# What is HSR?



## VentureForth (May 7, 2012)

I am continuously perplexed by all this intense work towards almost nothing when it comes to High Speed Rail in the United States. The biggest problem that I see is that no one really knows how to define it. So let's go on this basic premise.

79 MPH is the maximum speed for most of the Amtrak long distance network.

90 MPH is the maximum speed for some rural parts of NM, Arizona, etc.

110 MPH is what they are upgrading the Texas Eagle from St. Louis to Chicago.

125 MPH is the maximum speed of Northeast Regional trains.

150 MPH is the maximum speed of Acela.

-----------USA

OUTSIDE of the USA---------

155 MPH is the maximum speed of MoscowSaint Petersburg Railway.

186.4 MPH (300 KPH) is the maximum speed of the Shinakansen (and currently the maximum of the Chinese High Speed Railway).

198.8 MPH (320 KPH) is the maximum speed of the TGV.

217.5 MPH (350 KPH) *was* the maximum speed of the Chinese High Speed Railway.

Where does the United State deserve to be? What would make YOU proud of American HSR?


----------



## Porter20 (May 7, 2012)

"I like to go fast" - Ricky Bobby


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 7, 2012)

IIRC the original plan for CAHSR was 220MPH or thereabouts. I have no idea what today's plan is for or how much of it will be built before the funding is pulled, but I'd be mighty proud of speeds of 200MPH or more, even if they were only available from non-American sources.

So far as I can tell the bulk of the Amtrak LD network will probably never exceed the current 79MPH due to a combination of factors that are mostly beyond Amtrak's control. Unless I'm mistaken even new rolling stock and PTC won't do much if anything to speed up America's dismal passenger train speeds. Hopefully I'm complete wrong about that, but I doubt it.


----------



## PerRock (May 7, 2012)

I prefer to think of HSR as "Able to reach speeds of approx 200mph (or 300 kph)".

peter


----------



## jis (May 7, 2012)

PerRock said:


> I prefer to think of HSR as "Able to reach speeds of approx 200mph (or 300 kph)".
> 
> peter


Unless one wants to eliminate most existing HSR systems from qualifying as HSR systems, it would be prudent to say that the minimum required speed is 300kph, which is roughly 186mph. More realistically I think most people would consider anything above 150mph HSR today. There are very few operating 320kph (~200mph) segments in the world today, now that the Chinese have climbed down off their high horse.


----------



## George Harris (May 7, 2012)

I put in "above 125 mph". That is 200 km/h and the speeed in the current Amtrak specification for new equipment. this is approaching the practical limit for diesel operation, and is also to the point that few existing lines can maintain it for any lengthy distance withuot major curve realignment.

The problem is not simply having that or higher as the speed limit, but have an alignment that will allow that speed to be operated for most of the distance and in long continuous segments. The issue is not maximum speed, as much as it is average point to point speed. An outstanding example is the route of the Crescent between Atlanta and Birmingham: The speed limit is 79 mph, but the average end to end speed is just over 40 mph due to the multitudinous low speed curves. The speed limit is exactly the same between Fresno and Bakersfield, but the average is over 60 mph because there are few speed restrictions below the maximum.

The planned maximum speed for the Calif. HSR is still 220 mph. For the segments north of San Jose and close to Los Angeles, it has always been less.

The Chinese did not so much climb down off their high horse as they were thrown off it.

As long as a line carries any significant amount of freight traffic, any speed above the 79 to 90 mph range is not practical. That being said, the nearly freight free length of the Southwest Chief route across Kansas and Colorado could easily be made to be 110 mph, and possibly 125 mph. It did carry a 100 mph speed limit for many years even back to the days of steam.


----------



## Texan Eagle (May 11, 2012)

I'll be modest. In my eyes, any train can break the 200 km/hr barrier (125 mph for the metrically challenged) is a decent High Speed Rail. I believe, and I forgot where I read it so don't quote me on it, 200 km/hr is also the maximum speed that is generally considered the maximum to be allowed on mixed traffic right of way, and anything over it would have to be on dedicated right of way. Now, I know Acela Express shares some right of way with slower NE Regionals at upto 240 km/hr, but that is an exception rather than norm. I see it this way- the highway speed limit across the country is in 60-70 mph, so when you drive you'd clock 50-60 mph over the course of the journey. If a train can give *end to end average speed *twice than the corresponding road speed, or in other words, if a journey that would take 2 hours driving but you can do in 1 hour or under by train, it is HSR for me.


----------



## jis (May 11, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> I'll be modest. In my eyes, any train can break the 200 km/hr barrier (125 mph for the metrically challenged) is a decent High Speed Rail. I believe, and I forgot where I read it so don't quote me on it, 200 km/hr is also the maximum speed that is generally considered the maximum to be allowed on mixed traffic right of way, and anything over it would have to be on dedicated right of way. Now, I know Acela Express shares some right of way with slower NE Regionals at upto 240 km/hr, but that is an exception rather than norm. I see it this way- the highway speed limit across the country is in 60-70 mph, so when you drive you'd clock 50-60 mph over the course of the journey. If a train can give *end to end average speed *twice than the corresponding road speed, or in other words, if a journey that would take 2 hours driving but you can do in 1 hour or under by train, it is HSR for me.


Actually, I think the French have operated TGVs on mixed traffic routes, namely segments of the St.Pierre-des-Corps to Bordeaux (just as an example) at 220 to 240kph for quite a while - like since the mid 90s. So I don't believe the Acelas are an exception. The British always intended to run the Intercity 225s at 225kph, but seem never to have gotten their signaling act quite straightened out to do so. AFAIR the Germans also run certain ICE service in mixed traffic at higher than 200kph. With proper signaling running at 240kph in mixed traffic should not be that big a deal. Beyond that separate RoW becomes more and more important. The again, the original Tokyo Shinkansen had a max speed of 200kph only, and that on a dedicated RoW. But that was also back in the late 60s and early 70s.


----------



## SarahZ (May 12, 2012)

Texan Eagle said:


> I see it this way- the highway speed limit across the country is in 60-70 mph, so when you drive you'd clock 50-60 mph over the course of the journey. If a train can give *end to end average speed *twice than the corresponding road speed, or in other words, if a journey that would take 2 hours driving but you can do in 1 hour or under by train, it is HSR for me.


This is what I was about to say. I chose 150 because I tend to drive 80 mph on the interstate. If a train can get me there nearly twice as fast, then that's HSR for me.

I'd be happy with 125 too, but you asked what I prefer.


----------



## Steve P. (May 12, 2012)

VentureForth said:


> I am continuously perplexed by all this intense work towards almost nothing when it comes to High Speed Rail in the United States. The biggest problem that I see is that no one really knows how to define it. So let's go on this basic premise.
> 
> 79 MPH is the maximum speed for most of the Amtrak long distance network.
> 
> ...


Took the Eurostar from London to Lille then the TGV to Aix En Provence and loved it. I would like to see our US trains go as fast as is safe after an upgrade to our tracks. I would also like to see HSR trains stop at airports as well as the city center so you could easily mix HSR travel with air travel. I would also be a great way to create jobs.


----------



## Anderson (May 13, 2012)

I was torn between 110 MPH and 125 MPH. Part of the reason that I tend towards this is the fact that once you get beyond this point, on a lot of corridors you smack into diminishing returns because of alignment issues and/or the need to make multiple stops. As an example, the Orlando-Tampa train was only going to hit top speed for a few minutes, and its time was only expected to be about 15 minutes faster than a 125 MPH train over the same route.


----------



## jis (May 13, 2012)

I have no problem with out primary goal being 110mph to 125mph. Indeed that would be the case in India too realistically. But please let us not not call it HSR as in High Speed Rail and embarrass ourselves. Better to call it Improved Speed Rail or Higher than we have Speed Rail or some such.


----------



## Anderson (May 15, 2012)

jis said:


> I have no problem with out primary goal being 110mph to 125mph. Indeed that would be the case in India too realistically. But please let us not not call it HSR as in High Speed Rail and embarrass ourselves. Better to call it Improved Speed Rail or Higher than we have Speed Rail or some such.


How about "Fast Conventional"? Not a shiny name, but it conveys positive incrementation and avoids some of the silliness of "Higher Speed Rail" being slower than "High Speed Rail", and also recognizes that you don't have to fiddle around with expensive technologies and dedicated trainsets for such services for the most part. It also speaks to the "middle ground" of the service between the current 79-90 MPH caps and 135+ MPH services.

Also, thinking about it, I would move my line up to 135 MPH (which the Metroliners did regularly for many years, even after the initial sets were retired from the service). 125 MPH seems to be the top end of "conventional" service because of issues getting your "regular" diesels and whatnot past that speed, so that seems like 135 is a good line because of the break in being unable to use standard diesel engine designs past that speed.

By the way, what's the top speed of the toasters?


----------



## AlanB (May 15, 2012)

Anderson said:


> By the way, what's the top speed of the toasters?


They top out at 125 MPH. Likewise the HHP-8's, although I suspect that the HHP's might actually be able to go faster. However I suspect that they don't meet Tier-II crash standards, and certainly the cars they haul don't meet those standards, so they'll never run faster than 125 MPH no matter what.


----------



## jis (May 16, 2012)

Which Metroliners ran at 135mph regularly? Inquiring minds want to know.


----------



## Anderson (May 16, 2012)

These seem to have gotten up there in speed.

http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track3/metroliner197002.html

Also, I'd point out that the express Metroliners seem to have been within about 15 minutes or so of the speeds of the super-express Acelas back in the '90s (and _definitely _faster than some of the Acelas today, at 2:40 NYP-WAS...remind me, the super-express time was 2:30, right?).


----------



## Long Train Runnin' (May 19, 2012)

I waited to post in this thread until I rode both forms of HSR here in China. I rode there conventional HSR which touched 310km/h and cruised at 300 km/h for mile after mil, and there Maglev which hit 430 km/h. The maglev seemed more like a statement of oh look what we can do and less like an actual transporation method. That being said their intercity trains were amazing to say the least. It was like gliding across ice I couldn't believe how smooth it was. Even when crossing over a switch at those speeds there wasn't any kind movement. I don't know how they accomplished it maybe with an excellent suspension or perfect track alligment, but there was no contest when compared to the Acela. Clearly the technology exists to create an amazingly smooth ride at 187 MPH and beyond. There is no reason we can't have this kind of ride quailty and speed here in the US if the political will was there.


----------



## johnny.menhennet (May 20, 2012)

Anderson said:


> These seem to have gotten up there in speed.
> 
> http://www.streamlin...iner197002.html
> 
> Also, I'd point out that the express Metroliners seem to have been within about 15 minutes or so of the speeds of the super-express Acelas back in the '90s (and _definitely _faster than some of the Acelas today, at 2:40 NYP-WAS...remind me, the super-express time was 2:30, right?).


I really like the 29 minute WAS-Baltimore time. Wish that was still scheduled now.


----------



## jis (May 20, 2012)

Anderson said:


> These seem to have gotten up there in speed.
> 
> http://www.streamlinerschedules.com/concourse/track3/metroliner197002.html
> 
> Also, I'd point out that the express Metroliners seem to have been within about 15 minutes or so of the speeds of the super-express Acelas back in the '90s (and _definitely _faster than some of the Acelas today, at 2:40 NYP-WAS...remind me, the super-express time was 2:30, right?).


Point to point time, yes, but AFAIK none were scheduled with MAS of anything above 125mph. AFAIK the first scheduled 135mph service under a waiver was the X2000 demonstration service. Of course I am happy to be corrected with facts contrary to that.


----------



## Anderson (May 20, 2012)

jis said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > These seem to have gotten up there in speed.
> ...


And I can accept that I might well be wrong as well. The numbers had seemed to add up differently, and I recall a lot of the mentions being that the Metroliners had a theoretical top speed of 160 MPH (which was, of course, never achieved in revenue service).


----------

