UNITED STATES | High Speed Rail

[Xusein]

LOL. The Acela is not High-speed.

As for the Southeast HSR whatever, hey...it's easier to walk gradually instead of rushing. If the demand for faster speeds comes, then it would be easier to incorporate it later. It's a step in the right direction.

[Songoten2554]

when California does high speed rail then the rest of the country will follow suit with it

[phattonez]

That all depends on whether or not California does it. Remember, the state is $10 billion in debt. It will be a very tough sell unless the state stops resting on its laurels and gets the budget fixed. The system is expected to pay for itself. How is it in other countries. Does it operate at a loss? If so, how much per year?

[Facial]

I support the increases to 110 mph.

It is not so much out of the fear that a more ambitious jump to 180+mph trains would backfire, but more so along the lines of gradual improvement.

If 180+ mph is approved, then that would be magical - I would support that too. Anything is better than the speed of 79 mph, which is about as fast as passenger trains went in the 1930s... under steam.

It's time to break the 70-year hiatus. Even the most marginal of speed increments would be a breath of fresh air.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by phattonez

The system is expected to pay for itself. How is it in other countries. Does it operate at a loss? If so, how much per year?

Japan is doing quite fine thank you, Tokaido Shinkansen been in black for the more than 35 years paying back all construction cost within 10 years from inauguration. Other lines are also making profit.

Some people needs to learn that trains when operated properly makes profit.

[33Hz]

Other systems operate in profit, but one lesson is that systems should be built incrementally - the interest on the capital can otherwise be too large.

However I would warn you against taking a small step to 110mph. It will be another generation at least before you get the opportunity to improve that, and it just isn't fast enough to get people out of their cars, yet alone planes.

[Grygry]

Originally Posted by phattonez

That all depends on whether or not California does it. Remember, the state is $10 billion in debt. It will be a very tough sell unless the state stops resting on its laurels and gets the budget fixed. The system is expected to pay for itself. How is it in other countries. Does it operate at a loss? If so, how much per year?

Not in France, but it depends if you take in account the company, the company+state, the company+state+taxpayer you get different results! SNCF operate profit on all high speed lines.
BTW TGV traffic in France is smaller, eg for Eurostar it is 7 million per year. For all France there are:
~1500 km of high speed sections
~700 TGVs a day (-> 350,000 passengers a small day)
~average distance must be 500 km

The interest in regard with the car/plane is the time you win, but in the USA due to the extended cities and lengthy "security" procedures in railway and very slow and unreliable trains stations you lose a lot of time. Comfort is also better than plane or car, and can also be improved to drain passengers - Amtrack doesn't seem to be aware of it!

The main interest of train is for commuting daily in big urban areas and intercity between two close big cities. This requires a comprehensive med speed network (100-150 mph) that can be improved for long distances (400-800 miles) using high speed (150-200mph). So far this seems a small step but it is necessary to move on for further high speed developments.

[Canadian Chocho]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!



ZOMFGLOLZ!! That's the funniest thing I've ever heard!!! You're a comic genius!! LMFAO!!

[bmfarley]

Originally Posted by miamicanes

"...The opposition comes from "true HSR's" unholy up-front capital costs relative to relatively few users. $15 billion buried Boston's main freeway, doubled its capacity, and directly benefits about a million people every day. That same $15 billion would have been enough to build roughly 300 miles of "True HSR" track at ~$50 million/mile. I don't think even the TGV has that many passengers per day. And this is a comparison of the most expensive road improvement project in America with the busiest HSR network in the world. A more "normal" road project (like rebuilding and widening 10-20 miles of a major urban freeway somewhere in America) would normally be about $500 million to $2 billion... enough for a whopping 10-40 miles of "True HSR" track. The freeway will typically have at least 200,000 users every day. How many daily riders will 10-40 miles of "True HSR" track generate above and beyond the number who would have used the train anyway if it were 110mph? ..."

Your figures are suspect. The Big Dig may benefit a million people each day, but your figures have to include others than those actually using the freeway and network to add up to one million. Maybe the coffeeshop barrista at the next offramp able to sell one more cup of coffee per hour??? Anyway, the busiest freeways in the world are probably in California... and none have average daily traffic over 350k or so. Nothing in the Boston region comes close to LA or SF Bay Area.

A check of online info indicates that the Central Artery average daily traffic is 158k vehicles. That's actually down from the elevated structure that was there before.... having an ADT of 163k.

Secondly, TGV does have numbers that are comparable. No, they are not at one million a day. But at 45 million a years (2003), average daily trips... probably weekdays... is in the vicinity of 150k per day. If it was not in 2003, then I am certain it would be today.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by bmfarley

Your figures are suspect. The Big Dig may benefit a million people each day, but your figures have to include others than those actually using the freeway and network to add up to one million. Maybe the coffeeshop barrista at the next offramp able to sell one more cup of coffee per hour??? Anyway, the busiest freeways in the world are probably in California... and none have average daily traffic over 350k or so. Nothing in the Boston region comes close to LA or SF Bay Area.

A check of online info indicates that the Central Artery average daily traffic is 158k vehicles. That's actually down from the elevated structure that was there before.... having an ADT of 163k.

Secondly, TGV does have numbers that are comparable. No, they are not at one million a day. But at 45 million a years (2003), average daily trips... probably weekdays... is in the vicinity of 150k per day. If it was not in 2003, then I am certain it would be today.

As supplemental info., Tokaido Shinkansen's average daily ridership is 355K(F02) and yearly adds up to 130MM(F02) announced by JR Central.

http://jr-central.co.jp/eng.nsf/english/n-04-0408

[elfabyanos]

Bottom line is: HSR is profitable.

Investment on a sensible route is paid back and in the black within 10-20 years, taking the examples of France and Japan. Incremental construction is probably required for this outcome.

[elfabyanos]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Can I shed some light to that subject, first of all, maglev can turn tighter curves due to magnetic induced propulsion positioning the cart within the guideway.

Thanks for the info. As I've mentioned before on other threads, much of the reason why conventional trains do not run tighter curves is not because of the physics involved in keeping the stresses on the track down to tolerable levels, but health and safety imposing maximum lateral acceleration that will be experienced by the passengers. Basically we don't want the passengers' coffee splatting against the window when the train hits a corner.

Even if there are slight gain to be made by maglev technology there is absolutely no chance a maglev line designed for 250mph wont need to be as straight or straighter than a conventional line designed for current hsr speeds of 200mph. The argument that maglev cornering abilities will reduce engineering and land requisition costs I believe is false.

[elfabyanos]

Originally Posted by pflo777

A train can super-elevate its tracks at a maximum of 6,5° (11,3 %) .
A transrapid maglev with 16° (28,7 %)
At cruising speed, the passenger doestn take notice of how much the train leans into the curve. But the effect is, that the maglev can make either tighter curves at the same speed than HSR or can drive through the same radii at higher speeds, with the same comfort for the passenger.
The problem with HSR is, that you cannot increase the cant angle, because in case of an emergency stop, the train would fall out of its rails.

This isn't correct. A train would not fall out of the rails until much higher cant than this whilst the train is stationary - obviously this depends on the particular design of train - but trains with under-slung motors would fare very well in this excercise. If the regulations state 6.5° , that means the maximum outward force on a curve at max speed (cant deficiency) is attained at this amount of lean, but the the same maximum amount of cant deficiency is acheived in the opposite direction (towards the inside of the curve) if the train were to stop on the curved, banked track. After all, if it's not safe to have hot drinks flying towards one window while the train is passing a banked curved section then it's not safe to have them falling towards the other window if the train came to a halt on that same section.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by elfabyanos

Thanks for the info. As I've mentioned before on other threads, much of the reason why conventional trains do not run tighter curves is not because of the physics involved in keeping the stresses on the track down to tolerable levels, but health and safety imposing maximum lateral acceleration that will be experienced by the passengers. Basically we don't want the passengers' coffee splatting against the window when the train hits a corner.

Even if there are slight gain to be made by maglev technology there is absolutely no chance a maglev line designed for 250mph wont need to be as straight or straighter than a conventional line designed for current hsr speeds of 200mph. The argument that maglev cornering abilities will reduce engineering and land requisition costs I believe is false.

No that is where you are wrong since a train with a fixed axle being able to negotiate turns is the differencial within the size from bottom to the edge of a wheel. With centrifugal force applied, the rim of the wheel is force to the edge further, with too much force the train risks derailment. So HSR needs either a large radius at high speed or needs to slow down at small radius turns. Tracks always have an inherit speed limit within design and trains that are heavier lowers that speed limit due to physics and trains that have tilting mechanism can negotiate tighter curves by moving the center of gravity, heightening the limit but never the less it is not limitless.
With maglev centrifugal force is some what offset through magnetic positioning within the guide system but there is still a limit.

[33Hz]

If this were the case then the French 574km/h TGV would have wrecked the tracks or derailed. But it didn't.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by 33Hz

If this were the case then the French 574km/h TGV would have wrecked the tracks or derailed. But it didn't.

That is because there was no turns within the test run.

[xote]

Why are people so hell bent on using a relatively novel strategy on such an important corridor?

Plus, building a HSR line would allow for intermediate services to be offered, by allowing the high speed train to veer off the dedicated line onto the regular line.

[33Hz]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

That is because there was no turns within the test run.

Not exactly true.


The top picture was taken with the train at 338mph, the bottom 336mph. Does that look like very steep super-elevation to you?

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by 33Hz

This picture was taken with the train at 338mph. Does that look like very steep super-elevation to you?

Point taken but it doesn't mean it could clear the same point at over 500Km or if it was full with passangers adding extensive weight.
As you probably know weight is key component in centrifugal force.
Plus I hear the wheels were specially modified for this test run.

[33Hz]

Actually it was loaded with passengers, technicians and measuring equipment on both decks. At this point *it is* doing over 500km/h.

The wheels were made bigger on the power car so as to reduce the necessary speed of the drive train and motors. You seem to be infering that doing so is somehow cheating.