# Tampa - Orlando HSR Has a Green Light!



## TransitRider (Jan 28, 2010)

President Obama announced that State of Florida will get $1.25 Billion and this is a great start.

More story and photos where rail will stop and etc can be found:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/nati...icle1068768.ece

Enjoy and see you in 2014!


----------



## Hanno (Jan 30, 2010)

I would assume that the Orlando-Tampa HSR will not be electrified. Am I correct in this assumption?

Would I also be correct in assuming that the Silver Star will have access to this portion of HSR track?

Thanks!


----------



## AlanB (Jan 30, 2010)

Hanno,

I'm not aware of any diesel powered trains that can do 160 MPH, which IIRC, is what's proposed for this service. Therefore it has to be electric.

Not sure if they'll let the Star onto those tracks or not. The answer to that question could well come down to, who operates the service, Amtrak or someone else.


----------



## Rail Freak (Jan 30, 2010)

Who has the experience to operate the HSR in Florida?

RF


----------



## Hanno (Jan 30, 2010)

AlanB said:


> Hanno,
> I'm not aware of any diesel powered trains that can do 160 MPH, which IIRC, is what's proposed for this service. Therefore it has to be electric.
> 
> Not sure if they'll let the Star onto those tracks or not. The answer to that question could well come down to, who operates the service, Amtrak or someone else.


Yes I forgot that it would have to be electric if it actually went 160 MPH. If that is the case then the Star will have to change engines for the Orlando-Tampa portion of the the trip and then swith back to diesel for the Orlando-Miami portion of the trip. I'm not sure that would make sense for a 80 plus mile segment. There are a lot more questions than answers at this time.


----------



## TampAGS (Jan 30, 2010)

Rail Freak said:


> Who has the experience to operate the HSR in Florida?RF


Define "experience". Amtrak is the only US agency with hands-on HSR know-how, but the NE corridor and the I-4 corridor are two totally different worlds. Having Acela on their resume doesn't necessarily mean they have all the answers for Florida's HSR. When you get down to it, nobody has "experience" specific to this project, but if you're looking for an agency with the right qualifications to run such a system, I'd say Amtrak certainly fits the bill. 



Hanno said:


> Would I also be correct in assuming that the Silver Star will have access to this portion of HSR track?


Tracks for HSR in the proposals I have seen follow the existing Interstate-4 right of way. This means that the tracks would in many areas be very far away from the A-line route and stations used by the _Silver Star_. Even if the _Star _could utilize the HSR track, it would not appear to be practical.

 

Everything I've seen regarding the HSR line depicts it as completely separate and removed from areas presently used by Amtrak. This includes building a new HSR station in downtown Tampa, despite the proximity of Tampa's Union Station. It seems like the T.U.S. facility should have ample room to serve the HSR trains as well as Amtrak. I'm guessing that there is some issue that precludes track on the A-line into Tampa from being electrified, thereby requiring the separate station for HSR. That's just my guess though.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 30, 2010)

While there may well be issues with connections to the high speed line as TampAGS notes, there is no reason that the Star would have to switch to electrics if it used that high speed track.

The P42 is capable of 110 MPH operations, more than enough to not interfere with the higher speed trains. And P42's operate on the NEC even now from time to time. In fact for a while, the Silver's and the Crescent used to change to diesel power in Philly, not DC. So there is a precendent for running diesels on electrified tracks.

For that matter, both Metro North and MARC operate diesel powered trains on the NEC. Even the LIRR does that for a very short stretch in Queens.


----------



## jis (Jan 30, 2010)

AlanB said:


> While there may well be issues with connections to the high speed line as TampAGS notes, there is no reason that the Star would have to switch to electrics if it used that high speed track.


However, if the HSR trains are non-FRA compliant in tier 2 buff strength, which they very well might not be, since what I have hard is they will most likely be based on something like Japanese EC-2 running under waiver, then Silver Star will not be allowed to share tracks with them except under temporal separation, which would make the whole thing very messy. So my guess is that Silver Star will not get onto the HSR tracks. It will continue to use the current tracks that it uses.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 30, 2010)

jis said:


> However, if the HSR trains are non-FRA compliant in tier 2 buff strength, which they very well might not be, since what I have hard is they will most likely be based on something like Japanese EC-2 running under waiver, then Silver Star will not be allowed to share tracks with them except under temporal separation, which would make the whole thing very messy. So my guess is that Silver Star will not get onto the HSR tracks. It will continue to use the current tracks that it uses.


However, California HSR trainsets will run on tracks that also carry freight. This may very well provide sufficient motivation for developing 220 MPH trainsets that meet the full FRA crashworthiness requirements.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 30, 2010)

AlanB said:


> The P42 is capable of 110 MPH operations, more than enough to not interfere with the higher speed trains. And P42's operate on the NEC even now from time to time. In fact for a while, the Silver's and the Crescent used to change to diesel power in Philly, not DC. So there is a precendent for running diesels on electrified tracks.


It depends on how closely the trains are packed, though. A 160 MPH train covering 80 miles will take a half hour. A 110 MPH train will take more than 45 minutes to cover that same distance. So if a 160 MPH train starts a trip across the 80 miles within about 20 minutes after the 110 MPH train does, the 160 MPH train will catch up to the 110 MPH train and have to slow down to 110 MPH, unless there's some opportunity for passing.

Many parts of the NEC are four tracks, which makes this sort of passing not a problem. However, the general expectation seems to be that the typical new HSR alignment will be double track, and all trains will simply run at the same speed to avoid the expense of passing tracks.

I believe NJT has concluded that it is possible to get a dual mode diesel / catenary locomotive which is capable of 125 MPH, and which will be 4200 horsepower in diesel mode, just like Amtrak's P42s.



AlanB said:


> For that matter, both Metro North and MARC operate diesel powered trains on the NEC. Even the LIRR does that for a very short stretch in Queens.


And the MBTA insists upon always running diesels for their commuter rail system, even on trains running underneath the NEC catenary.

Shore Line East is currently diesel, although it appears that the next order of cars for Metro North which is compatible with 25 kV may change that.

The other thing to consider is that a train which is 10% batteries by weight might be able to go about 50 miles on batteries with a top speed of around 60 MPH, as best as I can guess trying to extrapolate based on data for the Tesla Roadster. Being able to go 50 miles on conventional speed tracks which lack overhead wires, and then being able to continue the trip without forcing passengers to change trains onto high speed track with overhead wires might turn out to be valuable.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 31, 2010)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > The P42 is capable of 110 MPH operations, more than enough to not interfere with the higher speed trains. And P42's operate on the NEC even now from time to time. In fact for a while, the Silver's and the Crescent used to change to diesel power in Philly, not DC. So there is a precendent for running diesels on electrified tracks.
> ...


I can't believe that they won't build few crossovers, after all you have to have a way to get around a train that breaks down and you need to be able to run single track ops so as to permit track & cat maintenance.

And not only did NJT conclude that it is possible to get a dual mode Cat engine, they ordered a bunch.



Joel N. Weber II said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > For that matter, both Metro North and MARC operate diesel powered trains on the NEC. Even the LIRR does that for a very short stretch in Queens.
> ...


I forgot about those two.


----------



## jis (Jan 31, 2010)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > However, if the HSR trains are non-FRA compliant in tier 2 buff strength, which they very well might not be, since what I have hard is they will most likely be based on something like Japanese EC-2 running under waiver, then Silver Star will not be allowed to share tracks with them except under temporal separation, which would make the whole thing very messy. So my guess is that Silver Star will not get onto the HSR tracks. It will continue to use the current tracks that it uses.
> ...


AFAIK that waiver has not been granted yet, and the waiver request is based on temporal separation (mostly) and some yet to be agreed upon positive train separation between Santa Clara and San Jose. The motivation that needs to be developed is for developing more reasonable FRA crashworthiness standards not meeting the current ones and trying to run tanks around as high speed trains. In short FRA needs to figure out how to do a crashworthiness standard (in conjunction with appropriate signal and control standards enforcing positive train separation) under which the current new generation HSR trains coming on line all over the world can operate without requiring waivers.


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 31, 2010)

AlanB said:


> I can't believe that they won't build few crossovers, after all you have to have a way to get around a train that breaks down


But crossovers only help so much if you have trains going 160 MPH in both directions in the vicinity of the 110 MPH or 125 MPH train such that shifting the slow train over to the other track won't prevent conflicts.

Amtrak has insisted that an Acela needs to be able to pass an opposite direction Acela in the vicinity of T F Green Airport Station without having to slow down or wait, and it wouldn't surprise me if similar thinking keeps 125 MPH trains off 160 MPH track if the 160 MPH trains are running on frequent enough headways. (By which I mean that the two center tracks at T F Green Airport Station with no platforms are only useful for Acela Express trains and Northeast Regional trains that happen to not be stopping there, and there certainly seems to be a long term desire to have at least some and possibly all Northeast Regional trains stop there; if one of the electrified tracks gained a platform to become the Northeast Regional track, and the other was used as the Acela track, I can't imagine there would be conflicts between northbound and southbound Acelas on the Acela track all that many times a day, since there's only Acela Express service about once every two hours in each direction there.)



AlanB said:


> and you need to be able to run single track ops so as to permit track & cat maintenance.


Can't you just run short HSR corridors on non-NYC subway schedules, and shut down revenue service from midnight to 6 AM? It's not like New Yorkers taking an overnight HSR train to Los Angeles are ever going to want to be on the Tampa to Orlando tracks at 3 AM...

(I certainly think it makes great sense to have the signal systems support full speed bidirectional operation on both tracks, though, even if 99.9% of the trains operate on the right hand track.)


----------



## Joel N. Weber II (Jan 31, 2010)

AlanB said:


> And not only did NJT conclude that it is possible to get a dual mode Cat engine, they ordered a bunch.


Did they actually commit to ordering them? The last thing I remember reading on the subject, maybe six months ago, suggested that they'd actually ordered a batch of electric only locomotives, and they had options to buy the dual mode locomotives.

Regardless, if NJT can use a single dual mode locomotive to pull 10 or a few more coaches at 125 MPH, I suspect it would be possible to put one of those locomotives at each end of a train with six passenger cars (resulting in a train the same length as an Acela Express trainset), and have 2-3 times the horsepower NJT finds adequate for 125 MPH operation. That might be enough to get up to 160 MPH if you can figure out how to remount those prime movers on trucks and couplers capable of 160 MPH.


----------



## jis (Jan 31, 2010)

Joel N. Weber II said:


> Did they actually commit to ordering them? The last thing I remember reading on the subject, maybe six months ago, suggested that they'd actually ordered a batch of electric only locomotives, and they had options to buy the dual mode locomotives.


NJT has ordered 26 ALP45-DPs (the dual-mode engine) and 36 ALP46As (the electric engine). It has so far received 2 of the ALP-46As. One is undergoing certification test in Pueblo CO. The other is sitting around in MMC awaiting clearance to start testing on various NJT territories.


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Jan 31, 2010)

Hanno said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> > Hanno,
> ...


No reason why diesel trains can't operate on electric track. The problem we have with the NEC trains going electric is that Amtrak runs them into NYP, which both legally and sensibly (given its subterranean nature) requires them to run electric. But diesel trains regularly run with Geeps and Alstom PL42s as far north as Newark Penn Station regularly (the NJCL Bayhead-Hoboken trains run on the Corridor between Rahway and Newark). P42s run into Penn with their primes shut off. Happens all the time.



jis said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > Did they actually commit to ordering them? The last thing I remember reading on the subject, maybe six months ago, suggested that they'd actually ordered a batch of electric only locomotives, and they had options to buy the dual mode locomotives.
> ...


Is the second enrolled in the Mickey Mouse Club? I thought it was on a boat.


----------



## dAve (May 13, 2010)

P42s are geared for 103, not for 110. P32DMs are geared for 110.

Also, just because a loco can do 103 or 110 doesn't mean it will - the equipment in the Star can only go 100 max (Viewliners), and some diners or baggage cars have a max speed of 90.



AlanB said:


> Joel N. Weber II said:
> 
> 
> > AlanB said:
> ...


----------



## battalion51 (May 13, 2010)

Don't know where on earth you got your info from, but it's wrong. The P-40s were originally geared for 103, but were later re-geared for 110 MPH operation (this is reflected in both AMT-3 and the NEC Employee timetable). The P-42s have always been set for 110 AFAIK. Similarly the Viewliners and Heritage fleets are all good for 110 MPH operation.

Viewliner Wikipedia

P-42 Wikipedia


----------



## Green Maned Lion (May 14, 2010)

And here I come running to this thread thinking there was FHSR news, too.


----------



## jis (May 14, 2010)

dAve said:


> P42s are geared for 103, not for 110. P32DMs are geared for 110.Also, just because a loco can do 103 or 110 doesn't mean it will - the equipment in the Star can only go 100 max (Viewliners), and some diners or baggage cars have a max speed of 90.


The LD trains to the south (including the Star) which carry Viewliners and Heritage Diners and Baggage Cars routinely run at 110mph on the NEC, which would suggest that your information is wrong.


----------



## jis (May 14, 2010)

Green Maned Lion said:


> Is the second enrolled in the Mickey Mouse Club? I thought it was on a boat.


Both are at MMC now and are running trial runs on the NEC. Arrival of two more is imminent the last I heard. The first two arrived on the same boat AFAIK since they were offloaded at about the same time. One went to Pueblo and the other to MMC, and the latter even manage to get derailed in the harbor yard :blink: . The unit from Pueblo (4629? I think) is back in after successful completion of testing in Pueblo.


----------



## Cho Cho Charlie (Aug 25, 2010)

I was just reading the "high speed" rail project now has added 5 intermediate stations between Orlando and Tampa. Also, the max speed has been substantially reduced.

Basically, a trip on this "high speed" rail will take just slightly less time than simply driving. hboy:


----------



## mfastx (Aug 25, 2010)

Cho Cho Charlie said:


> I was just reading the "high speed" rail project now has added 5 intermediate stations between Orlando and Tampa. Also, the max speed has been substantially reduced.
> 
> Basically, a trip on this "high speed" rail will take just slightly less time than simply driving. hboy:


Wow. Seems like they are setting this up to fail.


----------



## Rail Freak (Aug 25, 2010)

Dont know That much about it. But, if it's a 3 part plan, connecting Tampa, Orlando (Jax?), Miami wouldnt it make sense to start building the Station Stops as they're laying the track??? Just asking!


----------

