosed, they are not subject to FRA regulations.
Snowguy716 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 2nd, 2009, 10:34 AM   #856
makita09
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,536
Likes (Received): 92

Thanks for the info Snowguy. I thought as much. Of course ATS isn't just about speed, so I'm sure the US can justify its roll-out on some routes on safety and operational grounds, before the track is upgraded to higher class standards.
makita09 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2009, 12:25 PM   #857
andrelot
BANNED
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 861
Likes (Received): 7

I love to see same arguments repeated over and over. For instance, some people advocate heavy passenger railway investment as a proxy for pushing anti-suburban ideology, which is, as of US Census 2000, the urban arrangement in which majority of Americans now live in.

More ingenuous (or insidious) is comparing "subsidiation" of road and air transport with alleged "obligation" to provide railway service. One thing is to provide the infrastructure (runways, road lanes, interchanges, airport terminals etc.). Other, completely unnaceptable thing, is to provide for vehicles and service themselves. Does US or state governments run a state-owned airline? Do they run Greyhound? At most, the government pay that US$ 1,2 bln/yr subside for low demand strategic air routes, and they also pay for Amcrap.

On the other side, rail transport in US is not, at all, a failure: no other higly developed country uses rail freight as much as US in relate of total tons X miles. Why? Essentialy, because US railways are optimized for freight, thus they can run freight operations efficiently,24/7, without given right-of-way to passenger trains in peak times, without being limited to night operations only (like in most of Belgium and Netherlands), and they can run those trains at lower speeds and long crossing times without jeopardizing service competitive position in relation with road freight!

Now, unless we all want to see thousands of trucks adding to Interstate congestion, there is no way to massively use present railways to greatly expand passenger service. Indeed, I'm totally appaled by some initiatives "requiring" private railroads to collaborate with passenger service as if it was a moral obligation to them. They are doing a far better job by moving freight, especially coal, that US depends on.
andrelot no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2009, 08:19 PM   #858
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by gramercy View Post
The government should own and build the railroads themselves. Then the operation of services could be done by private sector and could even be profitable.

Start with HSL and commuter rail.

Uh, this is America, the Government should NOT own the railroads. I don't think that is provided for in our constitution.


And besides, the Chinese are running out of cash, how would we in America pay for it?
FlyFish no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2009, 08:26 PM   #859
gramercy
BANNED
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 4,823
Likes (Received): 799

Quote:
Originally Posted by FlyFish View Post
Uh, this is America, the Government should NOT own the railroads. I don't think that is provided for in our constitution.


And besides, the Chinese are running out of cash, how would we in America pay for it?
sell all the highways then moron

come to think of it, that just might be enough to balance your budget

china is buying
gramercy no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old December 4th, 2009, 09:12 PM   #860
FlyFish
Registered User
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 352
Likes (Received): 83

Quote:
Originally Posted by gramercy View Post
sell all the highways then moron

come to think of it, that just might be enough to balance your budget

china is buying

moron? That's the way you engage in debate with someone who disagrees with you? You have learned alot from the political left here in the US, lol. When you encounter someone who disagrees with you, either raise your voice and talk over them or call them names.

Just for fun let's pretend you made a valid point and continue this "debate" since I am bored at work this afternoon. I assume you mean that the US Government should construct new rail lines to carry this HSR beause you know the Government did not build, nor does it own, most of the rail and rail right of way here in the US. There are some very sticky issues to deal with here to make this happen.

First, to build this line our Government would have to appropriate funding which will be tough because we are bankrupt at the present time. Under our current administration that would be the easiest part. Being bankrupt isn't stopping them with anything else so why not go to the Chinese and borrow some more.

Second, there would be little political will to appropriate said funding because HSR is the want of a few and not a need of the many. I know the few is highly represented here but the truth is most of the population doesn't even know what high speed rail is, let alone have any need of it's existence or any desire to pay for its construction. There is no pressing need to have this system in the US. Yes, for some commuters in the Northeast and SoCal it would be nice and in places in the mid-west there would be some riders but it is not a need. Certainly not needed enough to try to convince the taxpayers that we need to shovel out however many hundreds of billions it would require to buy right of way and get it built.

Third, the environmentalist lobby here would not allow this line to ever be built. Why, well I am sure there is some bird or squirrel, or rare sub-species of groundhog somewhere that would be displaced or some other such thing. The lawsuits that would pile up would be staggering. Everyone sues the Government because they have a non-ending supply of money to dole out for this sort of thing. The end result of this is that in 15 years we'll still be in court and the lawyers will all have beach houses in St. Barts.

Forth, they can't buy the existing lines because then they would be subjogating the frieght traffic that the lines (privately owned) depend on. The US rail system, for better or worse, is built and maintained for frieght service. That's just the way it is. Plus, the Union Pacific might not want to sell out it's east west trackage no matter what promise the Government makes. Hence, lawsuits and we are back to number three. Now, this one is also easier right now because our current administration has found a way to take over banks and car companies so why not railroads too.


So, there's four reasons it can't and won't happen any time soon. The US left playbook requires you to now make a snappy comback about how much the Iraq war has or will cost. Oh, and to call me another name.
FlyFish 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 09:52 PM.


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