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 August 5th, 2006, 11:25 AM   #141
pflo777
BANNED
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 1,456
Likes (Received): 89

just wait another 4 weeks, when the oil price hast tippelded again.........

And the car market will be completeley broken down........ you will get high speed rail all of a sudden....
With just 1/10 of the money, that the us spend for their military EVERY year, you could build a really nice HSR-System on the east coast.
pflo777 no está en línea   Reply With Quote

Sponsored Links
Old August 5th, 2006, 04:17 PM   #142
samsonyuen
SSLL
 
samsonyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace
Posts: 8,350
Likes (Received): 314

I think it makes more sense to develop the Windsor to Quebec corrdior first.
samsonyuen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 05:32 PM   #143
cal_t
Transport Advocate
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Brisbane/Melb
Posts: 455
Likes (Received): 22

Try having a US compliant HSR loco pulling a trainset to reach 300km/h.
Good luck. It's way too heavy and their safety compliance laws are overly ridiculous.
__________________
Any views expressed are do not represent those of any companies and are personal only. If you are not the intended viewer, you may not disseminate or disclose this information.
cal_t no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 06:07 PM   #144
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 71,069
Likes (Received): 12272

There is not even remotely enough traffic between New York City and Montreal to warrant a high speed rail. Possibly for the Windsor-Quebec City corridor. Politicians
"call for" many, many things that they have no intention of doing...it is an old pattern of politicians to give hope to the proletariat and make them believe they are actually doing something concrete. It has been firmly established beyond question that Ontario is Quebecs biggest trading partner, not New York State.
Wikpedia's articles can be written by any half-wit, so they should be taken with a grain of salt.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 07:20 PM   #145
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Are Canadas rail regulations as onerous as the US? Or would they be more accomodation og a Europen-style high-speed train?
Cloudship no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 08:13 PM   #146
elkram
BANNED
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 337
Likes (Received): 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cloudship
Are Canadas rail regulations as onerous as the US? Or would they be more accomodation og a Europen-style high-speed train?
Canada => America, always

Cheers,
Chris
elkram no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 5th, 2006, 09:21 PM   #147
urbanaturalist
Registered User
 
urbanaturalist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 571
Likes (Received): 75

This is an opportunity for Maglev technology to start strutting its stuff. The Las Vegas-Los Angeles railway is going to be maglev I believe. NYC-Montreal should be the same.
urbanaturalist no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 01:19 AM   #148
matthewcs
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 103
Likes (Received): 2

HSR is a waste of money in NA, especally Canada. It's faster to fly, and the distances are so much larger than in Europe or Asia, making it impratical in terms of time. It would have to be hopelessly subsidized in order to work. Besides, any project built out in Quebec or Ontario would be paid for by the west, who would see no benefit from it.
matthewcs no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 03:26 PM   #149
Taller, Better
Administrator
 
Taller, Better's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Toronto
Posts: 71,069
Likes (Received): 12272

Quote:
Originally Posted by matthewcs
HSR is a waste of money in NA, especally Canada. It's faster to fly, and the distances are so much larger than in Europe or Asia, making it impratical in terms of time. It would have to be hopelessly subsidized in order to work. Besides, any project built out in Quebec or Ontario would be paid for by the west, who would see no benefit from it.
Paid for by the west???!!!!?!?! You do realize that roughly 20 million of Canada's 30 million people live in Ontario and Quebec, don't you? And that we not only pay taxes but we deserve some of them to come back to us in public works projects. This project is nothing but the pipe dream of a few jumped up officials, but not everything done in Eastern Canada is paid for by westerners. That is really quite the silliest thing I have read on SSC in ages.
__________________
'Make no little plans. They have no magic to stir men's blood."
-architect Daniel Burnman
Taller, Better no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 03:44 PM   #150
De Snor
Forever Travelling
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,385
Likes (Received): 39

A HSL train ?
No , this is the challenge for a magnet train to be introduced in Northern America.
It could take 1 1/4 hours for the line form NYC to MTL, HSL trains are to slow for this continent + it is time for innovations , the actual train-on-wheel concept has had it best days
De Snor no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 04:40 PM   #151
spsmiler
Registered User
 
spsmiler's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: London
Posts: 160
Likes (Received): 2

A high speed maglev, such as the transrapid system in Shanghai, would be fast enough for travel within this sort of area. Especially if you take in to account the total journey time when flying - not just the time spent in the air but also when travelling to / from the city centre plus time in security, check-in, etc etc.
__________________
Citizen Of Planet Earth
Living In The British Isles.
spsmiler no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 6th, 2006, 04:46 PM   #152
degnaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 158
Likes (Received): 0

Ive been on the transrapid, and i would love to see one in NA. however if normal wheels-on-track high speed trains cant work here, I doubt getting a maglev here would be any easier... I think a normal 190kph train running on upgraded tracks (no need for new ones) would draw a lot more riders than the current train 66.
degnaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 10:37 AM   #153
Gjm130
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by De Snor
A HSL train ?
No , this is the challenge for a magnet train to be introduced in Northern America.
It could take 1 1/4 hours for the line form NYC to MTL, HSL trains are to slow for this continent + it is time for innovations , the actual train-on-wheel concept has had it best days
Right On! Europe and Asia have already stepped forward by developping magnetic trains. It's time for it to be on it's way to North America!
Gjm130 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 04:25 PM   #154
hkskyline
Hong Kong
 
hkskyline's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 86,844
Likes (Received): 18129

Geographically, a Montreal - NYC route makes more sense than Toronto - NYC, but how much business traffic is there between the two? Or would a line target tourists instead?
__________________
Hong Kong Photo Gallery - Click Here for the Hong Kong Galleries

World Photo Gallery - | St. Petersburg, Russia | Pyongyang | Tokyo | Istanbul | Dubai | Shanghai | Mumbai | Bangkok | Sydney

New York, London, Prague, Iceland, Rocky Mountains, Angkor Wat, Sri Lanka, Poland, Myanmar, and much more!
hkskyline no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 08:49 PM   #155
Gjm130
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Montreal
Posts: 125
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by hkskyline
Geographically, a Montreal - NYC route makes more sense than Toronto - NYC, but how much business traffic is there between the two? Or would a line target tourists instead?
I guess both. Plus, 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.
Gjm130 no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 09:04 PM   #156
miamicanes
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Miami
Posts: 904
Likes (Received): 181

On the American side of the border, at least, the train really wouldn't have to be faster than 110mph to be a commercial success... and living with 110mph would keep the costs sufficiently under control for the project to actually have some tiny chance of covering its construction and operating costs, if not actually being outright profitable.

Plus, the impact of time isn't as much as you'd think. Take, for instance, a 300-mile trip:

@ 60mph: 5 hours

@ 70mph: 4:15

@ 80mph: 3:45 (fastest you can go on "normal" cheap freight tracks)

@ 90mph: 3:20

@100mph: 3:00

@110mph: 2:45 (fastest you can go before things get REALLY expensive)

@125mph: 2:25 (fastest you can go and still run with mixed freight traffic)

@150mph: 2:00 (fastest train that can run on freight tracks at low speed)

@180mph: 1:40 (just give Fluor-Bombardier a blank check and kiss your budget goodbye)

Basically the "sweet spot" (maximum bang for buck) is 100-110mph. To go even 1mph faster than that, you've basically doubled or quadrupled the construction cost.

The fastest you can run under Acela conditions (tracks actively shared and intermixed with freight) is 125mph. Above 125mph, the FRA requires total separation between freight and passenger traffic by either space (ie, separate tracks) or time (freight not allowed on tracks when passenger trains running).

The fastest you can run on tracks dedicated exclusively to passenger trains, but still be legally able to use existing tracks at a lower speed (say, the last 5 miles into the station) is about 150mph. The problem is, if there's even the possibility a freight train could be on the same tracks, the FRA requires an insane level of weight and crash-protection. A level that would utterly kill anything resembling fuel-efficiency at 180mph, and would quickly damage tracks at 180mph. Making matters worse is the fact that the FRA requires a train that operates at 150+mph at any point during its journey to be capable of surviving a full-speed head-on collision with a freight train... even if it would NEVER be operating anywhere near that speed while actually sharing tracks with a freight train.

In other words, if you build dedicated passenger tracks 95% of the way between the two cities, but want to use existing tracks for the last few miles to avoid having to spend $100 million per mile to completely elevate or tunnel them through a dense urban area, and plan to run the train on those dedicated tracks at 150mph, but run at 60mph on the shared tracks, the FRA still requires that the train be capable of surviving a 150mph head-on collision with a freight train. Utterly insane, but sadly true.
miamicanes no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 09:27 PM   #157
Mr. Fusion
Just A Pilot... :-)
 
Mr. Fusion's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Enewetak Atoll
Posts: 523
Likes (Received): 10

Just curious, how do you know all this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by spsmiler
Especially if you take in to account the total journey time when flying - not just the time spent in the air but also when travelling to / from the city centre plus time in security, check-in, etc etc.
... But trains have check-ins, and if something like this were built, I would imagine there would be security screening too. And unless your destination is the city center, you will also have time for commuting to the train.
Mr. Fusion no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 10:55 PM   #158
samsonyuen
SSLL
 
samsonyuen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canary Wharf > CityPlace
Posts: 8,350
Likes (Received): 314

I think there are more arguments for Toronto-Montreal, rather than Toronto-NY, which I don't think would make sense at all.
samsonyuen no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 11:13 PM   #159
degnaw
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 158
Likes (Received): 0

Quote:
Originally Posted by samsonyuen
I think there are more arguments for Toronto-Montreal, rather than Toronto-NY, which I don't think would make sense at all.
The thread isnt about toronto-ny, its about Montreal-ny, which i think makes even less sense... after all, it only passes one major urban area (albany-schenectady-troy), while Toronto-ny passes through numerous smaller ones (hamilton, buffalo, rochester, syracuse, maybe alb-sch-troy). Of course, QC-Windsor makes the most sense...

Oh yeah, I thought the fastest train in NA ran between Toronto and Montreal (or was it dorval?)

Last edited by degnaw; August 7th, 2006 at 11:30 PM.
degnaw no está en línea   Reply With Quote
Old August 7th, 2006, 11:28 PM   #160
Cloudship
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 588
Likes (Received): 97

Quote:
Originally Posted by miamicanes
On the American side of the border, at least, the train really wouldn't have to be faster than 110mph to be a commercial success... and living with 110mph would keep the costs sufficiently under control for the project to actually have some tiny chance of covering its construction and operating costs, if not actually being outright profitable.

Plus, the impact of time isn't as much as you'd think. Take, for instance, a 300-mile trip:

@ 60mph: 5 hours

@ 70mph: 4:15

@ 80mph: 3:45 (fastest you can go on "normal" cheap freight tracks)

@ 90mph: 3:20

@100mph: 3:00

@110mph: 2:45 (fastest you can go before things get REALLY expensive)

@125mph: 2:25 (fastest you can go and still run with mixed freight traffic)

@150mph: 2:00 (fastest train that can run on freight tracks at low speed)

@180mph: 1:40 (just give Fluor-Bombardier a blank check and kiss your budget goodbye)

Basically the "sweet spot" (maximum bang for buck) is 100-110mph. To go even 1mph faster than that, you've basically doubled or quadrupled the construction cost.

The fastest you can run under Acela conditions (tracks actively shared and intermixed with freight) is 125mph. Above 125mph, the FRA requires total separation between freight and passenger traffic by either space (ie, separate tracks) or time (freight not allowed on tracks when passenger trains running).

The fastest you can run on tracks dedicated exclusively to passenger trains, but still be legally able to use existing tracks at a lower speed (say, the last 5 miles into the station) is about 150mph. The problem is, if there's even the possibility a freight train could be on the same tracks, the FRA requires an insane level of weight and crash-protection. A level that would utterly kill anything resembling fuel-efficiency at 180mph, and would quickly damage tracks at 180mph. Making matters worse is the fact that the FRA requires a train that operates at 150+mph at any point during its journey to be capable of surviving a full-speed head-on collision with a freight train... even if it would NEVER be operating anywhere near that speed while actually sharing tracks with a freight train.

In other words, if you build dedicated passenger tracks 95% of the way between the two cities, but want to use existing tracks for the last few miles to avoid having to spend $100 million per mile to completely elevate or tunnel them through a dense urban area, and plan to run the train on those dedicated tracks at 150mph, but run at 60mph on the shared tracks, the FRA still requires that the train be capable of surviving a 150mph head-on collision with a freight train. Utterly insane, but sadly true.
That's the point - it isn't technology which is the limiting factor here. It is regulation. Absurd regulation, which promotes frieght use and directly contradicts passenger use. That HAS to be fixed. It's not just a matter of economy or anti-car talk, it's a matter of principle.

As far as the route, all three, if fast enough and priced well enough, would do great. The maximum time a person is likely to commute is about 2 hours (many are about 1 hour). A high speed train would put that level much farther out - in fact, far enough that it can hit some of these smaller cities, ans Albany. That would be a huge plus for Albany. In addition, Montreal serves as a tourist destination. It also would make doing business between the two cities much more appealing. You can't always measure the amount of potential by the amount of traffic that exists now - a good transportation system will generate traffic.
Cloudship 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 09:49 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