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 July 17th, 2006, 02:05 PM   #101
Prestonian
Registered User
 
Prestonian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 937
Likes (Received): 62

Why such low speeds? The way many of the european systems work is that to save on cost the trains slow right down in all the complicated areas (urban, bridges etc) but speed right up to 150-186mph on the other areas and more than make up the time. With such vast distances between the cities surely this is possible. Is the Florida plan to have HSR without building ANY dedicated lines? You can'r run HSR properly if its shared with lumbering freight trains. If I were to plan it I'd use all the old infrastructure in urban areas and the bridge accross the bay then build new dedicated lines inbetween with speeds approaching 300kmh/186mph, is this ruled out due to cost? That would get your journey times right down and raise competitiveness. Surely there is enough open flat land in florida to make building a railway relatively straightforward?
Prestonian no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old July 17th, 2006, 05:38 PM   #102
degnaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 158
Likes (Received): 0

As far as I know, the florida system was using dedicated tracks that supported 120mph (i dont know why it would be 120, maybe the locomotives used or distance between stations or something). The ohio system (my first post) was the system that would use existing tracks shared with freight traffic, and it supposedly would not exceed 110mph. Although I dont see how it could achieve even that, with line sharing...

Florida- Under the law's wording, it had to be physically capable of 120mph operation every last inch of the way
Ohio- "...and rising freight train traffic, which would have to share the rail lines."

Last edited by degnaw; July 17th, 2006 at 05:46 PM.
degnaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2006, 06:29 PM   #103
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Our trains are usually much heavier. NOt to mention our infrastructure is less than optimal. At one point, trains regularly ran faster than this. But our infrastructure and regulations have becom heavily biased to freight running.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2006, 06:55 PM   #104
miamicanes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 904
Likes (Received): 181

Right now, it takes 1:45 for Tri-rail to get from MIA to WPB. Being pessimistic, I suspect that's approximately how long it would take FIRE/ice ("Florida InterRail Enterprises/intercity express" -- the cute name I came up with for it) as well. Northbound trains would probably depart ~5-10 minutes after Tri-Rail, with the expectation that it would reach the Fort Lauderdale station as Tri-Rail were leaving (or just lengthen the platform and stop behind Tri Rail), spend 5-10 minutes boarding/handling luggage/etc, and depart from Fort Lauderdale a minute or so before the next Tri-Rail train (20-minute peak headways) arrived, and do the same thing at West Palm Beach... reach the station after Tri-Rail has already arrived, and spend 5-10 minutes loading/unloading & pulling out before the next Tri-Rail train arrived (or at least was ready to depart).

The real time-savings would come between West Palm Beach and Auburndale (just east of where trains heading from Miami would likely "make a right turn" towards Orlando), where they could race the trains at full speed. DMUs max out at 90mph (probably tow-able by a "real" engine at 100mph, possibly tow-able at 110mph with a little tweaking by Colorado Railcar). The potential monkey wrench driving up the cost would be the need for a few grade-separated crossings along the way... definitely one or two in Sebring, possibly one in Okeechobee, as well as another DMU whose only job in life is to run back and forth between Auburndale, Sebring, Okeechobee, and West Palm Beach (stations the "main" trains between SeFL and Tampa/Orlando would skip) to kind of throw them a cookie so their citizens won't throw a fit about having their towns becoming racetracks for big-city residents (people in "Fly-over America" get really upset about that kind of thing).

Eventually, someday, if the traffic increased enough to merit it, they could sell the DMUs to a regional transit authority somewhere (like Tri-Rail, or its upcoming Orlando & Tampa peers) and buy "real" high-speed trainsets that can hit 125mph. But remember... the initial goal is "reasonably fast, but cheap". It'll be a lot easier to "sell" the future upgrade from 80mph average/90-100mph peak to 100mph average/125mph peak (likely to cost more than the entire first-round track improvement project) if they're already running full or nearly-full trains hourly, making money hand over fist, and approaching the real limit of how much traffic they can really handle with the initial infrastructure.

Florida is a fairly rich state, but after getting burned by FOX, FDOT is going to have to tiptoe a bit and do everything it can to make sure that the first phase actually makes money and earns a net profit. I think MIA-FLL-WPB to Tampa/Orlando could do that easily since it's about as close to an ideal, cherry-picked route as you can get. Once they're earning a profit, I think the legislature will let them have just about anything they want. But if they're smart, they'll have the first phase upgraded to 125mph and extended to Jacksonville & Tallahassee before they even THINK about extending into southwest Florida. I think the SWFL route would have lots of riders, but it WILL be genuinely expensive to build because it'll be 100% new construction from start to finish... and Naples, in particular, is going to demand one hell of an expensive station with major noise-buffering and upgraded aesthetics.

In the long run, I think the most realistic goal is for the state as a whole to slightly subsidize initial track/station construction (with a payoff period of 50-100 years), but require each route to cover 100% of its expenses going forward (interest on bonds issued to cover initial construction, track maintenance, rolling stock purchase & acquisition, staffing, etc) and make enough to slowly pay down the principal on the initial track cost. The big thing, to avoid at any cost, is a situation where induced demand increases losses (ie, Amtrak... where cutting their annual passengers in half ends up making them look good by reducing their losses).

I'm a staunch Republican, but I'll admit that I disagree with Wendell Cox (from publicpurpose.org) in one specific respect... I don't view induced demand as necessarily bad, and I'm perfectly willing to count it as a benefit as long as future per-rider annual subsidies ultimately decrease as ridership increases. In other words, if the collective benefit of allocating $10-25 per year of every Floridian's tax burden for the next 50 years means Floridians can (and, in fact, do) take advantage of the new rail service to make trips around the state that they wouldn't have made otherwise, that's a benefit... even if it doesn't ultimately reduce traffic or pollution at all. You can make the same argument about expressways... the existence of I-95 as a big, wide, kick-ass road to Fort Lauderdale most certainly induces me to head up there to go out a few times per month by making it fast, easy, and painless to do so. The key isn't that it's "subsidized", but rather that the benefits of its existence (and similar roads like it around Florida) are so profound and widespread that nobody except the most bitter, angry car-hating transit-freak questions its worth. If Florida builds a rail network that costs $300 per round trip, never runs on time, is inconvenient to use, and/or just doesn't become popular, people will legitimately bitch and moan about subsidies. If Florida slowly and prudently builds up a network that everyone comes to regard as indispensible and genuinely useful, nobody will care whether it technically "loses" $10, $25, or even $100 per year per taxpayer. At the end of the day, normal people don't care about subsidizing things they value and use. FOX, as it was coming together in mid-2004, went too far overboard... it was too much, for too little, too soon, and rightfully deserved to die. Hopefully, FDOT's new plan will ultimately rise from its ashes and give us the beginning of a sensible rail network that can later grow as appropriate :-)

I'll admit, though, that I'd love to know how the hell France managed to build the TGV without bankrupting itself, and how they apparently managed to avoid the kind of obscene, stratospheric, spiraling costs that always seem to accompany any comparable rail project in America (in particular, the endless "environmental mitigation" exercises ultimately end up looking like incredibly expensive governmental masturbation).

Last edited by miamicanes; July 17th, 2006 at 07:29 PM.
miamicanes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 17th, 2006, 09:41 PM   #105
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

And yet in Europe they do a better job with Environmental concerns. The answer to that question is that they have fewer companies out there trying to get a piece of the action, making profits, and saboutaging the project. I think you also find that Europe is able to look a little more long term and doesn't need to dollar-justify every decision it makes.

As far as DMU is concerned, I am starting to wonder how important that is. Yes a Locomotive is a bit more expensive to operate, but you have fewer problems with maintenance, scheduled rebuilds, etc. They are easier to acquire, and the cost of the trailers will thus be lower. We can't get away with the light DMUs used in Europe due to FRA regulations, so why not use a modern diesel loco?

Colorado Railcar is not the only one to offer DMUs. I don't know that they have actually sold any yet, have they? Bombardier is offering models, although no one has yet put together a big enough order to get them in the US. Still, there are enough plans on the table that groups could get together to place a large enough order. And this would be an already proven design.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2006, 12:49 AM   #106
miamicanes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 904
Likes (Received): 181

As far as I know, Colorado Railcar is the only company that sells a DMU that can be used, "as is", on normal tracks with freight traffic, without getting a waiver from the FRA and having to formally segregate the traffic (it might be segregated anyway for performance reasons, but the lack of a formal requirement that it be separated probably makes life easier for everyone involved).

From what I've read, the main benefit of DMUs over conventional trains running in the 60-90mph range is that a conventional diesel locomotive is grossly overpowered for the load it's actually trying to pulll. The whole reason why DMUs get better fuel efficiency is because they're just strong enough to do the specific job of pulling themselves and up to 2 additional coaches, as opposed to a mile-long train full of coal and limestone. As a long-term solution they don't quite cut it since they max out at ~90mph, but in the beginning (when most of the track is 79mph at best, anyway), they look like they'd do nicely.

Now, for a potential expansion to include Tallahassee-Jacksonville, and ultimately Jacksonville-Deland, DMUs would be inappropriate, because that's one area where the state would have absolutely ZERO excuse to not go for full-bore 110mph minimum, increasing to 120mph in areas with few enough grade crossings to justify their complete removal for the added speed (110mph is the fastest the FRA allows passenger trains to run across an at-grade crossing). That area is almost completely uninhabited, so there's not a whole lot to interfere with a fast train... and really, it's necessary in order to make the train a viable means of travel between Tallahassee and Orlando & Tampa (~4-5 hours from Tampa, ~3.5-4 hours from Orlando @ 110mph from Deland to the outskirts of Jacksonville, and the outskirts of Jacksonville to the outskirts of Tallahassee, and 80mph average in the rest of the areas).

However, I'm not convinced that Tallahassee is a worthwhile goal to worry about at the very beginning... it's far (so it would HAVE to be as fast as possible), and from what I remember, that area is actually pretty hilly, so construction costs up there would probably be a LOT higher than they are south of I-4.

Last edited by miamicanes; July 18th, 2006 at 01:06 AM.
miamicanes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2006, 04:49 AM   #107
miamicanes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 904
Likes (Received): 181

Almost makes the fantasy seem real, doesn't it? Sigh...



The basic route follows Amtrak's current route from Miami to Tampa and Orlando, and FEC from Miami to Jacksonville, and from Jacksonville to Tallahassee along the route Amtrak used to use before Katrina washed away half the track in Mississippi.

There aren't actually any "green" trains... green coaches get pulled to Auburndale by "orange" trains and are dropped off at the station, then get pushed to Tampa by the next southwest-bound "yellow" train. Then, green coaches get pulled to Auburndale by yellow trains and left behind, then pushed to Miami by the next southbound orange train. That way, the non-insignificant minority of passengers traveling between Tampa and MIA-WPB don't have to endure the hassles of changing trains (making them change trains would just about destroy the route's viability, IMHO).

The yellow line cuts over to FEC along a 6-10 mile new corridor out in the middle of nowhere to the northeast of Deland and has the station located at the point where I-95 crosses US-1 northwest of Daytona. Daytona was in a decent location, and seems like a city that would enthusiastically embrace its new status as Orlando's de-facto beach.

The overall theme is that FIRE runs the intercity trains, and leaves it up to the local counties to fill in the gaps á lā Tri-Rail. Though as I said, the state would probably have to eat most of the cost of a local line from Auburndale->Sebring->Okeechobee->WPB (same tracks), and possibly a few daily runs from Jacksonville to Tally that stop in Lake City and Madison (ouch... probably adding a half hour due to all the time lost slowing down from 120mph), just to pacify the locals in between who'll otherwise see nothing but a blur a few times per hour.

The line wouldn't ever be extended west of Tallahassee unless Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama ever go through with their own high-speed line, in which case it would make sense by providing a high-speed ~4 hour trip from Tally to New Orleans

Last edited by miamicanes; July 18th, 2006 at 06:03 AM.
miamicanes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 18th, 2006, 05:15 AM   #108
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Colorado Railcar is the only one that currently has been certified by the FRA. Bombardier's Flexliner can be certified, but they have not yet done so, because they lack the required comitments tosell them - apparently it is not a cheap thing to do. Personally, I think it is a sign that the DMU market is actually much smaller than is estimated. In any case, I don't like watching the excuse that we don't have DMUs available yet being used to hold up the plan.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2006, 08:58 AM   #109
Frank J. Sprague
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 99
Likes (Received): 3

At the distances of a few hundred miles far more passenger traffic goes by the highway than the airway. Competing with the automobile should be the focus, rather the jetliner. The train should be more comfortable, reliable, economical and faster than the auto. In terms of speed the ability to average 75 MPH with a normal maximum of 100 MPH and allowance for 110 MPH to make up time will be superior to travel by car. The trains must be punctual, with Japan and Switzerland as the benchmark.

For the train itself I would base it upon the Union Pacific's 1936 City of Denver. That train had 2 locomotives of 1200 hp each and 10 cars. I would like to see a train of similar size, with a locomotive at each end based on a powerplant similar to the RP20BD Three Engine Diesel (total of 2000 hp for each locomotive). The weight for the train should be no greater than the 1936 train.

I'm not sure if your proposed service along the coast to Jacksonville used the FEC tracks or merely the ROW. I think it would be cheaper to aquire the FEC, restore the second track that was taken up in the mid sixties and install cab signaling. As traffic increases the line can be improved by elimination of grade crossings and electrification. The FEC freight service would be a tenant, and the double track line will have quadruple the capacity of the present single track main.

I think a service north of Jacksonville to Atlanta would be more useful than a line to Tallahassee. What I propose would be more national in scope, which would allow us to achieve economies of scale and make it easier to gain Federal financing. The trainset should be able to serve in hourly intercity service (Miami-Orlando) and daily train service (Miami-Atlanta). We should be able to manufacture scores of trainsets per year in the US. Producing custom built equipment for each service means higher capital costs. I want long production runs to amortize nonrecurring costs over as many units as possible.

As passenger traffic increases then we can invest in higher speeds like the TGV and ICE.
Frank J. Sprague no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2006, 07:31 PM   #110
miamicanes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 904
Likes (Received): 181

Well, competing with jets for 150-250 mile trips is pretty easy, even if it takes twice as long via rail. The biggest problem with flying is that it involves lots of "active waiting" -- standing in line, waiting to get in line, waiting to take off, waiting to land, etc. Time when you can't really do anything but wait. For regional flights, MIA has so much time bloat that you literally have to be pulling into the parking garage at least 60 minutes before departure. And of those 60 minutes, maybe 10 or 20 will be free to do something besides stand in line or run. And for the return flight, if you have checked baggage... god help you. Add at least 20-30 minutes for baggage claim from the moment you set foot in the jetway.

Now, if Opa-Locka airport were allowed to have passenger flights to Tampa and Orlando, flying would still be expensive, but probably wouldn't be as painful. Unfortunately, the county banned commercial flights at that airport, so it's MIA or nothing. Fort Lauderdale isn't as bad, but it's a 45-60 minute drive from central Dade County.

Sigh. It's frustrating, because even the most pessimistic estimates show that reliable 4-hour trains between Miami and Tampa & Orlando would be shockingly cheap and easty to implement... and would probably end up actually making an outright profit (at least, until routes expanded beyond the admittedly cherry-picked MIA-TPA, MIA-MCO, and (maybe) JAX-TPA trains).

Tallahassee is a tough call. It's hilly terrain and far... but it's somewhere that lots of people DO have to travel regularly, just because it's the state capital. And there's LITERALLY nothing between Jacksonville and Tallahassee that couldn't be avoided entirely by a mile or two detour if necessary. A 110mph line from Tallahassee to Jacksonville, with 80mph average between Jacksonville and Tampa, would put Tallahassee within a 4 hour ride of about half the state's big city residents.

Georgia is another tough call. Augusta isn't a major city, and Atlanta's a little too far from Tampa and Orlando, even at 110mph. Jacksonville's a big city, but let's be honest... it's not Tampa or Orlando, and it's definitely not Miami-Fort Lauderdale. Unless at least one of those cities end up being close enough to benefit too, Jacksonville just isn't big enough to unilaterally justify anything (JAX-Tallahassee is mainly for the benefit of Tampa and Orlando). I think Jacksonville has potential to become a major hub, though, since it's actually listed in a few places as the likely southern terminus of another higher-speed corridor stretching up into the carolinas and Virginia.
miamicanes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2006, 11:10 PM   #111
degnaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 158
Likes (Received): 0

Sorry to interrupt the florida topic, but id like to note that while there are already many train routes in florida (not really, but relatively) there is only one that connects to cincinnati. It runs from chicago-here-virginia beach, which means if I want to go north, i.e. to colombus or cleveland, I have to go all the way to chicago and back, taking me probably a day on a trip that should take little more than a few hours. I would think that as such an important interregional route (cincinnati-dayton-colombus-cleveland), there shouldve been a normal train route there long ago. Although in my opinion, as long as the train can achieve 90% of the speed of a car, It would be a viable option to most car travelers with today's $3 gas (which is still pretty cheap, I think) With ICE, TGV and Shinkansen (sp?), which reach about 200mph, they would be options to airline travelers
degnaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 22nd, 2006, 11:48 PM   #112
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Keep in mind that you also have delay times for train travel as well. You still have to get to the train station - in many cases with stations in the city you also have to spend time finding parking, you still have to check in, if rail does become a primary transportation mode then you will likely see security checks as well. Boarding time can be much faster becasue of multiple doors and the need not to have everyone sitting.

On the topic of Florida, I think it silly to even worry about competing with cars or planes. It's a matter of convenience, not having to drive, not needing a rental car, etc. Instead of trying to emulate others, provide the best possible service (in terms to times and locations) and you will make a profit. Let your competition come to you - don't bring the game to them.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2006, 12:12 AM   #113
DonQui
BANNED
 
DonQui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Free City-State of New York
Posts: 6,035
Likes (Received): 10

Erm, 120 mph does not even meet the minimum considerations for high speed as a top speed.

Plus, given our relative size, how can we even hope to rail to compete like it does in smaller countries in Europe and Japan as well if our trains do not even go as fast are theirs?

Why should we settle for 110 mph when in the next few years countries will have more than 200 mph top speed trains?

DonQui no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2006, 12:47 AM   #114
nomarandlee
My Mind Has Left My Body
 
nomarandlee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: 1060 W. Addison, City by the Lake
Posts: 7,209
Likes (Received): 2771

Quote:
Originally Posted by degnaw
Sorry to interrupt the florida topic, but id like to note that while there are already many train routes in florida (not really, but relatively) there is only one that connects to cincinnati. It runs from chicago-here-virginia beach, which means if I want to go north, i.e. to colombus or cleveland, I have to go all the way to chicago and back, taking me probably a day on a trip that should take little more than a few hours. I would think that as such an important interregional route (cincinnati-dayton-colombus-cleveland), there shouldve been a normal train route there long ago. Although in my opinion, as long as the train can achieve 90% of the speed of a car, It would be a viable option to most car travelers with today's $3 gas (which is still pretty cheap, I think) With ICE, TGV and Shinkansen (sp?), which reach about 200mph, they would be options to airline travelers

correct me if I am wrong but doesn't ICE mostley use existing track and TGV and Shinkansen have their majority on their own dedicated rail?
nomarandlee no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2006, 12:52 AM   #115
DonQui
BANNED
 
DonQui's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Free City-State of New York
Posts: 6,035
Likes (Received): 10

Quote:
Originally Posted by nomarandlee
correct me if I am wrong but doesn't ICE mostley use existing track and TGV and Shinkansen have their majority on their own dedicated rail?
Do you mean German ICE?

I think German ICE and and the TGV have large tracts of dedicated rail but when approaching city centers, use regular rail. Japan's system use entirely dedicated rail. The original network in Japan was a meter network, a track gauge which I believe would be insufficient for high speed rail. Thus, Japan essentially constructed from scratch a high speed network that is exclusively dedicated to high speed.

While you did not ask for it, I can also tell you a little bit of Spain's AVE. Like the Japanese, the rest of the network is of a different gauge. Thus, on most long tracks, the train run on their own dedicated rail. However, if let's say you want to have a train travel at a higher-than-normal speed (i.e., 200-250kmph versus the normal 300 kmph for the Spanish high speed network), they simply have gauge changers located at stations that allow the train to travel on both networks without passengers getting off. So, in a sense, it is sort of like a mix of Japanese high speed rail contsruction and TGV/ICE.
DonQui no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 23rd, 2006, 01:37 AM   #116
miamicanes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 904
Likes (Received): 181

Quote:
Keep in mind that you also have delay times for train travel as well. You still have to get to the train station - in many cases with stations in the city you also have to spend time finding parking,
Not likely to be a problem in Florida. The Miami station would be at the new (under construction) Miami Intermodal Center, which will have abundant parking and be directly connected to the airport (which has even more). The Fort Lauderdale station would logically be at what's now the Fort Lauderdale Amtrak/Tri-Rail station, which has a bigger parking lot than some suburban shopping centers. I haven't seen the West Palm Beach station, but I suspect it has abundant parking too. Florida has never bought into the ideological idiocy of building rail stations without parking. We just take for granted that people are going to drive to the station, park, and leave in a rental car at the other end.

Quote:
you still have to check in, if rail does become a primary transportation mode then you will likely see security checks as well.
One nice thing about trains... the opportunity cost of accidentally letting on a non-paying passenger is small. If you catch someone, you can literally kick them out the door at the next station into the welcoming arms of a police officer, and seat capacity isn't necessarily a fixed thing anyway (in theory, if it becomes obvious that a train is in danger of reaching capacity and it's at an endpoint station, they can always just add another car). So there's no urgent need for the formal check-in ritual that airlines enforce. They don't even need formal ticketing... you can just print your own ticket after making reservations online. With a realtime network connection, they can instantly verify your ticket's authenticity by scanning a barcode printed onto it and looking up its ID to make sure it's valid. Or, by using your credit card number (used to buy the ticket) as an encryption salt, they can do offline verification simply by swiping the credit card used to buy the ticket and scanning the printed ticket with a handheld scanner (I'll leave it at that unless you REALLY want me to explain asymmetric-key encryption and how digital signatures work... )

Quote:
Boarding time can be much faster becasue of multiple doors and the need not to have everyone sitting.
Yep. Two doors per car (or more), vs one at the far end of a LONG tube with 240 other people between you and the door...

Quote:
plus, given our relative size, how can we even hope to rail to compete like it does in smaller countries in Europe and Japan as well if our trains do not even go as fast are theirs?
By limiting it to the smaller subset of cases where it IS competitive... basically, 150-300 mile trips between big cities that skip all the small towns in between. The problem is that 110mph is the fastest you can go in the US without eliminating ALL grade crossings along the route. So going even 1mph faster raises the construction cost to another level altogether, and throws any pretense of affordability out the window. Given a choice between spending $2 billion for a 120mph track that serves 3 cities by stopping at the middle one for 5-10 minutes, or $1 billion for a 110mph track and simply running a separate train to each city to eliminate the delay from that stop, the cheaper option is almost guaranteed to be the better one at this instant in time.

The French didn't build the TGV just because they thought it would be cool and bolster French patriotism. They built it because their train capacity on existing lines in existing rail corridors was literally maxed out. That's a situation that doesn't exist anywhere in the US today, not even the fabled northeast.

Quote:
Why should we settle for 110 mph when in the next few years countries will have more than 200 mph top speed trains?
Because we don't have a ready supply of low-paid workers willing to do the construction work necessary to make it happen. China's biggest competitive advantage is that as a country, it's making money hand over fist... but still has a huge, poor rural labor force that it can use to build the kind of infrastructure that would be cost-prohibitive to build in the US. The only way Florida, Texas, or California will ever be able to afford to build that kind of infrastructure is if the other 47 states let us temporarily hire a few million Mexican laborers to work at Mexican wages building it for us. It's the kind of thing that makes the difference between a TGV-like rail line costing $5-10 million per mile vs $50-100 million per mile. At American construction wages, an all-elevated or depressed high-speed rail line just isn't going to happen anywhere in America. The benefit would be massively outweighed by its outrageous cost.

Last edited by miamicanes; July 25th, 2006 at 02:06 AM.
miamicanes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 30th, 2006, 11:43 PM   #117
Gjm130
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 0

Montreal-New York High Speed Rail Way

I heard a high speed rail way was about to be built that connects Montreal with New York City. Is that true??

From Wikipedia:
On October 6, 2005, the Albany Times-Union reported that New York Governor George Pataki and Quebec Premier Jean Charest "called for the creation of high-speed rail service between Montreal and New York City as a way to boost the regional economy during the third Quebec-New York Economic Summit on Wednesday," October 4th, 2005. The article claimed that New York was Quebec's main trading partner, which perhaps explains some of the interest in linking the two major cities.

According to a report by the New York State Senate High Speed Rail Task Force, such a route would serve Plattsburgh via Albany.
Gjm130 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2006, 12:27 AM   #118
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Calling for the creation of and actually designing and building are wo vastly different things. They had looked at a high-speed link between Boston and Montreal some time ago, but the idea languished due to a lack of support from the government and too many difficulties.

Unfortunately until the US forces the FRA to actually make High Speed rail happen, we will be without in this country. That is what happens when one industry gains too much control.
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2006, 12:32 AM   #119
Alargule
Res Uder et Siger
 
Alargule's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 8,202
Likes (Received): 2079

Don't the US already have their version of HSR - Acela? Okay, I know it's pathetic compared to the real thing you can find in Japan and Europe, but still...
__________________
Nu op Wordpress: Rails in Amsterdam
Alargule no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old July 31st, 2006, 04:12 AM   #120
degnaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 158
Likes (Received): 0

Acela is just NE corridor, isnt really extensive and is only one line...

And on a side note, theres proposals all around the USA, and apparently none have been built so far
degnaw 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 08:43 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