# Texas Central Railway



## The Davy Crockett

205 mph Shinkansen passenger service between DFW and Houston in 8 years? :unsure:

The Texas Central Railway claims it could be a reality.

This proposal, and that is really all it is at the moment, does seem almost as 'pie-in-the-sky' as Xpress West to me, but since there has been very little talk of it here at AU, other than this unclearly named thread, I thought I'd give it a proper thread of its own, as the addition of one person to the payroll has some folks taking the project a bit more seriously.

From dallasnews.com...

"Editorial: Boost for Texas bullet train project" :



> Tom Schieffer, former Texas Rangers president and ambassador to Japan and Australia, has joined the Texas Central High-Speed Railway as a senior adviser, company president Robert Eckels, former Harris County judge, told this newspaper.The privately financed company aims to start 205 mph rail service between Dallas-Fort Worth and Houston as early as 2021.
> 
> The Japan part of Schieffer’s résumé is key: The Texas-based company is affiliated with the Central Japan Railway, a leader in rail technology and operator of the bullet train that serves Tokyo and Osaka.
> 
> Schieffer’s role includes helping line up investors for the $10 billion Texas project and bridging differences in business practices in the two nations. His Fort Worth roots are intended to calm officials on the western side of the metro area who have been clamoring to make sure the train line serves not just Dallas, but Fort Worth and D/FW Airport passengers as well...
> 
> ...It’s operating on private capital that wants a U.S. demonstration project for proven Japanese bullet-train technology.
> 
> The goal is connecting two major population centers about 250 miles apart, the optimum distance for competing with air service and highway travel.
> 
> Enter the Dallas-Houston route and Texas’ reputation for a friendly business climate. Eckels says an investment-grade market study indicates that the Texas route would be profitable.
> 
> The Texas bullet train would be routed mostly on right-of-way controlled by freight rail, TxDOT or utility companies. Some private land would have to be acquired, and the railroad would have power of eminent domain if business negotiations failed.


One thing that is for sure: The TCR website could use some updating...

As they say, everything is bigger in Texas. Could be the bullets, the opportunities, and/or the BS... 

And speaking of opportunities, I see a chance for Jim Hudson to get onboard as a spokesperson to educate his fellow Texans that these bullet trains would be for riding on, not shooting at!


----------



## mfastx

As a native Houstonian, I'm cautiously optimistic about this proposal. But there's been rumors of HSR between Texas cities for decades, and even though it's a complete no-brainer, local politics and other obstacles have made it impossible.

I hope that the trend is reversed, but I'm not holding my breath.


----------



## rrdude

You wanna see some dirt actually get turned over for this? Get SWA to buy in, as an equity partner....imagine feeding the hubs they have, JUST in Texas!

Won't ever happen though


----------



## afigg

Yes, the proposal to build a Dallas - Houston HSR line deserves a new thread. I read the current effort as a serious one which is bringing some of the power brokers in Texas on board, which is a key step in a state where the power brokers and corporate interests have a lot of say in the state government.

No way the HSR line is running by 2021 and the knowledgeable players know that. It will years of environmental studies, selection of the route, design engineering, property acquisition, political maneuvering before construction can start. They are putting out a by 2021 date as a teaser to get backing for the project. However, I do think the odds are pretty good that a Dallas to Houston HSR line will be under construction in 10 years.

As for SWA, it is not the 1980s or 1990s any more. The airlines do not make much of a profit, if they make a profit at all, on short haul routes any more. The cost of fuel along with the price wars have undercut the airline market for short haul routes. The money is made in longer haul flights. SWA may not stand in the way of a Dallas to Houston HSR corridor, especially if the corridor connects to or provides single transfer trips to the airports for longer haul connecting flights.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Texans have been hearing variations on this story for decades, each time with different criteria, but absolutely nothing at all to show for it. These days I try to avoid making blanket comments but I honestly don’t see this happening in my lifetime.



afigg said:


> As for SWA, it is not the 1980s or 1990s any more. The airlines do not make much of a profit, if they make a profit at all, on short haul routes any more. The cost of fuel along with the price wars have undercut the airline market for short haul routes. The money is made in longer haul flights. SWA may not stand in the way of a Dallas to Houston HSR corridor, especially if the corridor connects to or provides single transfer trips to the airports for longer haul connecting flights.


I’ve flown WN, AA, and COdbaUA many times. In general the planes they use for intrastate flights are paid off, the flights are almost always full, and the fares are double or even triple what they were in the pre-merger era. WN and COdbaUA are much larger and stronger now than they've ever been in the past while US and AA are trying their best to follow in their footsteps. The idea that their combined influence is reduced or restricted does not seem accurate to me. If you want to see who really runs Texas just take a look at how much time and effort we continue to dump into the DFW money pit.

-CRW


----------



## rrdude

Devil's Advocate said:


> Texans have been *hearing variations on this story for decade*s, each time with different criteria, but absolutely nothing at all to show for it. These days I try to avoid making blanket comments but I honestly don’t see this happening in my lifetime.
> 
> 
> 
> afigg said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for SWA, it is not the 1980s or 1990s any more. The airlines do not make much of a profit, if they make a profit at all, on short haul routes any more. The cost of fuel along with the price wars have undercut the airline market for short haul routes. The money is made in longer haul flights. SWA may not stand in the way of a Dallas to Houston HSR corridor, especially if the corridor connects to or provides single transfer trips to the airports for longer haul connecting flights.
> 
> 
> 
> I’ve flown WN, AA, and COdbaUA many times. In general the planes they use for intrastate flights are paid off, the flights are almost always full, and the fares are double or even triple what they were in the pre-merger era. WN and COdbaUA are much larger and stronger now than they've ever been in the past while US and AA are trying their best to follow in their footsteps. The idea that their combined influence is reduced or restricted does not seem accurate to me. If you want to see who really runs Texas just take a look at how much time and effort we continue to dump into the DFW money pit.
> 
> -CRW
Click to expand...

I agree, I was president of TexArp for a short time in the 80's, and we went around back then showing a film, (yes they had color films back then, maybe it was BetaMax, I dunno.........) about the advantages of HSR, and what the "Texas Triangle" would look like with HSR...Mostly videos of French, Japanese, and German HSR at the time.

Interesting to think that China was still running mainline steam engines at the time, and had not probably even _*thought*_ about HSR.

My how far things have come. Now China is a world leader in HSR, and Texas is stuck running a few, _* very few*_, LD trains. (sans commuter operations in DFW-Metroplex, Austin, and a few other areas.)

"Hey Texas, China just _*kicked yer ass when it comes to HSR."*_

May THAT's what the Texas politicians and business leaders need to here, get the spirit of competition moving...........


----------



## Bob Dylan

These schemes come up all the time in Texas and have for Years as was said!, Mostly they are floated by a bunch of hustlers and confidence men that Texas has plenty of! On this I'm from Missouri, they'll have to Show Me! :help:


----------



## Anderson

it's been a while, but there's now a story on the Texas Central operation providing at least a few scattered details on the plans:
http://fwbusinesspress.com/fwbp/article/1/2534/Breaking-News/Bullet-train-bound-for-Fort-Worth-officials-learn-details.aspx

The big news IMHO is that they seem to be looking at three stations in the Dallas-Fort Worth area. Two other fun excerpts:



> [SIZE=medium]Asked how much passenger tickets would cost, and Eckels said, “as much as we can charge,” emphasizing his company’s private business status.[/SIZE]
> 
> [SIZE=medium]Each train would carry between 300 and 500 passengers, seat two to three per row and run on dedicated track. Trains would run every half hour for a project expected to cost “multiples of billions of dollars,” said Eckels, noting that route selection and station locations could dramatic alter project costs.[/SIZE]





> [SIZE=medium]Environmental impact studies are expected to begin in early 2014, with construction tentatively slated to begin in 2016 and trains possibly reaching operation by 2020 or 2021.[/SIZE]


----------



## Bob Dylan

Dont want to Be Negative Cliff, but Again as a Native Texan and having Interest in all Things Rail and Political , Maybe Some of our Younger Members May get to see this get Off the Ground in their Lifetimes! :unsure: This Scheme has been Kicking Around for Many Decades in Texas and it Comes and Goes Regularly, only the Names Involved Change! ( Would you put your Money into this Scheme as an Investment? If I had any, I wouldn't! )I'm from Missouri on this One!


----------



## jis

rrdude said:


> "Hey Texas, China just _*kicked yer ass when it comes to HSR."*_
> 
> May THAT's what the Texas politicians and business leaders need to here, get the spirit of competition moving...........


Arguably, China has been kicking Texas' behind on anything to do with R for a while now.  The HS part is just the icing on the cake.


----------



## mfastx

Construction tentatively scheduled for 2016? Wouldn't that be something. I'll believe it when I see it.


----------



## Anderson

I'm ignoring the timetable, except for possibly the environmental work starting. We all know how often, even in a favorable environment, construction timetables are kept. Even FEC seems to have lost significant time in setting things up.


----------



## Shawn Ryu

mfastx said:


> Construction tentatively scheduled for 2016? Wouldn't that be something. I'll believe it when I see it.



Knowing NIMBYS realistic date is 2040.


----------



## TinCan782

Not holding my breath here in California :unsure:


----------



## cirdan

mfastx said:


> Construction tentatively scheduled for 2016? Wouldn't that be something. I'll believe it when I see it.


 Some guys in suits posing for press photographs spade-in-hand maybe. But I'm not betting on any meaningful construction for many years beyond that.


----------



## CHamilton

Dallas to Houston in 90 Minutes May Soon Become a Reality


> According to the Texas Tribune‘s Aman Batheja, U.S. Secretary of Transportation Anthony Foxx just confirmed that the federal government will team up with the Texas Department of Transportation and Texas Central High-Speed Railway to study a possible Dallas-Fort Worth to Houston rail line.


----------



## jis

Sigh.... Yet another study, to be followed by more studies and NEPA and what not. Other countries spend less money building the entire friggin' system than we spend on studies of studies about whether to build a system


----------



## me_little_me

jis said:


> Sigh.... Yet another study, to be followed by more studies and NEPA and what not. Other countries spend less money building the entire friggin' system than we spend on studies of studies about whether to build a system


And I love the "soon to become a reality". Even after the studies, there is funding then delays by opponents in congress and state legislatures, then environmental studies, then contracts to be let, then lawsuits by environmentalists, people whose land is taken, financial opponents and naysayers, then construction, then more lawsuits over the ballooning cost caused by all the delays, then completion of the first ten miles between Hooterville and Nowheresville as a "demonstration" then testing then complaints that nobody is taking the 10 mile train, then more lawsuits. Then, "soon" is 2040. Then the line is abandoned as technology has made it obsolete.


----------



## afigg

jis said:


> Sigh.... Yet another study, to be followed by more studies and NEPA and what not. Other countries spend less money building the entire friggin' system than we spend on studies of studies about whether to build a system


Have any of the studies been beyond a feasibility study or proposal? The initial studies and reports don't cost that much, so the total spent over the years on Texas T-Bone or other proposals probably have not been that much, when compared to the cost of a full up NEPA and PE and then construction. But, yes, this is the US where for transit and highway systems (and many DOD systems as well) we commission studies, then more studies, white papers, proposals until the sum total of the sheer mass of the studies is enough to break through the Wall of Resistance and the project may get funding and advance.

On a more serious note, though, I think that building a HSR line between Dallas and Houston will eventually get traction and be built. The most significant change from 10 or 15 years ago is that Dallas and Houston are building rail transit system with Houston opening a new light rail extension just a few weeks ago. Having respectable local rail transit systems in both cities for the HSR trains to connect to helps to build local political support for a HSR service.


----------



## Bob Dylan

All of the previous Proposals/Schemes for HSR in Texas have included Austin and San Antonio on the Red Hot I-35 Corridor!

I Question if there Would Be that Much Ridership Between Dallas and Houston if There Wasn''t a Triangle Route that Included the I-35 Corridor ?? :help:

This is Would Be an Immensely Expensive Project IF it is Ever Built and Would Require the Feds and State to Kick in Billions of Dollars and All Kinds of Tax Incentives to the Private Sector Partners! Talk Radio is Blowing Up About this Topic with All the NIMBYS (Right and Left Wing) Blowing a Gasket! I Even Heard a Caller in Austin say: "No-one Rides Trains Anymore and Were' Already Spending Billions on Toll Roads and the Airport!" Imagine That!


----------



## CHamilton

Houston-Dallas High-Speed Rail + Tearing Down I-345 = A Big Win



> Big news in Texas this week as word came down that the U.S. Department of Transportation will help funda feasibility study for a high-speed rail connection between Dallas and Houston.
> 
> Patrick Kennedy at Walkable Dallas Fort Worth says the region is perfectly suited for intercity rail. The proposed HSR link would enable people to travel between the two cities in about 90 minutes — more than competitive with air travel, especially when you eliminate the security hassles. ...


----------



## FriskyFL

HSR in Texas...hahahahahahaha! Bubba don't ride no commie trains.


----------



## Anderson

I'll avoid a rant on NEPA, but I will say that Bubba also don't live in the big city.


----------



## George Harris

Yeah, "Nobody" was going to ride DART or the Houston light rail, either. Look at the statistics. Nuff said.


----------



## Anderson

Honestly, as long as the government doesn't foul this up, I could see it being a mostly private sector operation. JR Central is awash in cash and wants to invest somewhere (IIRC, their free cash flow is floating somewhere around $1 billion and they're hard-pressed to invest domestically). Europe's already pretty built out, China has a lot of political issues for them, Brazil is snarled in domestic issues, and a lot of other places just don't have what's needed to support a line.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

From the Cypress Creek Mirror on 1/29/14:



> It may not be moving at high-speed yet, but Texas Central Railway has reached a new milestone with federal and state regulators to advance its plans for a privately-funded bullet train between Greater Houston and the Dallas/Fort Worth Metroplex.
> 
> TCR plans to integrate rail system technology by JR Central Railways of Japan, including its N700 bullet train. At 205 miles per hour, the train could travel between Dallas and Houston in 90 minutes.
> 
> TCR President Robert Eckels said the company is nearing agreement with the Federal Railroad Administration and Texas Department of Transportation to begin its environmental impact study for the project. Construction on the new rail system could begin in about two years, and, if the financial pieces fall into place, TCR hopes to make it operational by 2021, he said.
> 
> The study will be privately-funded by TCR, Eckels told transportation-minded citizens attending the Houston-Galveston Area Council’s Brown Bag Lunch Series on Monday, Jan. 20. For that reason, it’s likely TCR’s project can be built before other potential public rail projects.


 Hmmm, I wonder what public projects he had in mind when he said this.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

FriskyFL said:


> HSR in Texas...hahahahahahaha! Bubba don't ride no commie trains.


Shhh, don't let the Japanese hear you!

To be fair all they have to do is keep it "privately funded" in the media and then work out several billion dollars in tax incentives and they're golden. Texans are blind to subsidies so long as they are provided to a for profit company after the fact.


----------



## George Harris

Most of these things get studied exhaustively or worse before anything happens. We hear of the wonders of how fast things happen in other parts of the world, but that is not really true for the most part. We just do not see or hear about the studies that happen in those places before the dirt starts moving and the concrete starts being poured. The only possible exception wold be China but there are tow major differences that do not apply to any of the other places where high speed railroads are being built. First, they are a dictatorship, so when the powers that be say jump, everybody says yessir and asks "how high?" on the way up. Second tehy ahve been building significant milages of ordinary railroads for quite a few years before they started building high speed lines. Third, some of the lines being described as high speed, such as the one where they had a collision last year, or was it the year before?, are not truly high speed, but ordinarly railroads on which the high speed trains make part of their trip. Taiwan may have started construction in 1999 and started running trains end to end in 2007, but the first published study I have seen was dated in the late 1980's, so the thought certainly went back well before then. Thus, you have something above 20 years, and likely 30 plus, for a place where there was sufficient finance to build it and the existing railroad carried significant passenger traffic between all the points on the route of the high speed line, the parallel end to end air service had saturated the airport capacities, and the distance was near ideal for high speed rai service, so there was an unquestionable demand.

Dallas Houston is also close to a natural line for high speed rail service due to distance, travel demand, and the possibility of building about as low cost as system as possible for these things.

What could be or should be considered is the route that carried the Texas Rocket and Sam Houston Zypher. 250 miles in 4 hours flat in the 1940's and 50's.It is a BNSF secondary freight line that they might be willing to see, and is all still in place except the approach to Houston Union Station.


----------



## Anderson

George,

When this first came up, I think the consensus was that they'd probably be able to pick up the BRI ROW for this. They might opt to alter the approach/station location at either end regardless. Of course, they'd probably need to straighten out some chunks of the route (and might get pushed into rerouting around one or more towns), but the route looks mostly workable now.


----------



## henryj

George, glad to see you finally agree with me on the route. I am with Jim Hudson on this. I will believe it when I see it. lol. In 2021 I will be 81 if I am still here so I really don't give a hoot.


----------



## Eugene Small

_So the Feds are going to be involved? Really! Where is the Lie? It has been said: 1)Will Be in Texas(no other state involved) 2) will have dedicated tracks ( not connected to national Rail network) 3) Strictly private funding (means no Federal or state,county or city monies)_


----------



## Anderson

Unfortunately, federal authority is needed for a lot of things that it wouldn't seem to be needed for. A lot of this is due to environmental permitting and things like that. Basically, even a 100% private project on existing right-of-way has to clear a bunch of federal red tape before it can happen. Some of that red tape does make sense, but some can be utterly bewildering.

The other point on this is that usually "no federal funding" is often used to mean no federal _grants_. An RRIF loan, which would have to be paid back, sort of weasels around this insofar as the federal government doesn't "cut a check" like they do with a lot of highway projects, for example...they make a loan that has to be paid back.


----------



## rrdude

Anderson said:


> George,
> 
> When this first came up, I think the consensus was that they'd probably be able to pick up the BRI ROW for this. They might opt to alter the approach/station location at either end regardless. Of course, they'd probably need to straighten out some chunks of the route (and might get pushed into rerouting around one or more towns), but the route looks mostly workable now.


The solution to this is so easy, it's laffable. Get SWA "on board" with this. They can control the timetable, the livery scheme, hell, whatever they want. THIS (TCR) becomes Southwest's "much lower cost" feeder mode to Luv Field and IAH.

The politics of rail travel "go away", and the great citizens of Tejas would be able to say "See, private enterprise is thee way to go........."

Now, perhaps the _tricky part_ is enticing SWA to touch this thing with a ten foot pole. But "Hey" Amtrak is still operating after 40+ years, so miracles can happen!


----------



## CHamilton

High-speed rail gaining momentum in Texas




> Support for 220-mph bullet trains in North Texas is on the fast track.
> 
> On Thursday in Austin, appointees from Fort Worth, Arlington and Dallas were approved as members of a high-speed rail commission, which is led by former Fort Worth Councilman Bill Meadows.
> 
> And in Houston, Fort Worth Mayor Betsy Price, Dallas Mayor Mike Rawlings and Houston Mayor Annise Parker gathered to show unified support for high-speed rail....
> 
> The high-speed rail commission is overseeing the state’s role in a proposed high-speed rail line that would connect Houston, Dallas, Arlington and Fort Worth — with the Houston-Dallas connection possibly opening in 2021.


----------



## CHamilton

Three mayors endorse high-speed rail project between Houston, Dallas-Fort Worth



> Late last week, the mayors of Houston, Dallas and Fort Worth, Texas, jointly announced their support for a high-speed rail route between the cities as promoted by the Texas Central High-Speed Railway.
> 
> This announcement marks the first time that the three cities have come together to back a project that will mutually benefit each municipality, the mayors said in a press release.
> 
> Texas Central High-Speed Railway is a private, for-profit Texas company working to bring a high-speed rail route between the three cities. The company is working with Central Japan Railway....
> 
> Nearly 50,000 Texans travel back and forth between Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth more than once a week on Interstate 45 each day. Traveling between the two cities takes about four hours, but the Texas Department of Transportation has projected that commute to increase to close to seven hours by 2035....
> 
> As Texas Central High-Speed Railway continues to work on the privately funded high-speed rail route, an effort has also been set in motion to extend high-speed rail service from Dallas through Arlington and into Fort Worth. As part of that effort, the Texas Transportation Commission last week appointed members of the North Texas High Speed Rail Commission to find innovative ways to build a high-speed rail system between the three points.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Conspicous by their Absence are two Texas Cities that are the 7th and 11th Largest Cities in the Country, San Antonio and Austin! 

Every time this scheme has come up before it has included the Texas Triangle which would be Houston/DFW/San Antonio/Austin!

Based on what is happening with Land Values in Texas and the growth occuring not to mention that UP Controls most of the Rail Routes in Texas (BNSF also is a Player), I would venture to guess that unless the Federal and the State (read Austin)Governments become Involved as Heavy Investors that this is just Another Pipe Dream on the Part of Financial Hustlers, Boosters and Scam Artists!

I'm from Missouri on this one! Talk is Cheap, it takes Money to buy Whiskey!


----------



## George Harris

jimhudson said:


> Conspicous by their Absence are two Texas Cities that are the 7th and 11th Largest Cities in the Country, San Antonio and Austin!
> 
> Every time this scheme has come up before it has included the Texas Triangle which would be Houston/DFW/San Antonio/Austin!
> 
> Based on what is happening with Land Values in Texas and the growth occuring not to mention that UP Controls most of the Rail Routes in Texas (BNSF also is a Player), I would venture to guess that unless the Federal and the State (read Austin)Governments become Involved as Heavy Investors that this is just Another Pipe Dream on the Part of Financial Hustlers, Boosters and Scam Artists!


First, the most likely route between Dallas and Houston is on a BNSF line, the former BRI line which is about as straight as any route in the state. It is realtively lightly used and the end points are connected by another BNSF route, the former AT&SF, so it may be that BNSF would be willing to sell this line outright.

Second, this line would be about as cheap to turn into a true high speed route as any in the country.

Dallas - Ft. Worth - Austin - San Antonio are conspicuous by their absence because this route will be anything but low cost. Thre is much more development along the way. The current rail routes are much less direct and straight. There is no potential redundancy there. The cost per potential passenger would be far higher. It could well be a good second rute when the ridership FTW-DAL-HOU proves the demand is there changing the overall attitude to the concept.

I regard it as far better to pick off what has potential for construction and operational success and do it rather than chasing and all or nothing dream.


----------



## Anderson

Well, the other thing is that HOU-SAS could be added. Austin would be missing, yes...though running the line roughly Huntsville-College Station-Austin-San Antonio would be another possibility which would save a full DFW-AUS-SAS line, not to mention avoiding the addition of two lines to also cover HOU-SAS.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Current San Antonio <> Austin traffic is surprisingly heavy. People actually commute between these cities but the route is so clogged that even a six lane highway can't handle it. Partly due to growing populations in each city and party due to the areas between these two cities slowly merging into a long continuous line of suburbs. There used to be a dead spot between Austin and San Antonio but that seems to have disappeared over the years. I only travel this route on weekends because on weekdays it's so slow that it becomes almost unbearable. I doubt you'd need a high speed rail line to make this portion work. 110MPH would be enough if it was dependable and had several daily and nightly departures. San Antonio to Houston or San Antonio to Dallas would probably need faster speeds to be appealing to average travelers because at that point you're also competing with airlines. You'd need well placed stations near the important tourist areas as well as easy access to sports arenas and theme parks. It's not an insurmountable goal but it would require a lot of coordination.


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> Well, the other thing is that HOU-SAS could be added. Austin would be missing, yes...though running the line roughly Huntsville-College Station-Austin-San Antonio would be another possibility which would save a full DFW-AUS-SAS line, not to mention avoiding the addition of two lines to also cover HOU-SAS.


Well, almost all HSR projects in the world were so succesful and popular that the opposition there was before they were built decreased and support increased leading to further extensions. So just because something is not in the initial blueprint, there is no reason to assume it will never be done. On the contrary, the best ambassador for further HSR is a line that's up and running.


----------



## Anderson

(1) My thinking in the Huntsville split is that doing so would limit the number of miles of track that would be needed to serve all the main markets in the region effectively.

(2) It does seem possible that a Kodama-type service in the San Antonio-Austin area might make sense to handle "commuter-style" traffic.


----------



## George Harris

Austin - San Antonio:

Yes this would be an excellent candidate for an interurban type service. HOWEVER: For it to be practical there would need to be full double track with quite a few sections of third track. It is a fairly busy freight route right now. There would need to be track grades otherwise plus some curve adjustments and as many grade separations as can be managed. All this says not cheap. Ther ahs been talk about a freight bypass to the east that would get all the through freight off this line. That would be a very good thing to enable reliable passenger service.

With all this the cost has been the show stopper.


----------



## mfastx

San Antonio and Austin are so close I wonder if they could get away with a line from Houston just branching off into both San Antonio and Austin.


----------



## henryj

Anderson said:


> (1) My thinking in the Huntsville split is that doing so would limit the number of miles of track that would be needed to serve all the main markets in the region effectively.
> 
> (2) It does seem possible that a Kodama-type service in the San Antonio-Austin area might make sense to handle "commuter-style" traffic.


Actually Anderson, a better option might be to use the old MKT line out of Houston that goes to San Antonio via San Marcos. There you could do the split to Austin. Going via Huntsville is way off the track. Using the MKT line, which is owned by UP but lightly used, would keep these trains off the UP's Glidden main between Houston and San Antonio(NOL to LAX). You would have to re-build a row from Katy into Houston. But if we are talking true HSR an elevated row over I10 would work just fine. And they have to build a new station in Houston anyway for the Houston to Dallas trains.


----------



## afigg

The TCR project has received approval from the FRA to begin the EIS process. Dallas Morning News: Dallas-to-Houston high-speed rail review set to begin following feds’ OK today.



> As expected, the Federal Railroad Administration has given the thumbs-up to an environmental impact statement concerning a long-proposed Dallas-to-Houston high-speed rail line. The FRA, in conjunction with the Texas Department of Transportation, will conduct the EIS on behalf of the privately operated Texas Central Railway, which promises a 90-minute trek from Dallas to Houston (by 2021, give or take).
> 
> The EIS will study various route alignments, including “shared corridors with other existing linear infrastructure corridors such as railroads, roads, and electric utility lines.” Also, says the FRA, it will “analyze the potential impacts of stations, power facilities, and maintenance facilities to support HSR operations.” The review could take some time — several months, say transportation officials, and possibly longer than a year.


Come on, the EIS study process is going to take a year or longer. The reporter should do a little research, EIS studies for a major infrastructure project on new and acquired ROW are not done quickly. Even in Texas.

Service by 2021 is just the teaser date to keep the politicians interested. I think this HSR corridor can get built, but not by 2021.


----------



## Anderson

I agree. A year (or two) for a focused EIS is believable; a few months simply is not. A date like 2025 (11 years out instead of 7) seems more plausible, assuming a reasonable amount of red tape cutting and an ability to dispatch stupid lawsuits.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Either way my money is on this project never reaching completion. Texas has plenty of rich NIMBY's, half of whom couldn't care less about passenger rail.


----------



## George Harris

Devil's Advocate said:


> Either way my money is on this project never reaching completion. Texas has plenty of rich NIMBY's, half of whom couldn't care less about passenger rail.


How about Dallas Light Rail, Houston Light Rail, having a huge expansion under way, Dalllas-Ft. Worth commuter trains, Denton area light rail? I wish all you Texas haters would put a sock in it. It is getting rather tired. It seems that anay chance that can be had is used as a soap box to get up on and shout anti-Texas nonsense.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

George Harris said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> Either way my money is on this project never reaching completion. Texas has plenty of rich NIMBY's, half of whom couldn't care less about passenger rail.
> 
> 
> 
> How about Dallas Light Rail, Houston Light Rail, having a huge expansion under way, Dalllas-Ft. Worth commuter trains, Denton area light rail? I wish all you Texas haters would put a sock in it. It is getting rather tired. It seems that anay chance that can be had is used as a soap box to get up on and shout anti-Texas nonsense.
Click to expand...

I didn't realize it meant that much to you George. I've seen a lot happen in this state over the last three decades. I've even been a part of it from time to time. I've seen projects worth billions felled by a few determined individuals. Sometimes for better and sometimes for worse. Then again I can't claim to be the world's foremost expert on every topic that interests me. It's entirely possible that I'm wrong but _my_ money says this project will not come to fruition. Then again I've only lived here thirty years so what do I know. Feel free to put _your_ money wherever you please and best of luck on your return.


----------



## afigg

George Harris said:


> How about Dallas Light Rail, Houston Light Rail, having a huge expansion under way, Dalllas-Ft. Worth commuter trains, Denton area light rail? I wish all you Texas haters would put a sock in it. It is getting rather tired. It seems that anay chance that can be had is used as a soap box to get up on and shout anti-Texas nonsense.


Yes, one big difference from the 1990s when previous efforts to bring HSR to Texas failed is that Dallas and Houston now have the core of a local rail transit system. Dallas's system is further along in size and development, but they provide local rail systems for the TCR to connect to for a larger customer base. If TCR gets funded and started on construction, it should have a synergy effect of advancing plans for expanding the light rail systems in both cities. Business and political leaders can be sold on the idea of people taking the light rail to downtown to travel on HSR to Dallas or Houston.

The CA HSR system will connect San Francisco with an extensive regional transit system to LA, which is in the process of building one. The first round of true HSR corridors in the US should have one or more anchor cities with good local and regional rail systems. So LA to SF and Dallas to Houston are arguably the best candidates for the first HSR corridors, outside of the NEC (depending on whether one considers the NEC to be true HSR or not). That was a weakness of the Florida HSR plans starting with Tampa to Orlando.

BTW, the exception for local transit systems to anchor an HSR corridor line would be Xpress West as Las Vegas with its concentration of casinos and as a destination for southern CA puts Vegas into a different category.


----------



## Anderson

I agree with the point of having decent transit systems. Chicago-St. Louis would have a passable claim there as well (Chicago's system is great; St. Louis at least has _something_ there). Miami-Orlando also has a workable claim (especially with the string of streetcar lines going in along the route). The real saving graces with Vegas are (A) bad traffic on I-15 and (B) the fact that either the casinos would probably be _more_ than happy to do something shuttle-wise or, if they balked, someone could easily set up a shuttle to at least the casinos on the Strip.


----------



## Eric S

You might also put Chicago-Cleveland (possibly continuing to Pittsburgh) and Vancouver-Seattle-Portland on that list as well. Cleveland and Pittsburgh have rail transit systems that are roughly as extensive as St. Louis. Portland, Seattle, and Vancouver also have moderate and expanding rail transit systems as well. Maybe Chicago-St. Paul/Minneapolis too, moreso if Milwaukee and/or Madison ever get some sort of local rail service underway.


----------



## Anderson

True. I guess I mentally eliminated the Northwest due to alignment restrictions...in most of the other cases, you have a mix of mostly cooperative terrain and limited geographic logjams. The Northwest is just a bit too constrained for me to see that going down easy, and there aren't any handy existing alignments to turn to (Texas has the ex-BRI and LA-Vegas has I-15).


----------



## henryj

afigg said:


> The TCR project has received approval from the FRA to begin the EIS process. Dallas Morning News: Dallas-to-Houston high-speed rail review set to begin following feds’ OK today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As expected, the Federal Railroad Administration has given the thumbs-up to an environmental impact statement concerning a long-proposed Dallas-to-Houston high-speed rail line. The FRA, in conjunction with the Texas Department of Transportation, will conduct the EIS on behalf of the privately operated Texas Central Railway, which promises a 90-minute trek from Dallas to Houston (by 2021, give or take).
> 
> The EIS will study various route alignments, including “shared corridors with other existing linear infrastructure corridors such as railroads, roads, and electric utility lines.” Also, says the FRA, it will “analyze the potential impacts of stations, power facilities, and maintenance facilities to support HSR operations.” The review could take some time — several months, say transportation officials, and possibly longer than a year.
> 
> 
> 
> Come on, the EIS study process is going to take a year or longer. The reporter should do a little research, EIS studies for a major infrastructure project on new and acquired ROW are not done quickly. Even in Texas.
> 
> Service by 2021 is just the teaser date to keep the politicians interested. I think this HSR corridor can get built, but not by 2021.
Click to expand...

This project continues to be a multi billion dollar boondoggle as it is currently structured. The point is, if they did an All Aboard Florida style set up, the BNSF track is already there and the distance is about the same. AAF plans to run hourly service between Miami and Orlando on a three hour schedule and the track is 79mph and 110mph most of the way. Only the 46 miles from Cocoa to Orlando is 125mph. If you fixed up the BNSF track, which would cost just a fraction of the Texas HSR project you could easily match that three or so hours as it's only 249 miles. And you could probably have trains running in a year, vs 20 years on the HSR boondoggle(and it won't be a 90 minute trip, that's just fiction). I am not against passenger trains in Texas, just saying if they used a little common sense it would be so much easier and quicker to complete and a lot less money.


----------



## George Harris

henryj said:


> This project continues to be a multi billion dollar boondoggle as it is currently structured. The point is, if they did an All Aboard Florida style set up, the BNSF track is already there and the distance is about the same. AAF plans to run hourly service between Miami and Orlando on a three hour schedule and the track is 79mph and 110mph most of the way. Only the 46 miles from Cocoa to Orlando is 125mph. If you fixed up the BNSF track, which would cost just a fraction of the Texas HSR project you could easily match that three or so hours as it's only 249 miles. And you could probably have trains running in a year, vs 20 years on the HSR boondoggle(and it won't be a 90 minute trip, that's just fiction). I am not against passenger trains in Texas, just saying if they used a little common sense it would be so much easier and quicker to complete and a lot less money.


The cost and work it would take to get the BNSF track up to a 90 or 110 mph limit throughout would get you will over half way - if not further! - toward what it would take to get a 200 to 220 mph railroad, discounting electrification. The current track has lots of 90 lb rail and is generally maintained for a nominal 40 mph freight operation and has an ABS signal system just sufficient to get by the requirements of the 1947 ICC order. You would need a near complete track rebuild and a complete signal system replacement for starts.

It would have to be upgraded to 110 mph to get a reliable 3 hour schedule. Additionally, to achieve this 3 hours you would also need faster and less congested entries into both Dallas and Houston.

A 90 minute run time would be acheivable with a 200 mph speed limit railroad, provided you could keep the entries into the cities above 60 mph, or better 80 mph.


----------



## Anderson

I'd need to look at modeling, but would you save much by going from 110MPH to 125MPH? Unlike in most other cases, there aren't many random slowdowns and you should be able to massage the curves to avoid much breaking. I know that acceleration slows as you get closer to top speed (and indeed the EMD-125 order may have been aimed in _that_ direction more than anything), but this is one of the few cases where even with that in mind you might well come out ahead.


----------



## Paulus

Anderson said:


> I'd need to look at modeling, but would you save much by going from 110MPH to 125MPH? Unlike in most other cases, there aren't many random slowdowns and you should be able to massage the curves to avoid much breaking. I know that acceleration slows as you get closer to top speed (and indeed the EMD-125 order may have been aimed in _that_ direction more than anything), but this is one of the few cases where even with that in mind you might well come out ahead.


Diesel push-pull is pretty terrible above 110mph. With the EMD F125, using their own numbers, you could brake down to zero and accelerate back to 110mph (which is a terribly slow process to begin with) in less time than it takes to go from 110mph to 125mph. It also takes 15-30 miles of running to reach said speeds, depending on HEP. That said, the IC125 does significantly better (142 seconds and 0.3 miles) so eh.


----------



## Anderson

Oh, the British models from the 70s? Impressive...that sounds almost like they're electric. Though I wouldn't want to use the originals, I do wonder if the plans could be used again (I'm thinking Florida here)?


----------



## Paulus

Anderson said:


> Oh, the British models from the 70s? Impressive...that sounds almost like they're electric. Though I wouldn't want to use the originals, I do wonder if the plans could be used again (I'm thinking Florida here)?


Even if you could, it wouldn't be FRA compliant (and the plans almost certainly are not sufficiently intact). And actually I goofed on that acceleration distance (I knew it seemed off), it should be 4.84 miles of acceleration between 110 and 125 mph. You could try recreating it with a 1+8 F125/Amfleet mix though: that would get the same power to weight as the HST (assuming 53 tons for the Amfleet). Gearing or something else might be an issue however.

Going back to the original question of time savings: You save 3.9 seconds per mile at 125mph compared to 110mph. To save five minutes, you'd need better than 80 miles of uninterrupted 125mph running. It's almost certainly not worth the upgrade.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

Amfleets are roughly 60 tons.


----------



## henryj

George Harris said:


> henryj said:
> 
> 
> 
> This project continues to be a multi billion dollar boondoggle as it is currently structured. The point is, if they did an All Aboard Florida style set up, the BNSF track is already there and the distance is about the same. AAF plans to run hourly service between Miami and Orlando on a three hour schedule and the track is 79mph and 110mph most of the way. Only the 46 miles from Cocoa to Orlando is 125mph. If you fixed up the BNSF track, which would cost just a fraction of the Texas HSR project you could easily match that three or so hours as it's only 249 miles. And you could probably have trains running in a year, vs 20 years on the HSR boondoggle(and it won't be a 90 minute trip, that's just fiction). I am not against passenger trains in Texas, just saying if they used a little common sense it would be so much easier and quicker to complete and a lot less money.
> 
> 
> 
> The cost and work it would take to get the BNSF track up to a 90 or 110 mph limit throughout would get you will over half way - if not further! - toward what it would take to get a 200 to 220 mph railroad, discounting electrification. The current track has lots of 90 lb rail and is generally maintained for a nominal 40 mph freight operation and has an ABS signal system just sufficient to get by the requirements of the 1947 ICC order. You would need a near complete track rebuild and a complete signal system replacement for starts.
> 
> It would have to be upgraded to 110 mph to get a reliable 3 hour schedule. Additionally, to achieve this 3 hours you would also need faster and less congested entries into both Dallas and Houston.
> 
> A 90 minute run time would be acheivable with a 200 mph speed limit railroad, provided you could keep the entries into the cities above 60 mph, or better 80 mph.
Click to expand...

George, this is where you and I part company. There is no way fixing up an existing railroad to 90/110 standards would cost as much as starting from scratch and building a whole new infrastructure in an Interstate median for a true 200mph HSR. I live here and I have traveled over the old B-RI row around Singleton many times and it's 132lb welded rail. What they have north of there I do not know but I would assume it's the same. The biggest cost would be grade crossing eliminations entering Houston and Dallas. I have not studied the Texas HSR proposal, if there really is a plan, but they could use the MP(UP) row through Conroe as far as Phelps and into Huntsville, then use the I45 median as far as Corsicana and then either the SP(UP) or the B-RI row to get into Dallas. That is probably feasible, but for true HSR they would need a completely new track structure of course regardless. The only reason for the slow speeds on the B-RI track is BNSF only uses the B-RI tracks for overflow and slow grain extras to keep them off the spine between Ft Worth and Houston. Some of the tracks entering and leaving Dallas are now used by DART, but the B-RI line appears to be intact.


----------



## George Harris

My statement concerning the rail in the BRI comes from looking at the track charts. Admittedly the ones I have are about 10 years old, so they may have done a major rail relay, but I would be surprised. It is a mish-mash of rails, so I know there is some larger rail all the way up to 132, I just don't remember how much, but not as much as 90 if I recall correctly. All that is there is so far as I know, except probably some of the old 90 lb is in its second position, so it had quite a bit of wear when it was put in.

My comment on track is in reference to track only. Alignment is another story. To go to 200 mph would require something in the 30% to 50% line changes if based on the current BRI line. Elimination of grade crossings into urban areas would be about the same either way, 110 or 200.

Terrain makes a huge difference. The proposed HSR alignment between Fresno and Bakersfield has more curves than the ex ATSF alignment it in general follows. Of course these curves are significantly larger in radius than those in the ATSF. Either way, a new railroad line between Fresno and Bakersfield will cost little more if built for 220 mph or 250 mph than it would if built for 125 mph. However, going over the mountain between Bakersfield and Los Angeles is another story altogether. The existing railroad lines are almost continuous small radius curves Bakersfield to Tehachapi and Palmdale to Bakersfield. If you want to be straighter you have to be steeper. No other way, and for this if you want curves for 220 mph you will be moving a lot more dirt, building a lot more bridges and tunnels than you would if your target speed is 125 mph.

The terrain issue is why I say that a 220 mph railroad between Dallas and Houston will not be that more expensive than a 125 mph railroad. However, m main point is that TRACK built for 220 mph costs very little more to build than TRACK built for 125 mph. The maintenance cost will be somewhat higher, yes, but not the initial construction cost. In fact, for ease of maintenance, any track that is intended to carry trains at 220 mph should be built on concrete, not ties and ballast. Track on concrete for this purpose will cost somewhere between 10% and 20% more than track on ballast. My personal view is that given open rural terrain and application of some of the techniques used in concrete pavement construction that the difference could be made to be under 10%.


----------



## henryj

George, you seem to be talking about making the B-RI route 125mph territory. I am not even considering that. Looking back at my collection of Official Guides, the timing on the route was from 4hrs to 4hrs15min depending on direction and which train and that was with three stops at Teague, Corsicana and Waxahachie. Later on the Sam Houston Zephyr added a stop at North Zulch for College Station passengers. The Twin Star Rocket never did stop there. This was with jointed rail and a 79mph speed limit, hand thrown switches for meets at sidings and they did that every day and were almost always on time. So increasing the speed to say 90mph or even 100/110 with modern signaling and dispatching does not take a huge investment in infrastructure and given that you eliminated some grade crossings to make entry into the Houston and Dallas metroplexs faster I would think 3-3 1/2 hours would be easily achievable. And certainly, if the trip was non-stop, it would be achievable or better. And the cost would be a fraction of building a whole new row and infrastructure, much of it elevated, for 220mph trains. And it wouldn't take 20 years to achieve. In other words, an AAB approach is much less expensive, much more practical, and makes a lot more sense. But, hey if you plan to be here traveling between Houston and Dallas in 2040 or 2050 then go for it. I won't be around. lol. The Burlington managed to run at an average speed of over 70mph between Chicago and MSP for years on jointed rail/conventional track. A 70+mph average on this route would put you in the 3hr range.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

One wonders why an accountant would argue the merit of rail engineering with a professional railroad design engineer.


----------



## George Harris

henryj said:


> George, you seem to be talking about making the B-RI route 125mph territory. I am not even considering that. Looking back at my collection of Official Guides, the timing on the route was from 4hrs to 4hrs15min depending on direction and which train and that was with three stops at Teague, Corsicana and Waxahachie. Later on the Sam Houston Zephyr added a stop at North Zulch for College Station passengers. The Twin Star Rocket never did stop there. This was with jointed rail and a 79mph speed limit, hand thrown switches for meets at sidings and they did that every day and were almost always on time. So increasing the speed to say 90mph or even 100/110 with modern signaling and dispatching does not take a huge investment in infrastructure and given that you eliminated some grade crossings to make entry into the Houston and Dallas metroplexs faster I would think 3-3 1/2 hours would be easily achievable. And certainly, if the trip was non-stop, it would be achievable or better. And the cost would be a fraction of building a whole new row and infrastructure, much of it elevated, for 220mph trains. And it wouldn't take 20 years to achieve. In other words, an AAB approach is much less expensive, much more practical, and makes a lot more sense. But, hey if you plan to be here traveling between Houston and Dallas in 2040 or 2050 then go for it. I won't be around. lol. The Burlington managed to run at an average speed of over 70mph between Chicago and MSP for years on jointed rail/conventional track. A 70+mph average on this route would put you in the 3hr range.


Henry:

I think that you are missing my main point, which is:



> The terrain issue is why I say that a 220 mph railroad between Dallas and Houston will not be that more expensive than a 125 mph railroad. However, my main point is that TRACK built for 220 mph costs very little more to build than TRACK built for 125 mph. The maintenance cost will be somewhat higher, yes, but not the initial construction cost. In fact, for ease of maintenance, any track that is intended to carry trains at 220 mph should be built on concrete, not ties and ballast. Track on concrete for this purpose will cost somewhere between 10% and 20% more than track on ballast. My personal view is that given open rural terrain and application of some of the techniques used in concrete pavement construction that the difference could be made to be under 10%.


Track, think track.

Much as I like the idea of a fully elevated alignment, if there is any place where it would be reasonable to not do it, it is here. On a straight and near level alignment, a TRACK built for 110 or 125 mph would be very little lower in cost than a TRACK built for 220 mph. Given that the BRI line is very straight with widely spaced large radius curves, and in relatively thinly settled and fairly level terrain, for the Corsicana to say 30 miles north of Houston, by the time you got the railroad good for 110 mph, you should be, excluding electrificatiion and extra faciness in the signals be roughly 90% of the way to what it would take to have it good enough for 220 mph.

Building down the middle of I-45 will cause you far more trouble than you would initially imagine. There are multiple sound reasons that you do not see high speed railroads plopped into major highway medians. You will find that the curves on the highway are all too small in radius. Every overpass will have to be rebuilt. It will be too low to clear the trains and the electrification, and will have a pier just where you do not want it. This rebuilding will cause rebuilding of the approaching roadway and any interchanges where involved. The work will interfere with highway traffic and highway traffic will interfere with the work. There are others, but by the time you get through these three you have alread more than overbalanced any real or imaginary advantage to the concept.

The Burlington and Rock Island managed to acheve the schedules they did because the rule book speed limits were taken as suggestions if following them interfered with making the schedule. If you were to rebuild the line completely and operate it with a speed limit of 90 mph, given today's realities it is highly doubtful that you could better the 4 hour time of a half century ago. You might not even be able to meet it.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

From nextcity.org, The Bullet Train That Could Change Everything

From the article:



> For years, the Japanese company behind the world’s first and busiest high-speed rail system has been itching to enter the U.S. high-speed rail market, hoping to sell one of the world’s ripest passenger rail markets on its breathtakingly fast Shinkansen bullet trains.
> 
> But with Central Japan Railway’s efforts to sell high-speed trains on the U.S. coasts going nowhere, Texas has emerged as the company’s best hope for introducing its wildly successful technology to the American market.
> 
> It also may turn out to be a transformative event in the history of the nation’s transportation system.


Lets hope so!

This is a lengthy article, so grab a cold beverage, find a comfortable spot, and indulge in some cool summer reading...


----------



## CHamilton

The above article is being reposted. This version is from the Tucson Sentinel.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

CHamilton said:


> The above article is being reposted. This version is from the Tucson Sentinel.


Huh? :unsure: You don't like NextCity.org or something?


----------



## CHamilton

No, I was just noting that the article is making the rounds.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Ahhh... I knew I was missing something.  It didn't seem to be a different edit compared to at Next City, and I couldn't figure out what was up. I checked the link to nextcity and it seemed to be working, so I was confused. (easily done :lol: )


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Seth Moulton defeated Rep. John Tierney in Tuesday's Democratic primary in Massachusetts.

What in the heck does that have to do with the Texas Central? :blink:

According to his biography, this former Marine, after serving in Iraq,:



> earned an MPA from the John F. Kennedy School of Government and an MBA from Harvard Business School. Pursuing his interest in transportation and infrastructure, *Seth served as managing director of Texas Central Railway*, a company building a high-speed rail line between Dallas/Fort Worth and Houston. After supervising preliminary engineering and planning of the 240-mile railroad, Seth returned home to the North Shore of Massachusetts to start his own business. [emphasis added]


That's what. -_-


----------



## George Harris

Well, I see he made sure he checked all the boxes for modern day liberalism. Seems a little puffed up. Guess we hadn't noticed the "building" part for Texas Central down here in Texas (yes, I am in Texas right now) If this piece of campaign literature came across my desk as a resume, I would be checking the details and asking for confirmation with greater than the usual amount of thoroughness.


----------



## The Davy Crockett

While I appreciate it is not Fox 'News,' I learned of Mr. Moulton's work with Texas Central from this article in USAToday.


----------



## VentureForth

I think this whole thing would be better if:

1) They build all new ROW - but George's principle of upgrading existing track, if suitable for HSR - is fine...so long as the ROW can be OWNED by TC. Whatever happens needs to ensure a DEDICATED ROW.

2) Plan on Stage 2 from Dallas to SAS

3) Plan on Stage 3 from SAS to HOU

* These would actually BENEFIT Amtrak rather than take away from them.

4) Add feeders from Amarillo/Lubbock, and any other college towns that could be done.

The biggest difference between TC and AAF is that AAF is doing this on their own property with their own money. I still don't like the idea that AAF is connecting airports - seems to be self defeating. You need to connect to LOCAL services & transit.

Frankly, being a former Texan, I don't see this happening by 2025. However, the expansion of DART, TRE, A-TRAIN, and the Houston what-ever-its-called, is extremely encouraging.


----------



## jis

AAF is connecting to an airport only at the Orlando end mainly because it provides a ready made transportation hub that already does and will do so even more - connect to local transportation. Sunrail will connect to the Airport station to complete the connectivity. At the Miami end the AAF station is nowhere near the airport.

Also, the Cocoa to Orlando alignment is not on FEC or AAF owned land, but on leased easement owned mostly by the folks who operate the Beach Line Highway


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> AAF is connecting to an airport only at the Orlando end mainly because it provides a ready made transportation hub that already does and will do so even more - connect to local transportation. Sunrail will connect to the Airport station to complete the connectivity. At the Miami end the AAF station is nowhere near the airport.
> 
> Also, the Cocoa to Orlando alignment is not on FEC or AAF owned land, but on leased easement owned mostly by the folks who operate the Beach Line Highway


I'll piggyback on this and point out that Orlando doesn't exactly have great transit _or_ a centralized destination. Tourists will, as a rule, want to go to WDW/Universal. Business travelers will want to go to the OCCC and/or downtown. There's some overlap at I-Drive (and I could see AAF extending to there and WDW at some point if Disney gets onboard with them like they were prepared to with the HSR project), but things are dispersed enough to complicate that. Not to mention that downtown is the opposite direction from WDW...


----------



## beautifulplanet

More local feedback to high-speed rail in Texas from Ellis County, approximately 30 miles south of Dallas:

County could see high-speed railway

December 3, 2014

By Andrew Branca

http://www.waxahachietx.com/midlothian/news/county-could-see-high-speed-railway/article_e928a6ae-2d8d-5aae-a2f9-c16c77eb6a73.html

Also including the up-to-date project schedule:



> [Travis] Kelly [(Texas Central Railway Vice President of Governmental Relations)] said the project is on a pretty aggressive schedule in terms of the environmental review and other work that is ongoing, but if all goes according to schedule, construction should start in early 2017. That would allow operations to begin as early as 2021. The North Central Texas Council of Governments is also providing assistance on the project. Amada Wilson, who is the public involvement manager with NCTCOG, said high-speed rail was identified as part of NCTCOG 2011 Mobility Plan. Wilson said the NCTCOG role in the project is to provide information and data, such as demographics, to project developers.
> 
> As the project progresses there will be additional public meetings held in 2015. Those meeting dates have not been set at this time, but will be posted through the project’s website.
> 
> Those interested in the project can visit http://dallashoustonhsr.com for more information


----------



## Anderson

2017 start of construction, four years for construction? Seems plausible, though I'd bet on at least one year of calendar slide.


----------



## Brian_Tampa

Seems like the folks behind the Texas plan are/will face much of the same opposition that AAF has. Mainly the people in the middle who do not get a station, just the impacts. This is setting up to be very similar to the Treasure Coast opposition here in Florida. Hopefully, TC will do a better job of "calming the natives" than AAF did.

Overall, the TC project seems much more doable than the CA HSR project.


----------



## Anderson

Well, there's also the fact that the "folks in the middle" are a lot less numerous in the Texas case, relatively speaking, than the folks at the ends. With that being said, my guess is that you'll get a station or two eventually thrown in as a sop, and that said station will end up seeing all of a half-dozen trains per day stop there (likely during off-peak times when frequencies are a bit lower). JR Central has been running N/H/K trains for long enough that I'm sure they can manage something similar here without the world ending.


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> AAF is connecting to an airport only at the Orlando end mainly because it provides a ready made transportation hub that already does and will do so even more - connect to local transportation. Sunrail will connect to the Airport station to complete the connectivity. At the Miami end the AAF station is nowhere near the airport.
> 
> Also, the Cocoa to Orlando alignment is not on FEC or AAF owned land, but on leased easement owned mostly by the folks who operate the Beach Line Highway
> 
> 
> 
> I'll piggyback on this and point out that Orlando doesn't exactly have great transit _or_ a centralized destination. Tourists will, as a rule, want to go to WDW/Universal. Business travelers will want to go to the OCCC and/or downtown. There's some overlap at I-Drive (and I could see AAF extending to there and WDW at some point if Disney gets onboard with them like they were prepared to with the HSR project), but things are dispersed enough to complicate that. Not to mention that downtown is the opposite direction from WDW...
Click to expand...

Regardless of where AAF may add stops in future, what Orlando will need is an attractive transit system feeding into the AAF system.

I'm not too familiar with Orlando geography, but I attended a work-related convention on International drive some years ago, and being the transit fan that I am (and against the express advice of our company travel agency), I travelled there from thae airport on a Lynx bus. The route the bus seemed to be following appeared pretty convoluted and although interesting to a fan like me, it would probably not have impressed your average visitor. I had an interesting conversation on the bus with an elderly lady who asked where I was going and when I told here the name of the hotel, she said, now that's a nice place. It sure is an honor for you that you're going to be working there. This really does show how much the rich-poor divide has opened that she should assumed that being on a bus, I was going to work there rather than stay there (and before you wonder, it's not such a fancy place, the room rate was about 150).

Furthermore, the closest Lynx stop was some way from the hotel (despite this being a big hotel) and I had to walk a mile or so to get there pulling my luggage. There wasn't even a continuous sidewalk all the way. So there's still a long way to go if Orlando ever wants to be walkable or transit friendly, although I have been to worse places, so I won't exaggerate the problem here.

On ariving at the hotel the receptionist asked how I had got there, and when I said on the Lynx vus, she said, there is no Lynx bus that comes anywhere near here, and assumed I had misunderstood the question. There wasn't even that box to tick on her registration form so we had a bit of a standoff when i refused to accept being put down as having come on a taxi. That just goes to show how little the staff are trained or able to guide people who might want to use the transit option. This hotel must see six digit numbers of visitors a year. Does nobody ever come on the bus? Can that really be true?


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> Well, there's also the fact that the "folks in the middle" are a lot less numerous in the Texas case, relatively speaking, than the folks at the ends. With that being said, my guess is that you'll get a station or two eventually thrown in as a sop, and that said station will end up seeing all of a half-dozen trains per day stop there (likely during off-peak times when frequencies are a bit lower). JR Central has been running N/H/K trains for long enough that I'm sure they can manage something similar here without the world ending.


One other advantage of greenfield stations is that people living out in the suburban sprawl and who will be wanting to drive to the station and park there may be put off by the prospect of driving downtown or to the airport, as well as by the parking fees that will be levied at such locations. So a station on the edge of the metroplex area in a location that is easy to drive to and with plenty of free car parking would probably bring in plenty of additional passengers.


----------



## Anderson

True, and it seems entirely reasonable for Texas Central to grab some farmland next to a possible stop location that would be (post-construction) 30 minutes from each city (so two chunks of land at about the 1/3 and 2/3 marks) and work to develop them and the area around them. Knowing Texas, this would make for an interesting transit-oriented sprawl project.


----------



## Tokkyu40

George Harris said:


> Well, I see he made sure he checked all the boxes for modern day liberalism. Seems a little puffed up. Guess we hadn't noticed the "building" part for Texas Central down here in Texas (yes, I am in Texas right now) If this piece of campaign literature came across my desk as a resume, I would be checking the details and asking for confirmation with greater than the usual amount of thoroughness.


Building, in the pre-internet age, meant that the project was ongoing and they were in process. It also included the planning and financing stages.

In the post-internet age it only includes the, "I already pushed the 'buy-it-now' button, why isn't it already here?" phase. But even in the age of instant gratification, some things still require planning and engineering after the project begins until the shiny toy arrives on your doorstep.

They're building a train and it will require planning and engineering before the construction starts. The race with California is on.


----------



## Tokkyu40

Montgomery County is weighing in. They want the proposed routes moved to something that better suits the local government, rather than suits the people paying for the train.
I would have to agree that there is an advantage to serving The Woodlands, but not if it costs more to get there than TCR can get from the connection.

http://www.yourhoustonnews.com/woodlands/news/commissioners-to-consider-high-speed-rail-resolution/article_6427e00a-f373-5477-83b7-d69fb55f31e2.html


----------



## Anderson

http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas/2015/04/14/senate-bill-targeting-bullet-train-project-advances/25770779/

I'm going to let the bill speak for itself. The way the last week has gone, if I say anything substantial I'll probably regret it later.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Anderson said:


> http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas/2015/04/14/senate-bill-targeting-bullet-train-project-advances/25770779/
> 
> I'm going to let the bill speak for itself. The way the last week has gone, if I say anything substantial I'll probably regret it later.


What do you mean?


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> Regardless of where AAF may add stops in future, what Orlando will need is an attractive transit system feeding into the AAF system.


The current plans are for a high speed monorail (perhaps ... shudder ... Maglev) from the Orlando International Intermodal Center to I-Drive. Also a Sunrail branch will serve Orlando International Intermodal. That is in the phase after the Deland and Poinciana extensions. The ROW is all there, part of a spur to a power station which just needs to be upgraded. Orlando Intermodal is currently under construction and has room for SunRail platforms. That is about it as far as current plans go.

Frankly though, the primary clientele that AAF is looking for is not going to be the transit bus riding type. They will do SunRail and Maglev riding type, and mostly they will rent cars or get onto Disney Magic Kingdom or other shuttle buses at the airport, or pick up cars left at the various airport related parking facilities. AAF ridership projections do not depend that much on general transit access at the Orlando end. Any that materializes will just be gravy.


----------



## Anderson

Devil's Advocate said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas/2015/04/14/senate-bill-targeting-bullet-train-project-advances/25770779/
> 
> I'm going to let the bill speak for itself. The way the last week has gone, if I say anything substantial I'll probably regret it later.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...

Ok, if you read the article, there are two general issues here:

-Issue number one is the traditional NIMBY stuff. I don't have a lot of sympathy for it, but I'm (painfully) used to it showing up. If it were limited to the usual kvetching I'd be annoyed, but not nearly as much as I am.

-Issue number two, which is the one that has me about to detonate, is the bit about blanket revoking eminent domain authority for this one, specific mode of travel. Ok, I've watched a lot of folks saying "Well, if the private sector will do it..." blah blah blah. Well, the private sector _is_ offering to do it and now a bunch of dingbats in the Texas Senate are trying to block _that_. On top of the **** in Florida it's leaving me more than a little bit short of patience. They're not blocking it for airport expansion, they're not blocking it for highway expansion (government-funded or otherwise), and they're not blocking it for freight rail.

To be fair, Texas Central could probably evade the block by cutting some deal with a shortline operator to nominally make their run a "freight service" (which involves one freight engine doing an equipment move once a week in the middle of the night with absolute temporal separation) to avoid the restriction and/or theoretically only running a 79 MPH service...and then "conveniently noticing" that their tracks will take trains going about 2.5x faster. Frankly, I'd love to see them do that, if only to spit in the eyes of these guys.

I'm going to stop now, but it ought to be pretty damn clear why I didn't want to say much on this beyond linking it.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Cliff, the Texas Legislature is a strange and terrifying place that sane people should avoid!

Unfortunately their actions, and lack of action, are things we have to live with and pay for!!!


----------



## jis

It is educational to read the history of how the Pennsylvania Railroad managed to drive into Washington DC in the face of a zillion legal obstacles thrown at it by the innovative Maryland legislature, in order to protect their home railroad, Baltimore and Ohio,s franchise into Washington DC. Finally the Pennsy managed to completely flummox the Marylanders and got their way exactly as they wanted it.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Anderson said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas/2015/04/14/senate-bill-targeting-bullet-train-project-advances/25770779/
> 
> I'm going to let the bill speak for itself. The way the last week has gone, if I say anything substantial I'll probably regret it later.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ok, if you read the article, there are two general issues here:
> 
> -Issue number one is the traditional NIMBY stuff. I don't have a lot of sympathy for it, but I'm (painfully) used to it showing up. If it were limited to the usual kvetching I'd be annoyed, but not nearly as much as I am.
> 
> -Issue number two, which is the one that has me about to detonate, is the bit about blanket revoking eminent domain authority for this one, specific mode of travel. Ok, I've watched a lot of folks saying "Well, if the private sector will do it..." blah blah blah. Well, the private sector _is_ offering to do it and now a bunch of dingbats in the Texas Senate are trying to block _that_. On top of the **** in Florida it's leaving me more than a little bit short of patience. They're not blocking it for airport expansion, they're not blocking it for highway expansion (government-funded or otherwise), and they're not blocking it for freight rail.
> 
> To be fair, Texas Central could probably evade the block by cutting some deal with a shortline operator to nominally make their run a "freight service" (which involves one freight engine doing an equipment move once a week in the middle of the night with absolute temporal separation) to avoid the restriction and/or theoretically only running a 79 MPH service...and then "conveniently noticing" that their tracks will take trains going about 2.5x faster. Frankly, I'd love to see them do that, if only to spit in the eyes of these guys.
> 
> I'm going to stop now, but it ought to be pretty damn clear why I didn't want to say much on this beyond linking it.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with pointing out the inherent hypocrisy of a strictly contrarian ideology.


----------



## Tokkyu40

Devil's Advocate said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.khou.com/story/news/local/texas/2015/04/14/senate-bill-targeting-bullet-train-project-advances/25770779/
> 
> I'm going to let the bill speak for itself. The way the last week has gone, if I say anything substantial I'll probably regret it later.
> 
> 
> 
> What do you mean?
Click to expand...

How this? State Senator Lois Kolkhorst ® doesn't want the power of eminent domain used by TCR because "...she didn’t want to see private landowners lose their land for a project that she believed is likely to fail."

And this fine quote, "

Yet at Wednesday's hearing, Republican senators expressed concern that a private company was going to use eminent domain authority for a for-profit venture.

“Eminent domain is probably the most horrific power that the government has, and to dole that out to individual companies that can misuse that or use it for projects that result in profits, we have to be very careful about doing that,” Hall said."

Since when do Republicans oppose for-profit enterprises?

Oh, sorry, that's right. When it runs on rails.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> Frankly though, the primary clientele that AAF is looking for is not going to be the transit bus riding type. They will do SunRail and Maglev riding type, and mostly they will rent cars or get onto Disney Magic Kingdom or other shuttle buses at the airport, or pick up cars left at the various airport related parking facilities. AAF ridership projections do not depend that much on general transit access at the Orlando end. Any that materializes will just be gravy.


Maybe initially that's a good strategy.

But by and large, the world is divided into those who like to drive and those who don't. Those who like to drive will not be seen in a train unless pressed very hard. In other words, hardly ever. Pursuing this demographic and trying to convert them is mostly a pointless exercise Then there are those who like trains and want to use them. Some of these may be the typical captive bus clientele, often being from the underpriveledged demographic. But there is increasingly also a different demographic of people who like transit. They are middle-class folks, often of the younger generation, who never bought into the car = status symbol thing. They can afford to drive but choose not to if they can avoid it. Their numbers are increasing all the time, as reflected in increased interest in downtown apartments and the often criticized gentrification of formerly undesirable neighborhoods .But because they are car free by choice, their being car free depends on workable alternatives being offered. Build a decent transit system, build an intercity rail system, and the car free will come flocking to use it. But cut them off by building car-centric out of town peripheral stations not connected to the areas where they live, and they won't be able or willing to use it.


----------



## Anderson

cirdan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Frankly though, the primary clientele that AAF is looking for is not going to be the transit bus riding type. They will do SunRail and Maglev riding type, and mostly they will rent cars or get onto Disney Magic Kingdom or other shuttle buses at the airport, or pick up cars left at the various airport related parking facilities. AAF ridership projections do not depend that much on general transit access at the Orlando end. Any that materializes will just be gravy.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe initially that's a good strategy.
> 
> But by and large, the world is divided into those who like to drive and those who don't. Those who like to drive will not be seen in a train unless pressed very hard. In other words, hardly ever. Pursuing this demographic and trying to convert them is mostly a pointless exercise Then there are those who like trains and want to use them. Some of these may be the typical captive bus clientele, often being from the underpriveledged demographic. But there is increasingly also a different demographic of people who like transit. They are middle-class folks, often of the younger generation, who never bought into the car = status symbol thing. They can afford to drive but choose not to if they can avoid it. Their numbers are increasing all the time, as reflected in increased interest in downtown apartments and the often criticized gentrification of formerly undesirable neighborhoods .But because they are car free by choice, their being car free depends on workable alternatives being offered. Build a decent transit system, build an intercity rail system, and the car free will come flocking to use it. But cut them off by building car-centric out of town peripheral stations not connected to the areas where they live, and they won't be able or willing to use it.
Click to expand...

I think a lot depends on the area you're talking about and how bad the traffic is. For example, if VA had gone with an option to build a bridge across the James River to link NPN and NFK (this was an option considered early on in the Hampton Roads HSR planning process) and made the whole operation double track, I think you have plenty of folks who would have used a high-frequency DMU service to shuttle between sides of the water even if they had to stick cars on each side, such is the atrocious traffic on the HRBT. [1]

In the case of Texas, as long as you have a Suburban Station and a Downtown Station on each end you should be able to sweep up a good deal of traffic. You'll have car rental facilities at each end, but knocking a four-hour drive down to a 90-minute train ride is enough that even assuming half an hour of transfer time at each end you're still 90 minutes ahead of where you'd have been...if traffic was cooperative. Throw in bad traffic and I'm fairly sure you can add another hour or two to that on the wrong day. Downtown Dallas is also pretty transit-friendly (and generally getting better as time goes by, too, from what I can tell), and it's "good transit" (i.e. light rail and streetcars, not buses) so I suspect you can get your businessmen to ride it.

Down in Florida you have a tangle of groups AAF would be looking at, but you're right: This is not the "bus crowd" in some sense. Give them high-frequency SunRail to downtown (and for the record, it is quite possible that the airport will happen before Deland does because of paperwork issues...apparently the ridership estimates for Deland are low enough to cause issues qualifying for funding and I think someone screwed up a round of /something/) and you'll get transfers, if only because I have had far too much experience driving in Orlando to call it "pleasant". South Florida is a similar story...if the streetcar projects down there ever actually end up /going/ anywhere useful (like, say, connecting SunRail stations to FEC stations or going more than a few blocks in any direction) then using the trains to get downtown will be a viable thing.

Anyhow, the point is more that you have an increasing number of areas where I think two other groups exist:

-Your "want to drive" folks (generally older);

-Your "don't want to drive" folks (generally younger);

-Your "wouldn't mind driving if driving wasn't miserable" crowd; and

-Your "want to drive but not too long/not after dark" crowd.

Texas Central is shooting for #1 and #3 (by simply killing driving on travel time). AAF has a lot more of #4 to work with (and #4 is basically what #3 turn into as they get older) alongside substantial elements of #3 given that traffic in South Florida has been atrocious for decades (there's a reason that Tri-Rail was able to grow like it did). I think Florida has more of the "don't want to drive" crowd as well, between Northeastern transplants (who know what "taking the train" is) and a long enough legacy of bad traffic (especially in South Florida).

By the way, when I've been down in the Orlando area my experience in listening to the radio is that there isn't much of an anti-rail crowd to be had around Orlando...the main thing I've heard on the talk radio down there is a bunch of complaining that SunRail doesn't run enough service/doesn't go enough places (for example, there was a special set of weekend service to a dining event in Winter Park...but the geniuses at SunRail didn't think to try and arrange an evening frequency, resulting in the last train leaving at like 1600 rather than at 1900 or so as would normally be the case IIRC). You've got a NIMBY crowd in between the two areas (which I predict will more or less collapse once stations start going in) but that's about it.

[1] There are some fascinating "roads not taken" to consider here. A DMU-based service could easily have taken modest upgrades on the Virginia Beach line as-is (class 3/4 track would have sufficed). You'd have simply had The Tide terminate at Harbor Park station and act as a downtown streetcar system. The DMU lines would have gone out to the Oceanfront (I think you would have needed to extend the line by all of four blocks to get to Atlantic Ave) on the one hand and wrapped around to roughly the James River Bridge on the other (which would have hit Suffolk along the way); you could probably have worked something out to run a service to the gates of Norfolk Naval Station as well. There would only have been limited overlap with existing mainline freight service right at Harbor Park Station (as well as on the Peninsula Subdivision, but that could arguably have been mitigated at least somewhat). All I can say is that "At least it would offer a competent connection between Norfolk and Newport News for less than $3bn" (the estimates at the time for the bridge and the tracks on each side were around $600m).


----------



## afigg

There has not been much discussion of the Texas CR HSR plans lately, but the project was facing an attempt in the Texas legislature to kill it by preventing the Texas DOT from spending any funds at all to work with TCR on the HSR line. Here is a company proposing to privately fund a HSR corridor between the 2 largest cities in the state and even then, many Republicans want to kill or block it entirely. The news is that the language that would stop TCR was deleted in a 6-4 committee so that threat is over. I'm sure there are many more attempts in the works to stop the Dallas- Houston HSR line.

WFAA: Bullet train project saved in late-night vote.

Dallas Morning News: Budget writers remove provision that threatened bullet train proposal.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Must be in the pay of the Airlines or that new Luxury Bus Service in Dallas? ( can't think of the name)

Years ago when the privately funded Texas Bullet Train became a big do, Southwest Airlines and the Land Rights people ( fore runner to the T- Party) lobbyed in the Lege to kill it even though the Gov., Lt. Gov and theSpeaker of the House were all for it!

It was DOA!!!! This one looks like it actually has a chance!!


----------



## Tokkyu40

jimhudson said:


> Must be in the pay of the Airlines or that new Luxury Bus Service in Dallas? ( can't think of the name)
> 
> Years ago when the privately funded Texas Bullet Train became a big do, Southwest Airlines and the Land Rights people ( fore runner to the T- Party) lobbyed in the Lege to kill it even though the Gov., Lt. Gov and the Speaker of the House were all for it!
> 
> It was DOA!!!! This one looks like it actually has a chance!!


Pure ideology. Republicans are against rail travel, even if it's not publicly funded.

As a Republican, I find my party a little embarrassing these days.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Thought about becoming an Independent and voting for the best overall candidates? More people are doing this all the time, Parties are Dinosaurs!


----------



## Tokkyu40

Of the viable candidates,Republicans have been the least dangerous, although lately they've been trying to prove me wrong.
Kashkari was a real winner there. I voted for Brown. He's been doing pretty well.


----------



## Anderson

afigg said:


> There has not been much discussion of the Texas CR HSR plans lately, but the project was facing an attempt in the Texas legislature to kill it by preventing the Texas DOT from spending any funds at all to work with TCR on the HSR line. Here is a company proposing to privately fund a HSR corridor between the 2 largest cities in the state and even then, many Republicans want to kill or block it entirely. The news is that the language that would stop TCR was deleted in a 6-4 committee so that threat is over. I'm sure there are many more attempts in the works to stop the Dallas- Houston HSR line.
> 
> WFAA: Bullet train project saved in late-night vote.
> 
> Dallas Morning News: Budget writers remove provision that threatened bullet train proposal.


I'm going to try and untangle the politics of this as best I can and guess what happened:

(1) There have been a lot of rumblings that the Koch Brothers are trying to foul the lines on this project as best they can. That's option number one. While TC isn't asking for public money, IIRC there are certain parts of the planning process which the DOT needs to offer comment on for various reasons. Depending on how the clause was worded, the amendment likely would have barred them from doing so even if said costs were reimbursed, really making for a mess of things.

(2) It's also possible that the Sen. who proposed the amendment is just an idiot who didn't have a good grasp on what he was doing. Trust me, you get someone trying to be too clever by half in the legislature and *ahem* hilarity ensues.

(3) #1 and #2 are not mutually exclusive.

So...while there's room for conspiracy, I'm also willing to grant the benefit of blind stupidity here as well.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

From my vantage point the partisan anti-rail attacks in Texas appear to have been rather successful in shaping public opinion, stamping out most forms of support, and creating targeted rules and restrictions which exclusively penalize passenger rail projects. Anyone who believes Texan politicians are impotent or that they are fair and reasonable in their governance of state transportation projects needs to read up on the Wright Amendment. There is no definable ideology guiding our decision making and no limit to the sort of "big government" actions our supposedly free market loving state will employ in order to control the outcome. In this state money talks and reason walks. I have never fully understood the need to equate regressive goals with idiocy. Perhaps we betray our own carelessness whenever we fall victim to the desire to laugh off the latest threat as little more than confusion and ignorance.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Big Money + Moronic and Corrupt Office Holders= Texas State Government!


----------



## CHamilton

Texans invest $75 million in high-speed rail proposal


----------



## Railroad Bill

Ah, Jim and D.A. can host the Gathering in 2021 and we can all ride the HS train between Dallas and Houston on a sunny October afternoon.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Railroad Bill said:


> Ah, Jim and D.A. can host the Gathering in 2021 and we can all ride the HS train between Dallas and Houston on a sunny October afternoon.


Bill: If only y'all can get the Ohio Guv and the Lege to being back the CCC Route we can have a Gathering in Cleveland, Cincinnati or Columbus and ride trains all over the Buckeye State!


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Well then, the project seems to be moving forward. Feds actually approved this project.

http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/blog/2015/08/exclusive-feds-finalize-bullet-train-s-corridor.html


----------



## The Davy Crockett

Bullets in Texas are a step closer!


----------



## DSS&A

In addition to the $70 Million Texas Central Railway has raised so far locally, a Japanese fund recently announced that it is contributing $40 Million to this project. Here's the link to an article about these additional funds.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/11/22/national/japan-to-plow-40-million-into-plans-for-texas-high-speed-rail/#.VnFyVsnnbqB


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Here's a link to a article about the proposed station in Grimes County on the HSR line. The article also has a lot of other interesting information about the project.

http://m.theeagle.com/news/a_m/houston-to-dallas-high-speed-rail-to-make-only-stop/article_be6b1034-7319-11e5-8e61-eb316e6dcaf6.html?mode=jqm


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Local leaders still want the HSR station downtown. Here's a link to a newspaper article about this issue.

http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/transportation/article/Focus-shifts-to-stretching-bullet-train-to-6710235.php?t=8993b34614438d9cbb&cmpid=twitter-premium


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Here's an article from Japan about the project with a little information about the train's, financing and the project timeline.

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/12/29/business/texas-high-speed-rail-firm-eyes-jr-tokai-partner-shinkansen-tech-cars/#.VoPPKxorL-Z?platform=hootsuite


----------



## printman2000

They have a form setup that will send letters to legislator members. If you live in Texas, go to http://timetoridetx.com/and fill it out.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

printman2000 said:


> They have a form setup that will send letters to legislator members. If you live in Texas, go to http://timetoridetx.com/and fill it out.


Done.


----------



## WoodyinNYC

Bob Dylan said:


> Cliff, the Texas Legislature is a strange and terrifying place that sane people should avoid!


"No man or dog is safe when the Legislature is in session!"

The venerable quote traces back to the 19th Century, and as true as ever.

*Gideon John Tucker* In 1866, as Surrogate of New York, he wrote in a decision of a will case: "No man's life, liberty, or property are safe while the Legislature is in session." -- Wikipedia


----------



## DSS&A

Hi,

Here's an article about the proposed HSR passenger train equipment that is being discussed for this new HSR railroad.

http://www.railwaygazette.com/news/high-speed/single-view/view/n700s-to-launch-next-generation-shinkansen-trainsets.html


----------



## John Bredin

Saw this newspaper article in a NARP e-mail digest of rail news. http://www.star-telegram.com/news/traffic/your-commute/article102316272.html All quotes are from said article.

My blood boiled and my mind boggled at the sheer circular stupidity of this argument:



> As far as David Risinger Sr. is concerned, just because a company calls itself a railroad doesn’t make it one. Especially, he said, when the company in question, Texas Central Railroad and Infrastructure Inc., didn’t exist until 2012 — and to this day owns no depots, locomotives, tracks or ties.


So because it isn't yet a functioning railway, it has no right to do one of the key things it must do to become a functioning railway?! :wacko: That's some catch, that Catch-22!



> In its quest to accumulate land, the company cites a state law dating to 1876 that allows a railroad to take private land in Texas for the public good, even if the railroad itself is a for-profit, private company. Such laws have been used for decades by electricity providers, river authorities and oil and gas pipeline concerns to acquire property through eminent domain.
> 
> 
> But Risinger and about three dozen other property owners situated between Dallas and Houston who have been slapped with similar lawsuits argue that the law was never intended for a bullet train.


So what makes a "bullet train" any different from the original 19th-Century railroads for which this law was precisely intended?! hboy: Which as start-up railroads may also not yet have had "depots, locomotives, tracks, or ties" when they were granted that power and (presumably) exercised it.


----------



## Bob Dylan

The Property Rights Crowd in Texas is the most Far Right Kooks in the Lone Star State, which is saying something!

They think Rick "Governor for Life" Perry was too Liberal and that all Governments are Evil to the core!

Sort of Wealthy, Know Nothing NIMBYs so to speak! ( and there's plenty of Lawyers to take their Cases! )


----------



## MattW

So buy a quarter mile worth of land, go buy a used MP15 or Alco from some scrapyard, strap a lawn mower engine to it if you have to, lay some track, and stick it to the NIMBY's.


----------



## Anderson

Honestly, were I the court my handling of the case would probably be to (since the company has made its intent clear insofar as putting in tracks) grant a _contingent_ transfer/forced buyout of the property...which is to say that if the company were to fold prior to laying tracks (or indeed were to become something other than a railroad and choose not to run trains), the land would revert to the previous owners if they so chose in exchange for partial or total remission of the price paid to them. That's all I'd give them, though.


----------



## John Bredin

*Anderson*: before you could have even a contingent condemnation, the land must be surveyed. The landowners in question are arguing that TCR has no authority to enter their land for the survey, despite a Texas statute expressly allowing it, because it's not a functioning railroad.


----------



## jis

In the past such problems were resolved by acquiring a token railroad company with a mile of narrow gauge track somewhere with a decrepit engine and a caboose


----------



## John Bredin

jis said:


> In the past such problems were resolved by acquiring a token railroad company with a mile of narrow gauge track somewhere with a decrepit engine and a caboose


But if TCR did so, the opponents of HSR would post photographs of the lousy track and ancient train online and claim them as examples of HSR as an antiquated choo-choo. It wouldn't fool rail supporters or reasonable neutral people, but it's not intended to.


----------



## cirdan

If you need to own a railroad to build a railrtoad, where did the first railroad come from?


----------



## cirdan

sorry, duplicate post my mistake. Mods, please delet this post.


----------



## printman2000

TCR has posted a section on their website called "Rumors vs Reality"

http://www.texascentral.com/rumors-vs-reality/


----------



## printman2000

http://texasrailadvocates.org/2017/02/07/texas-bullet-train-project-reaches-key-milestones-with-landowners/



> Texas Central, developers of the state’s first high-speed train, announced today that it has marked a significant milestone in its land option program, the result of collaborative and ongoing engagements with property owners and stakeholders along the project’s potential route.


----------



## saxman

This is getting heated. All the anti-train bills made it out of committee and go to the Texas Senate floor TODAY! If you live in Texas call you state senator TODAY. These bills could not only kill the TCR, but will probably stop any normal commuter rail transportation in Texas if not already built. 



> https://www.tribtalk.org/2017/04/06/the-legislatures-all-out-assault-on-passenger-trains Passenger rail as a transportation option for Texans is usually ignored by the Legislature without a second thought. Not this session. More than two dozen bills filed would not only marginalize trains for Texas but could kill off both private and public projects.






> http://www.ipi.org/ipi_issues/detail/no-basis-for-conservative-opposition-to-the-texas-central-rail-project In Texas, some conservatives wrongly think that opposition to high speed rail is a conservative principle. This is like saying that opposition to trucks, or cell phones, is a conservative principle. These may be preferences, but they aren’t principles. A principle is a timeless truth or proposition that helps us make decisions or choose behaviors. And opposition to high speed rail is not a conservative principle.


Here's a link for to the Texas Senate. Calling takes less than 5 minutes. Tell them to vote NO on Senate bills 975, 977, 979, 980 and 981


----------



## saxman

So the Texas 2017 Legislative Session has wrapped up with bill 975 and 977 passing or at least are on the governors desk to be signed. Thankfully, the other bills did not get hammered out. Senate Bill 975 involves certain security measures take place in that law enforcement must be reimbursed for any costs they must endure "securing" the line. Senate Bill 977 says that no state money can be used on high speed rail. Texas Central seems unfazed by either and maintain that the project will continue "full steam ahead." I hope they can do what they say they can in the next two years. 2019 is the next legislative session.

What concerns me now is the fact that state money can't be used for high speed rail. TxDOT has had a passenger rail division since 2009. I've yet to see actual plans from them but it sounds like if Texas were to want to build any passenger rail above 110 MPH then tough luck. Thats against the law now. I suppose up to 110 mph is good for many of other corridors and maybe one day in my lifetime we can have conventional passenger rail down the I-35 corridor, a la Illinois, California, or North Carolina.

http://www.star-telegram.com/news/traffic/your-commute/article153545889.html


----------



## jis

Well, I am almost certain that the Texas legislature will flip one or more times before the end of a lifetime of a young whippersnapper like you


----------



## Anderson

saxman said:


> So the Texas 2017 Legislative Session has wrapped up with bill 975 and 977 passing or at least are on the governors desk to be signed. Thankfully, the other bills did not get hammered out. Senate Bill 975 involves certain security measures take place in that law enforcement must be reimbursed for any costs they must endure "securing" the line. Senate Bill 977 says that no state money can be used on high speed rail. Texas Central seems unfazed by either and maintain that the project will continue "full steam ahead." I hope they can do what they say they can in the next two years. 2019 is the next legislative session.
> 
> What concerns me now is the fact that state money can't be used for high speed rail. TxDOT has had a passenger rail division since 2009. I've yet to see actual plans from them but it sounds like if Texas were to want to build any passenger rail above 110 MPH then tough luck. Thats against the law now. I suppose up to 110 mph is good for many of other corridors and maybe one day in my lifetime we can have conventional passenger rail down the I-35 corridor, a la Illinois, California, or North Carolina.
> 
> http://www.star-telegram.com/news/traffic/your-commute/article153545889.html


It depends on how the law is written. I'm sure that if there were significant will for it, someone would find a way to run a train no faster than 124.9 MPH;-)

Snark aside, 110 is pretty good...it's what FEC is doing on their shared tracks north of WPB, for example. I do suspect that if you got a successful 110 operation going somewhere that you'd find some pressure to carve out an exception if it could be bumped to 125, for example.


----------



## SanDiegan

More optimistic about this than the California project, which is likely to end up being some gold-plated grade separation improvements to San Joaquin service. Even more optimistic about the Florida project


----------



## Anderson

SanDiegan said:


> More optimistic about this than the California project, which is likely to end up being some gold-plated grade separation improvements to San Joaquin service. Even more optimistic about the Florida project


That's roughly my order of expectations. FL _is_ happening MIA-WPB and I wouldn't be surprised if that line couldn't support itself then and there (at least vis-a-vis direct operating costs...you definitely need the run to Orlando to cover the capex). TX looks likely (right now I'd say there's a 75% chance of it passing and if it were legal to do so I'd be tempted to offer making book at 4:1). CA, in the version envisioned in the referendum, is a mess. There's a path there but I don't see it happening.


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> SanDiegan said:
> 
> 
> 
> More optimistic about this than the California project, which is likely to end up being some gold-plated grade separation improvements to San Joaquin service. Even more optimistic about the Florida project
> 
> 
> 
> That's roughly my order of expectations. FL _is_ happening MIA-WPB and I wouldn't be surprised if that line couldn't support itself then and there (at least vis-a-vis direct operating costs...you definitely need the run to Orlando to cover the capex). TX looks likely (right now I'd say there's a 75% chance of it passing and if it were legal to do so I'd be tempted to offer making book at 4:1). CA, in the version envisioned in the referendum, is a mess. There's a path there but I don't see it happening.
Click to expand...

I think CA will be completed, even if maybe not within the timeline and budget. There are sections under construction and that creates momentum. Even if the initial segments will at first just be used by existing trains rerouted, the time savings will be visible and people will want to see more. Florida is taking a similarly phased approach. One of the cjhallenges in Texas is that you can't easily break the project down into standalone phases. This is why it has become an all or nothing project and this of course encorages attacks by those who wih it to end as nothing.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

The Robert Moses method is pretty tried and tested.


----------



## Anderson

The main reason I consistently hesitate about CA is the fact that the project is _so_ big (in terms of scope, cost, etc.), even compared to other "serious" HSR plans (the only ones that seriously challenge it are broad-vision projects like NEC Future) that I can see a "path to collapse" for it. In particular, with highways Moses was dealing with a mode of transportation that nobody was really questioning, etc. He was operating within a consensus but fudging the numbers. With CA there are actual "real" roadblocks to be had...

Of course, there's another possibility: Depending on what happens with the Cap and Trade funds (and how much of them there are), I can see CA eventually just throwing the authorized bond issue aside. As it is that bond issue has likely lost at least 15% of its purchasing power in the last 8-9 years (it might be more given how infrastructure inflation has tended to be) and I have to wonder if they won't just eventually decide that pursuing funding from the bonds is, after a fashion, too expensive and not practical for some set of reasons (I'm particularly thinking the hard runtime limits, which are the main sticking point).


----------



## Paulus

Anderson said:


> Of course, there's another possibility: Depending on what happens with the Cap and Trade funds (and how much of them there are), I can see CA eventually just throwing the authorized bond issue aside. As it is that bond issue has likely lost at least 15% of its purchasing power in the last 8-9 years (it might be more given how infrastructure inflation has tended to be) and I have to wonder if they won't just eventually decide that pursuing funding from the bonds is, after a fashion, too expensive and not practical for some set of reasons (I'm particularly thinking the hard runtime limits, which are the main sticking point).


To a certain extent, that's already happening. 25% of the current cap and trade revenues is being used for CAHSR.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

People might see Moses as consensus now, but in his day he was very contaversal and almost universally hated as a boss.


----------



## seat38a

Anderson said:


> The main reason I consistently hesitate about CA is the fact that the project is _so_ big (in terms of scope, cost, etc.), even compared to other "serious" HSR plans (the only ones that seriously challenge it are broad-vision projects like NEC Future) that I can see a "path to collapse" for it. In particular, with highways Moses was dealing with a mode of transportation that nobody was really questioning, etc. He was operating within a consensus but fudging the numbers. With CA there are actual "real" roadblocks to be had...
> 
> Of course, there's another possibility: Depending on what happens with the Cap and Trade funds (and how much of them there are), I can see CA eventually just throwing the authorized bond issue aside. As it is that bond issue has likely lost at least 15% of its purchasing power in the last 8-9 years (it might be more given how infrastructure inflation has tended to be) and I have to wonder if they won't just eventually decide that pursuing funding from the bonds is, after a fashion, too expensive and not practical for some set of reasons (I'm particularly thinking the hard runtime limits, which are the main sticking point).


Well CAHSR is real. The tracks are being built. I shot a video of it under construction in Fresno.

https://youtu.be/QORJh2XRQM0?t=4m36s


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Ignore


----------



## DSS&A

Texas Central Railway announced yesterday that they have awarded a Design-Build contract to complete the design work and build the railroad.

http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Texas-Central-inks-pact-with-Fluor-Lane-for-bullet-train-project--52432


----------



## Bob Dylan

DSS&A said:


> Texas Central Railway announced yesterday that they have awarded a Design-Build contract to complete the design work and build the railroad.
> 
> http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Texas-Central-inks-pact-with-Fluor-Lane-for-bullet-train-project--52432


This is Good News, ( as opposed to "Fake News") but the NIMBYs in Texas ( Land Rights, not Tree Huggers)are very strong and will be heard from!
They actually kept Governor for Life Rick Perry from getting his Highways and Toll Roads to Everywhere Scheme from getting implemented in Texas!Earler they defeated several HSR Plans in Texas!

Texas: The Best Government Money Can Buy!


----------



## frequentflyer

http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Houston-Dallas-bullet-train-clears-hurdle-with-12435074.php#photo-12466722

Clears another hurdle.


----------



## neroden

I wish them luck, but without (a) financing and (b) land acquisition complete, I'm guessing this will never happen. If it does, odds are they go bankrupt quickly, simply because their financing terms are likely to be too onerous for the slim margins of a single rail line to cover the interest (see: Channel Tunnel).


----------



## Anderson

Bob Dylan said:


> DSS&A said:
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Central Railway announced yesterday that they have awarded a Design-Build contract to complete the design work and build the railroad.
> 
> http://www.progressiverailroading.com/passenger_rail/news/Texas-Central-inks-pact-with-Fluor-Lane-for-bullet-train-project--52432
> 
> 
> 
> This is Good News, ( as opposed to "Fake News") but the NIMBYs in Texas ( Land Rights, not Tree Huggers)are very strong and will be heard from!
> They actually kept Governor for Life Rick Perry from getting his Highways and Toll Roads to Everywhere Scheme from getting implemented in Texas!Earler they defeated several HSR Plans in Texas!
> 
> Texas: The Best Government Money Can Buy!
Click to expand...

I think you forget that Southwest was also opposed to the previous HSR plans, whereas now I've gathered that they would rather use those scarce gates at DAL for something other than flights to Houston.


----------



## VentureForth

I still don't get why they wouldn't follow the I-35 --> I-10 Corridor. They'd pick up three more major Texas cities and STILL be able to get to Houston from Dallas faster than driving I-45 (That is, if they are truly a Shinkansen-level HSR).


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> I wish them luck, but without (a) financing and (b) land acquisition complete, I'm guessing this will never happen. If it does, odds are they go bankrupt quickly, simply because their financing terms are likely to be too onerous for the slim margins of a single rail line to cover the interest (see: Channel Tunnel).


The problem with the Channel Tunnel was that they were tunneling, and also that the governments of both countries kept upping safety demands which called for redesigns.

Texas Central is being built in open countryside where the situation is much more predictable and controllable.


----------



## Anderson

VentureForth said:


> I still don't get why they wouldn't follow the I-35 --> I-10 Corridor. They'd pick up three more major Texas cities and STILL be able to get to Houston from Dallas faster than driving I-45 (That is, if they are truly a Shinkansen-level HSR).


There's been at least some speculation that they might put in some sort of line in that direction down the road. The issue is that they've said they _need_ super-fast travel times to be able to really knock out the airline market (and/or to be able to claim a premium for folks not taking the highway).

Edit: Not to mention the mileage involved. Driving-wise, Dallas-Austin-Houston is 360 miles while Dallas-Houston is 240 miles. Dallas-San Antonio-Houston is 470 miles (though some of that mileage could probably be reduced if the Austin-San Antonio and San Antonio-Houston legs use the same tracks). 120-210 more miles of bullet train tracks, not to mention the costs of going into/through major cities, would probably have made the project unworkably expensive. Additionally, you're _really_ pushing travel time up with the forced routing (240 miles at 160 MPH is 1.5 hours, 360 miles at 160 MPH is 2.25 hours, and 470 miles at 160 MPH is right under three hours assuming no transfers, etc.). One straightforward market at X cost is arguably easier to deal with than a half-dozen mixed markets at 2-3x the cost.

What seems most likely is that they would eventually build an Austin-San Antonio line which meets the existing line somewhere around the equivalent of College Station (they might even run by there), but Dallas-Houston really makes sense as an MOS.


----------



## cirdan

I agree.

They need to do one thing at a time. Only government-backed railroads have the luxury of being able to plan ultra long term and provide options for future expansion and variants that may or may not be built in several decades time.

The beauty of the present proposal is that most of it is located in open countryside where land is relatively cheap and construction can be commenced and completed quickly. I have my doubts about the routing at the Houston end. Would it have been possible to serve Goeorge Bush Intercontinental Airport? Would it be possible to establish a station closer to downtown? But these are huge cost factors and also involve planning processes with long time horizons. Sometimes the better can be the greatest enemy of the good.


----------



## VentureForth

Railroads should not connect airports. That's what planes do, and is really one of the biggest irritations of flying: then having to get into town. No Japanese real line has a _major_ termine or station at an airport. They are at population centers. Both ends of this project should connect to major ground transportation hubs.


----------



## Palmetto

The French do, though. Lyon St-Exupéry comes to mind with its TGV stop.


----------



## jis

Palmetto said:


> The French do, though. Lyon St-Exupéry comes to mind with its TGV stop.


Not to mention Roissy Charles de Gaulle TGV.

The Germans do it too - Frankfurt Rhine-Main Airport Station. The Dutch do an excellent job at Schiphol. Brits want to do it at Heathrow, Birmingham and Manchester as part of HS-2. Even where there is no station on a HSR route, there is very frequent connecting service to such a station from the Airport station. This happens even in Japan, e.g. NeX from Narita to Tokyo Central.

Actually the trend is to weave the rail and air modes together so that it is possible to replace short hop flights by trains.

In the case of Orlando, the airport happens to be the biggest ground transportation hub irrespective of whether it meets everyone’s pre-conceived notion of where a ground transportation hub should be. [emoji57] It also has been in the plans for further development as a ground transportation hub from way before anyone thought of Brightline.

The only other thing that remotely resembles a transportation hub is the Lynx Central Bus Terminal which does not serve any significant intercity mode, nor is slated to.

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## cirdan

Not to metion that, at least in the French and Gerrman example, it is not just a co-loaction of facilities but there is actual cooperation, with both SNCF and DB offering code sharing on a selection of trains. I don't know how many passengers make use of that. I have been on trains in Germany where in the announcement they specifically welcomed Lufthansa passengers.


----------



## VentureForth

N'Ex to Tokyo is taking folks from the airport to the associated city center. They don't run the Shinkansen from Narita to the Osaka city center.

Yes, a fully integrated system is ideal, but there are so many government entities and bureaucracies involved that it's amazing, really, that ANYTHING gets close to being accomplished.

One fine example of cooperation was with the NM Railrunner. Folks in Santa Fe can take the commuter train to the Alvarado Transportation Center and take a coordinated bus on to the airport.


----------



## Anderson

cirdan said:


> I agree.
> 
> They need to do one thing at a time. Only government-backed railroads have the luxury of being able to plan ultra long term and provide options for future expansion and variants that may or may not be built in several decades time.
> 
> The beauty of the present proposal is that most of it is located in open countryside where land is relatively cheap and construction can be commenced and completed quickly. I have my doubts about the routing at the Houston end. Would it have been possible to serve Goeorge Bush Intercontinental Airport? Would it be possible to establish a station closer to downtown? But these are huge cost factors and also involve planning processes with long time horizons. Sometimes the better can be the greatest enemy of the good.


Well, and for all we know there's stuff on a non-public drawing board somewhere for some of these things. As an example, look at Brightline: They have _clearly_ said that while they plan to do certain things (i.e. add a Cocoa station and possibly one more somewhere along the coast, IIRC) they can't do that now since it would force them to revise their various statements and filings (even if "build two sidings and a building in the middle of a city" would have a negligible impact on the overall project aside from impacting their bottom line) since it would likely alter ridership projections and so on. Yes, the impact would almost assuredly be positive, but since there's a risk that it _could_ be negative...

Texas Central is probably in the same boat, in addition to those costs. A profitable line from "somewhere around Houston" to downtown Dallas would seem to open the door to both extensions within each metro area (downtown Houston/one of the airports on that end and DAL/DFW/Fort Worth on the other end) as well as Austin/San Antonio.


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree.
> 
> They need to do one thing at a time. Only government-backed railroads have the luxury of being able to plan ultra long term and provide options for future expansion and variants that may or may not be built in several decades time.
> 
> The beauty of the present proposal is that most of it is located in open countryside where land is relatively cheap and construction can be commenced and completed quickly. I have my doubts about the routing at the Houston end. Would it have been possible to serve Goeorge Bush Intercontinental Airport? Would it be possible to establish a station closer to downtown? But these are huge cost factors and also involve planning processes with long time horizons. Sometimes the better can be the greatest enemy of the good.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, and for all we know there's stuff on a non-public drawing board somewhere for some of these things. As an example, look at Brightline: They have _clearly_ said that while they plan to do certain things (i.e. add a Cocoa station and possibly one more somewhere along the coast, IIRC) they can't do that now since it would force them to revise their various statements and filings (even if "build two sidings and a building in the middle of a city" would have a negligible impact on the overall project aside from impacting their bottom line) since it would likely alter ridership projections and so on. Yes, the impact would almost assuredly be positive, but since there's a risk that it _could_ be negative...
> 
> Texas Central is probably in the same boat, in addition to those costs. A profitable line from "somewhere around Houston" to downtown Dallas would seem to open the door to both extensions within each metro area (downtown Houston/one of the airports on that end and DAL/DFW/Fort Worth on the other end) as well as Austin/San Antonio.
Click to expand...

this, absolutely


----------



## Rover

For Amtrak users coming from the east arriving in Houston at 618PM on the Sunset Limited, they could connect with the TC, and be in Dallas by 9PM or earlier.

But coming from the west, it would just be easier for Amtrak users to get off in San Antonio and wait to leave at 7AM to get to Dallas by 320PM.

I am hoping that the TC will have departures as late as 12:30am, so you could see a concert or sporting event, and still get back home, without having to book a room. I know there's the non-stop buses between Houston and Dallas, but I don't know the times.

I'd rather ride for 1 1/2 hours than for 5 hours on the bus.


----------



## Rover

Anderson said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> I still don't get why they wouldn't follow the I-35 --> I-10 Corridor. They'd pick up three more major Texas cities and STILL be able to get to Houston from Dallas faster than driving I-45 (That is, if they are truly a Shinkansen-level HSR).
> 
> 
> 
> There's been at least some speculation that they might put in some sort of line in that direction down the road. The issue is that they've said they _need_ super-fast travel times to be able to really knock out the airline market (and/or to be able to claim a premium for folks not taking the highway).
> 
> Edit: Not to mention the mileage involved. Driving-wise, Dallas-Austin-Houston is 360 miles while Dallas-Houston is 240 miles. Dallas-San Antonio-Houston is 470 miles (though some of that mileage could probably be reduced if the Austin-San Antonio and San Antonio-Houston legs use the same tracks). 120-210 more miles of bullet train tracks, not to mention the costs of going into/through major cities, would probably have made the project unworkably expensive. Additionally, you're _really_ pushing travel time up with the forced routing (240 miles at 160 MPH is 1.5 hours, 360 miles at 160 MPH is 2.25 hours, and 470 miles at 160 MPH is right under three hours assuming no transfers, etc.). One straightforward market at X cost is arguably easier to deal with than a half-dozen mixed markets at 2-3x the cost.
> 
> What seems most likely is that they would eventually build an Austin-San Antonio line which meets the existing line somewhere around the equivalent of College Station (they might even run by there), but Dallas-Houston really makes sense as an MOS.
Click to expand...

The TC website says they'll be traveling at 205mph. I assume they'll lay out the route so that the train does have to ever slow down from 205mph, until they approach the station. It also said they'll likely add a stop in Brazos county, later, for Texas A&M traffic.

Any spurs to Austin or San Antonio, if they come, will come after the backbone Houston to Dallas line is built.

Fluor is the designer and Lane is the constructor. I think they'll get the job done right the first time...


----------



## VentureForth

With all the images of the N700 Series Shinkansen stock they are talking about using, I'm almost hoping they'll throw in a Mt Fuji along the route for free.


----------



## Bob Dylan

VentureForth said:


> With all the images of the N700 Series Shinkansen stock they are talking about using, I'm almost hoping they'll throw in a Mt Fuji along the route for free.


ROTFLMAO!Not much to see in this part of Texas except Farmland and Prisons!


----------



## jis

Maybe they can position a suitable garbage dump hill shaped like Mount Fuji, next to the tracks.


----------



## Rover

jis said:


> Maybe they can position a suitable garbage dump hill shaped like Mount Fuji, next to the tracks.


They could dig under Bardwell Lake, and have Mt. Fuji mosaics in the tunnel.


----------



## me_little_me

Or better yet, they could actually build a railroad before 2100.


----------



## Rover

me_little_me said:


> Or better yet, they could actually build a railroad before 2100.


It's gonna be finished around 2020.

This isn't CA or HI!!!


----------



## WoodyinNYC

SanDiegan said:


> More optimistic about this than the California project ...


Best thing that could happen to California HSR would be for Texas HSR to get finished first.

The Golden State won't stand for being left behind by its rival Lone Star state.


----------



## Steve4031

They could take a picture of a bullet train with a high school or college football stadium in the background. That's Texas

Sent from my iPhone using Amtrak Forum


----------



## AlamoWye

Nice news about both Amtrak and the Texas Central:

https://www.texascentral.com/2018/05/04/texas-central-amtrak-reach-agreement-to-link-bullet-train-and-amtraks-interstate-passenger-network/

I really hope Texas can get this done. Trying to drive between major Texas cities is dreadful and with all the new options with driver services and, probably, driverless vehicles, getting around will be so much easier just when my driving abilities will be getting much more difficult (age!).


----------



## printman2000

AlamoWye said:


> Nice news about both Amtrak and the Texas Central:
> 
> https://www.texascentral.com/2018/05/04/texas-central-amtrak-reach-agreement-to-link-bullet-train-and-amtraks-interstate-passenger-network/
> 
> I really hope Texas can get this done. Trying to drive between major Texas cities is dreadful and with all the new options with driver services and, probably, driverless vehicles, getting around will be so much easier just when my driving abilities will be getting much more difficult (age!).


Assuming the national network is still around when they are complete.


----------



## Rover

printman2000 said:


> AlamoWye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice news about both Amtrak and the Texas Central:
> 
> https://www.texascentral.com/2018/05/04/texas-central-amtrak-reach-agreement-to-link-bullet-train-and-amtraks-interstate-passenger-network/
> 
> I really hope Texas can get this done. Trying to drive between major Texas cities is dreadful and with all the new options with driver services and, probably, driverless vehicles, getting around will be so much easier just when my driving abilities will be getting much more difficult (age!).
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming the national network is still around when they are complete.
Click to expand...

Texans are going to do intrastate rail whether it's National, or not.


----------



## printman2000

Rover said:


> printman2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlamoWye said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice news about both Amtrak and the Texas Central:
> 
> https://www.texascentral.com/2018/05/04/texas-central-amtrak-reach-agreement-to-link-bullet-train-and-amtraks-interstate-passenger-network/
> 
> I really hope Texas can get this done. Trying to drive between major Texas cities is dreadful and with all the new options with driver services and, probably, driverless vehicles, getting around will be so much easier just when my driving abilities will be getting much more difficult (age!).
> 
> 
> 
> Assuming the national network is still around when they are complete.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Texans are going to do intrastate rail whether it's National, or not.
Click to expand...

The article referenced was concerning the high speed connecting with Amtrak’s national network. I was not commenting on if the Texas Central would be completed or not.


----------



## me_little_me

Houston to Dallas at a zillion miles an hour. Dallas to El Paso at 12mph.


----------



## Pere Flyer

me_little_me said:


> Houston to Dallas at a zillion miles an hour. Dallas to El Paso at 12mph.


Maybe such a transfer would compel Texans to pressure their U.S. Congresspersons to fund improvements to the TE route.


----------



## bretton88

Pere Flyer said:


> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> 
> Houston to Dallas at a zillion miles an hour. Dallas to El Paso at 12mph.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe such a transfer would compel Texans to pressure their U.S. Congresspersons to fund improvements to the TE route.
Click to expand...

More likely a re-evaluation of the Texas Triangle route, which would make total sense.


----------



## MikefromCrete

bretton88 said:


> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> 
> Houston to Dallas at a zillion miles an hour. Dallas to El Paso at 12mph.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe such a transfer would compel Texans to pressure their U.S. Congresspersons to fund improvements to the TE route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More likely a re-evaluation of the Texas Triangle route, which would make total sense.
Click to expand...

The more likely scenario will be if Dallas-Houston is successful, then Houston-San Antonio and Dallas-San Antonio will be next on their expansion list.


----------



## Palmetto

Has the quote function stopped working?


----------



## Anderson

MikefromCrete said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> 
> Houston to Dallas at a zillion miles an hour. Dallas to El Paso at 12mph.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe such a transfer would compel Texans to pressure their U.S. Congresspersons to fund improvements to the TE route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More likely a re-evaluation of the Texas Triangle route, which would make total sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more likely scenario will be if Dallas-Houston is successful, then Houston-San Antonio and Dallas-San Antonio will be next on their expansion list.
Click to expand...

What seems likely (to me, at least) is a San Antonio-Austin-[somewhere in the middle of the existing route] line. You'd have an expensive junction to accommodate San Antonio-Dallas and San Antonio-Houston trains, but doing so probably saves you something like 50-70 miles of track construction (at a minimum). There's a reasonable chance that adding San Antonio and Austin together (to Houston) at the cost of adding 10-15 minutes to travel time would do better than "just" San Antonio-Houston. Granted, you would ideally find a way to serve Waco, etc. along the I-35 corridor, but I suspect that San Antonio/Austin/College Station would be more than sufficient to support the line in question.


----------



## me_little_me

MikefromCrete said:


> bretton88 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pere Flyer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> 
> Houston to Dallas at a zillion miles an hour. Dallas to El Paso at 12mph.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe such a transfer would compel Texans to pressure their U.S. Congresspersons to fund improvements to the TE route.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> More likely a re-evaluation of the Texas Triangle route, which would make total sense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The more likely scenario will be if Dallas-Houston is successful, then Houston-San Antonio and Dallas-San Antonio will be next on their expansion list.
Click to expand...

Long after I'm dead.


----------



## AlamoWye

So it seems like this Amtrak agreement with Texas Central was put out this early so that Texas Central can operate under federal rules of the STB instead. The STB had ruled a couple of years ago that since Texas Central was only intrastate that it was subject to Texas' rules and not under STB jurisdiction. By being under federal rules it "might" make it easier to get some of the recalcitrant counties less resistant because their complaints would have to be heard at the federal level, whereas previously State and local legislation were being passed to kill the route.

But who knows in these days where the federal government is changing so dramatically with its oversight.


----------



## DSS&A

The train operator has been chosen for this service.

https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/texas-hsr-selects-renfe-adif-of-spain-as-strategic-partner/?RAchannel=news


----------



## bretton88

DSS&A said:


> The train operator has been chosen for this service.
> 
> https://www.railwayage.com/passenger/texas-hsr-selects-renfe-adif-of-spain-as-strategic-partner/?RAchannel=news


They sure have all the right people on board for this project.


----------



## Rover

Channel 8 sent over a reporter to Japan to look into HS Bullet Trains. You'll have to Goggle it to find the report. Just wanted you to know.


----------



## cirdan

Rover said:


> I am hoping that the TC will have departures as late as 12:30am, so you could see a concert or sporting event, and still get back home, without having to book a room. I know there's the non-stop buses between Houston and Dallas, but I don't know the times.


I'm not sure about late night timings, but on the whole the Greyhound between Houston and Dallas is fine. Done it several times.

The Greyhound sttaion in Dallas is right in the middle, about a block from Union Station and also DART connected and within easy walking distance of several attractions.

In Hoston the Greyhound station is slightly more peripheral but at least reachable by METRO train.

So I guess that Texas Central adopting a similar concept has a precedent


----------



## Anderson

If they carbon-copy the Japanese model, operations would stop at about midnight (so last departure a bit before 2300) and restart at 0600 (first arrival around 0730).  Of course, it may well be determined that this can be "fudged" a bit on certain days.


----------



## frequentflyer

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/05/10/worlds-fastest-shinkansen-bullet-train-starts-test/

May find its way here in Texas


----------



## DSS&A

Texas Central announced it has signed a Design-Build construction contract for the viaduct and civil work. This work includes earthwork, bridge viaducts, track and maintenance buildings!!


https://www.progressiverailroading....uild-contract-for-bullet-train-project--58588


----------



## neroden

Looks like it's actually happening. Texas Central seems to think they actually have enough financing to build the thing.

(As of a year ago. https://www.virtualbx.com/industry-...tners-llc-secures-financing-for-bullet-train/ )

They are still awaiting environmental clearance (not a given), safety clearance (a given), and any wrenches which local governments or landowners might throw in the works (which could drive prices up and require more funding). Entire systems have gotten killed due to land acquisition problems or local government hostility.

Cross fingers...


----------



## Rover

*Texas High-Speed Train Is ‘Shovel Ready'*

*"It is shovel ready, without a doubt," CEO Carlos Aguilar said*

https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Texas-High-Speed-Train-is-Shovel-Ready-565182232.html


----------



## v v

This is very exciting for Texas and the USA


----------



## Palmetto

They have selected Mass Electric Kiewit to do the work on some of the infrastructure: catenary, signals, etc. Details as to exactly what are being worked on.


----------



## west point

What happened to the judge's decision last spring saying Texas Central was not yet a RR ?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

v v said:


> This is very exciting for Texas and the USA


Many shovel-ready projects have been killed in the past. If and when a revenue train completes a run it will be exciting, but we're still a long way from that.


----------



## v v

Devil's Advocate said:


> Many shovel-ready projects have been killed in the past. If and when a revenue train completes a run it will be exciting, but we're still a long way from that.



But at least there is hope.

I think the train proposed is the later version of the Taiwan train, and of the 6 types I've used so far it was the most exciting, there was a sense of speed. This may in part be down to the type and location of the track, or that it wasn't completely silent running?


----------



## DSS&A

Texas Central just released information about the passenger car interior seating arrangement for their new trains.

https://www.railjournal.com/passeng...veils-interior-layout-for-us-high-speed-fleet


----------



## cocojacoby

And they apparently are not as lazy as Amtrak's designers in forcing half of us to ride backwards at 160+ mph!


----------



## Devil's Advocate

cocojacoby said:


> And they apparently are not as lazy as Amtrak's designers in forcing half of us to ride backwards at 160+ mph!


Amtrak said the choice to use unmovable hardware was a cost cutting move, and I have no problem with that decision so long as they discount backward facing seats so affected customers can share in the savings.


----------



## jis

cocojacoby said:


> And they apparently are not as lazy as Amtrak's designers in forcing half of us to ride backwards at 160+ mph!


AFAIK Amtrak does not have any seat designers. The Amfleet cars that run with half the seats facing each way have seats that can turn. It is an operational decision to run them that way.

New cars, like the Brightline cars are the ones that have been ordered pretty much off the shelf with European seats and European layouts that have truly fixed seats. Amtrak has nothing to do with those. The states are basically buying them off the shelf as is. States apparently have no compunctions about such things since many of them already run many commuter trains with fixed seats. And Floridians so far seem to not be upset about the Brightline trains either.

The FRA got into the act by outlawing the flip over bench seats as were found on NJT, so NJT went for fixed seats in all their new orders. However, I do not believe the FRA order applies to swing around seats, but I could be wrong about that.

One thing good about the Brightline seats is that they do not have the "seat recline into the lap of the person behind" problem by design. I am not sure that it would be impossible to design seat pairs with this feature that are also capable of swinging around, but it will add considerable weight and possibly some complexity and maintenance headaches for the electrical connections that go with some of those seats.


----------



## peteypablo

Both high speed brands in Italy, Trenitalia and Italo, have carriages where half of the seats are facing forwards and half backwards. I think they do this because there are so many stations where they pull in and back out (Napoli Centrale, Roma Termini, Firenze SMN, Milano Centrale), with virtually no distinction between front and back of the train. So, you're going backwards during one leg and forwards during the next. There's no way to know, when you buy the ticket, which way your seat will face during any part of the journey.


----------



## MARC Rider

The Man is seat 61 says the following about forward-facing seats: (you'll have to scroll down to the section on how to reserve forward-facing seats.)

"I know from experience that American visitors in particular (if you'll forgive me for saying so) are obsessed with facing forwards. Europeans less so, as we are used to trains with half the seats facing one way, half the other, and we know that it's no big deal as trains run smoothly on rails - think cruise liner restaurant, where half the diners are going backwards at 18 knots without noticing!"

I think that if Americans want high speed rail, they're going to have to get used to the possibility of sitting facing backwards.


----------



## cocojacoby

Apparently the Japanese are more clever than we are:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/...u-know-about-Japans-rotating-train-seats.html


----------



## Asher

Rover said:


> *Texas High-Speed Train Is ‘Shovel Ready'*
> 
> *"It is shovel ready, without a doubt," CEO Carlos Aguilar said*
> 
> https://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Texas-High-Speed-Train-is-Shovel-Ready-565182232.html


The term shovel ready is a little scary. As in what happened to the HS Train in California when Governor Gavin Newsom buried it. Although, without a mountain to climb you're probably good to go.


----------



## John Santos

cocojacoby said:


> Apparently the Japanese are more clever than we are:
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/...u-know-about-Japans-rotating-train-seats.html


They make you register and seem to want credit card info. I closed the tab when that popped up.


----------



## Anderson

To be fair, in a number of cases since we're "starting fresh" (or close enough to it) we can avoid some of the mid-trip stub-end-station issues that come up...but there are some cases where it can't be helped (e.g. transiting NYP from PHL-ALB). In a number of European countries, I think part of the issue is dealing with having inherited constricted/stub-end stations. Also, there are a few cities (London, Paris) where you have "lots of terminals and nothing runs through" (London is slowly working through this; Paris...not so much).


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> Also, there are a few cities (London, Paris) where you have "lots of terminals and nothing runs through" (London is slowly working through this; Paris...not so much).



Actually, I am under the impression that Paris has done much more to relieve the situation than London.

For suburban services there is the RER which is basically a collection of inherited suburban lines that have been interconnected by a series of (mostly) new-build tunnels going under the heart of Paris, meaning that suburban trains that start in say the northern suburbs can run through into the southern suburbs while making several stops in the deep heart of Paris. Of course there are still quite a few suburban trains that do end in the old terminus stations, but you can't really compare this to London where there is only one line that runs through and where there will soon be a second, but even after that opens the vast majority of commuters and the vast majority of terminus stations will remain unaffected.

For Intercity trains the picture is similar. In London I cannot think of one single Intercity train service that serves London without terminating there. There was at one time talk of running trains from places like Manchester and Birmingham through to Paris, and the terminus of Eurostar was moved from Waterloo to St Pancras for this purpose, but the rest of the plan was not followed upon and probably never will be, at least not within the next 20 or 30 years.

In Paris, a high speed by-pass was built in circa 1990s serving Charles de Gaulle airport, and there are now numerous TGVs that connect cities in the north to cities in the south. Even seasonal trains from London.


----------



## neroden

west point said:


> What happened to the judge's decision last spring saying Texas Central was not yet a RR ?


Contradicted a ruling that it was a railroad from a different lower court, so they're going to appeals court. I am quite certain Texas Central will win; the ruling claiming it wasn't a railroad because it wasn't up and running yet has no basis in law, as most of the 19th century railroads who used eminent domain weren't up and running when they used it.


----------



## me_little_me

MARC Rider said:


> The Man is seat 61 says the following about forward-facing seats: (you'll have to scroll down to the section on how to reserve forward-facing seats.)
> 
> "I know from experience that American visitors in particular (if you'll forgive me for saying so) are obsessed with facing forwards. Europeans less so, as we are used to trains with half the seats facing one way, half the other, and we know that it's no big deal as trains run smoothly on rails - think cruise liner restaurant, where half the diners are going backwards at 18 knots without noticing!"
> 
> I think that if Americans want high speed rail, they're going to have to get used to the possibility of sitting facing backwards.


For some, like my wife, riding backwards is nauseating. When we traveled in Europe and reserved seats, it was interesting trying to explain to some agents that we wanted to sit side by side facing forward for that reason. Of course, that was in the old days of wooden ships and iron men!

On our Brightline trip, we had to get the ticket agent to change our seats.


----------



## John Bredin

The Rail Passengers Association (ex-NARP) reported Friday that a group of GOP legislators with support from an anti-rail group are attempting to have U.S. DOT pull the regulatory rug out from under the Texas Central, using the coronavirus emergency as a fig-leaf for their general desire to kill the project.

Hopefully, RPA is correct that it's a hail-Mary pass, as these yahoos have failed in their efforts so far, but it sounds like this matter hasn't been as high as the desk of the Sec'y of Transportation until now. Considering who's Chaos's Chao's husband -- Mitch McConnell, obstructionist extraordinaire -- I wouldn't be so sanguine.

RPA Hotline containing story.


----------



## DSS&A

Texas Centeal wins a very important Appeals Court ruling which stated that it is legally a railroad. This ruling overturned a lower court ruling.









Texas Central is a railroad, court rules | Trains Magazine


News Wire Digest for May 8: Deal for Denver's Burnham Yard in jeopardy; LA Metro to require face coverings




trn.trains.com


----------



## Devil's Advocate

DSS&A said:


> Texas Centeal wins a very important Appeals Court ruling which stated that it is legally a railroad. This ruling overturned a lower court ruling.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Texas Central is a railroad, court rules | Trains Magazine
> 
> 
> News Wire Digest for May 8: Deal for Denver's Burnham Yard in jeopardy; LA Metro to require face coverings
> 
> 
> 
> 
> trn.trains.com


This is good news but the anti-rail lobby will never give up and there are more appeals and delays where this came from. Texas Central had to layoff 28 staff in response to the pandemic while the anti-rail lobby has expanded to 28 zero-tolerance legislators undaunted by any setbacks and salivating over the chance to kill high speed rail in a newly purple state still dominated by cowboy logic, severe gerrymandering, and rural favoritism.



> Texans Against High-Speed Rail [...] released a statement saying the couple intends to appeal to the state supreme court. [...] The court win comes as Texas Central scaled back its current staff in the state, citing the effects of COVID-19 on global economies. Critics, including Rep. Kevin Brady, R-The Woodlands, said reducing staff demonstrated the project — long assailed by rural residents who say it will ruin their way of life — was losing momentum.


*Link...*



> In two separate letters to U.S. Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao, 28 state lawmakers and two members of Congress said work by the Federal Railroad Administration on the Texas Central Railway project — which has faced stiff opposition for six years even as Dallas and Houston officials showed support — should stop entirely.


*Link...*


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> Contradicted a ruling that it was a railroad from a different lower court, so they're going to appeals court. I am quite certain Texas Central will win; the ruling claiming it wasn't a railroad because it wasn't up and running yet has no basis in law, as most of the 19th century railroads who used eminent domain weren't up and running when they used it.



Yes, this would seem so obvious. Makes you wonder why the court didn't see it that way. Surely any lawyer who had done minimal preparatory research should have spotted that argument and brought it up.


----------



## Bob Dylan

cirdan said:


> Yes, this would seem so obvious. Makes you wonder why the court didn't see it that way. Surely any lawyer who had done minimal preparatory research should have spotted that argument and brought it up.


Texas has LOTS and Lots of Lawyers, in other words Lots of Bad Lawyers, especially in the Courts here.( they're Elected and Politics is what matters, not Legal Competence.)

Our Supreme Court is noted for always siding with Corporations so the Texas Central should prevail.


----------



## nullptr

It appears that the FRA published the FEIS for the Texas Central project









EIS Advances Texas High-Speed Train Project - Texas Central


On May 29, 2020, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) published the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) for the Texas High-Speed Train project, a regulatory milestone that ensures the state-of-the-art system will be built in a way that minimizes impacts to landowners and the...




www.texascentral.com


----------



## jadebenn

Hey, we finally get some unredacted ridership projections!



EIS said:


> As estimated by the proprietary market demand study undertaken by TCRR, the projected HSR ridership in 2029 is 6.4 million passengers per year. The 2029 forecast year is provided to assess initial operations since this reflects the third year of operations and considers initial introduction and market adoption. The long-term forecast for HSR ridership in the Future Build 2040 analysis year is 9.9 million passengers per year.


Those numbers are _incredibly_ high for an American train service but... kind of low for an HSR service of this caliber?

I dunno. Maybe they're just being conservative, but this route would absolutely _cream_ every other HSR route in the world when it comes to average speed (and it wouldn't do bad on peak speed either). I'd personally think that'd drive more ridership.


----------



## Green Maned Lion

To drive more ridership, you’d need more people to want to be in Texas. Few are so crazy.


----------



## nullptr

jadebenn said:


> Hey, we finally get some unredacted ridership projections!
> 
> 
> Those numbers are _incredibly_ high for an American train service but... kind of low for an HSR service of this caliber?
> 
> I dunno. Maybe they're just being conservative, but this route would absolutely _cream_ every other HSR route in the world when it comes to average speed (and it wouldn't do bad on peak speed either). I'd personally think that'd drive more ridership.




I spent some time in the Houston area a while back and knew some people who would commute for two hours each way, going from one side of Houston to the other. You would think this service would attract some daily commuters between the two cities, but maybe I'm underestimating Texans' love for sitting in traffic.


----------



## me_little_me

Green Maned Lion said:


> To drive more ridership, you’d need more people to want to be in Texas. Few are so crazy.


I worked in El Paso for 12 years and lived in southern NM even though I had to pay income taxes (none in Texas) on my Texas income.
I may have pushed people in wheelchairs onto the tracks and throw rocks at the poor but I did have some morals. I'd NEVER become a Texan.
In fact while spending 10 years in the military stationed in NM, I considered myself to be defending the United States from the barbarians just to the east.


----------



## Bob Dylan

me_little_me said:


> I worked in El Paso for 12 years and lived in southern NM even though I had to pay income taxes (none in Texas) on my Texas income.
> I may have pushed people in wheelchairs onto the tracks and throw rocks at the poor but I did have some morals. I'd NEVER become a Texan.
> In fact while spending 10 years in the military stationed in NM, I considered myself to be defending the United States from the barbarians just to the east.


funny we feel the same about Okies and people from California! lol


----------



## Anderson

I have not read the report yet… I will get to that later this evening… but I believe those numbers really depend on connectivity at the endpoints. On the Dallas end, that looks good. Houston leaves something to be desired.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Anderson said:


> I have not read the report yet… I will get to that later this evening… but I believe those numbers really depend on connectivity at the endpoints. On the Dallas end, that looks good. Houston leaves something to be desired.


If the Texas Rail is to succeed, the connection points at city centers need to be convenient for incoming passengers to step across the track and get the local to just about anywhere. Dallas has this but as you can see in the pic below, Houston's Amtrak Station is in an industrial wasteland.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

In contrast, Dallas Amtrak is well connected with local rail and is surrounded by hotels, restaurants, parks, and a vibrant downtown... passing through there last year on the Texas Eagle I decided this would be a great vacation destination town; as is San Antonio. Also note the transit map below... Dallas is a forward thinking city!


----------



## Bob Dylan

Plus you failed to mention that Houston has some of the worst traffic in the Country,the poorest Public Transit and some of the worst Polution to go along with a terrible Climate.


----------



## joelkfla

20th Century Rider said:


> If the Texas Rail is to succeed, the connection points at city centers need to be convenient for incoming passengers to step across the track and get the local to just about anywhere. Dallas has this but as you can see in the pic below, Houston's Amtrak Station is in an industrial wasteland.
> 
> View attachment 17759


I don't think that would be a deal killer.

If the HSR is efficient and otherwise convenient, people would be willing to use taxis, Uber, or Lyft for the last mile.

And if there's some existing local transit hub, and the government doesn't step up with a connector, a local charter bus operator might deem it worthwhile to start up a shuttle service.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

Two other forward thinking cities with impressive light rail systems are Denver and St. Louis. In both cities the Amtrak station is downtown and light rail is adjacent; as are eating places and hotels. Both cities struggled with urban renewal and deserve an applause; In the photo below you can see a St. Louis light rail station located near Amtrak; which takes you to the old restored St. Louis Union Station; fun place with shops and hotels. I lived in St. Louis for 30 years; went to grad school at Washington University and taught in the public school system. They really worked hard at rebuilding!


----------



## 20th Century Rider

joelkfla said:


> I don't think that would be a deal killer.
> 
> If the HSR is efficient and otherwise convenient, people would be willing to use taxis, Uber, or Lyft for the last mile.
> 
> And if there's some existing local transit hub, and the government doesn't step up with a connector, a local charter bus operator might deem it worthwhile to start up a shuttle service.


Good point... we need positive thinking to keep the momentum of urban renewal going strong!


----------



## cirdan

20th Century Rider said:


> In contrast, Dallas Amtrak is well connected with local rail and is surrounded by hotels, restaurants, parks, and a vibrant downtown... passing through there last year on the Texas Eagle I decided this would be a great vacation destination town; as is San Antonio. Also note the transit map below... Dallas is a forward thinking city!
> 
> View attachment 17760
> 
> 
> View attachment 17761



I guess to be fair here, that Dallas had it easier. Dallas Union Station had thru running tracks rather than requiring a reversal as in the old Houston station. Some of the tracks in Dallas are still used by UPRR for freight and so I guess the station was less at risk of being abandoned than at Houston. It is still sad that the grand old building in Houston is no longer is used as a station, but I guess at least it survives and is cared for, which is more than can be said of many grand old stations. The location would have been ideal today, with the rebirth of downtown and the proximity to the convention center and other popular downtown venues. Better situated than Dallas even. But I guess what is gone is gone and the clock cannot be turned back.

There was at one time a plan in Houston to relocate the Amtrak station to somewhere by UH downtown university, which would have created a direct interchange with the Red Line. It is a pity that plan was never followed up. But I expect that in the longer term, the success of downtown Houston will spill over and the area around the present station will be upgraded too.

In terms of light rail, of course the DART system is much bigger and serves more places. But Houston's system is not bad either, and apparently has one of the highest per-mile ridership's of any US light rail system. At least as far as the Red Line is concerned. 

I agree that it is a missed opportunity that Texas Central are not seeking to connect to any existing passenger rail system on the Houston end. But on the other hand, building a station and the approach line in any location where that would be possible would cause the costs to balloon and possibly kill the project. Dallas is a special situation making it easy.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

20th Century Rider said:


> Good point... we need positive thinking to keep the momentum of urban renewal going strong!


Positive thinking is fine but it's positive action that creates momentum. Personally I wish there was more information from RPA members (and similar groups) helping us to understand what is at stake this week/month and what we can do to help support their pro-rail initiatives and defend against anti-rail attacks. I receive general information by email but having a more open dialog with insider resources could be helpful for generating interest and understanding how to improve our effectiveness.


----------



## printman2000

20th Century Rider said:


> If the Texas Rail is to succeed, the connection points at city centers need to be convenient for incoming passengers to step across the track and get the local to just about anywhere. Dallas has this but as you can see in the pic below, Houston's Amtrak Station is in an industrial wasteland.
> 
> View attachment 17759


I could be wrong, but I do not think that they are planning to use the Amtrak station in Houston for HSR. It is planned to use an area in the 290/610 interchange.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

printman2000 said:


> I could be wrong, but I do not think that they are planning to use the Amtrak station in Houston for HSR. It is planned to use an area in the 290/610 interchange.


It will be interesting to see what actually happens; with hopefully a cooperative effort between government agencies and the private sector. Deep back in my mind I am thinking progress inevitable, given the need for alternative high speed transportation, and a precedent which has been set by other developed countries.


----------



## saxman

Green Maned Lion said:


> To drive more ridership, you’d need more people to want to be in Texas. Few are so crazy.



Well percentage wise, Texas is the second fastest growing state in the country so lots of crazy folk going there.

While endpoint connections are important, Texas Central plans to be more like an airline and capture the huge business market between DFW and Houston. They are not really planning on having huge connections from Amtrak's slow LD trains, even though Amtrak will do the ticketing for them. They are really planning on partnering with Lyft for last mile transportation. In Dallas, it'll be easier to hop on DART, but DART only goes so many places. Many will just opt for Uber/Lyft just like they do at many airports with poor transit connections. It's a shame, because Uber/Lyft has been proven to worsen traffic congestion and reduces transit use. While DFW has made great strides in light/commuter rail expansion, its coverage is still skeletal to the area at best. The Metroplex is 6 million people and covers an area larger than Connecticut and rail transit only covers a tiny portion of that.

Houston's terminus will be near 610/290 at the Galleria area. It's somewhat close to downtown. It'll have some bus connections, and there are some long term light rail plans, but again, most people will have to use a car to get the last few miles. Houston's Metro transit is pretty decent within the 610 loop as that is what they are concentrating on.


----------



## 20th Century Rider

saxman said:


> Well percentage wise, Texas is the second fastest growing state in the country so lots of crazy folk going there.
> 
> While endpoint connections are important, Texas Central plans to be more like an airline and capture the huge business market between DFW and Houston. They are not really planning on having huge connections from Amtrak's slow LD trains, even though Amtrak will do the ticketing for them. They are really planning on partnering with Lyft for last mile transportation. In Dallas, it'll be easier to hop on DART, but DART only goes so many places. Many will just opt for Uber/Lyft just like they do at many airports with poor transit connections. It's a shame, because Uber/Lyft has been proven to worsen traffic congestion and reduces transit use. While DFW has made great strides in light/commuter rail expansion, its coverage is still skeletal to the area at best. The Metroplex is 6 million people and covers an area larger than Connecticut and rail transit only covers a tiny portion of that.
> 
> Houston's terminus will be near 610/290 at the Galleria area. It's somewhat close to downtown. It'll have some bus connections, and there are some long term light rail plans, but again, most people will have to use a car to get the last few miles. Houston's Metro transit is pretty decent within the 610 loop as that is what they are concentrating on.


Houston has a massive population... and although spread out, so are many other large cities such as LA. I can see Texas Central pairing with Uber and having local transit links at the station to make it work. Folks will be making a choice between driving on the interstate, taking the plane, or going by train. With so many traveling these city pairs any percentages will bring large numbers. If the train is fast, comfortable, and affordable, many will indeed recognize the advantage.


----------



## jadebenn

saxman said:


> They are not really planning on having huge connections from Amtrak's slow LD trains, even though Amtrak will do the ticketing for them.


Yeah. I think their study (it's in the EIS) predicted something like 20,000 a _year_ from the Amtrak LD trains. That's a drop in the bucket when they're predicting millions of riders overall.


----------



## cirdan

saxman said:


> Houston's terminus will be near 610/290 at the Galleria area. It's somewhat close to downtown. It'll have some bus connections, and there are some long term light rail plans, but again, most people will have to use a car to get the last few miles. Houston's Metro transit is pretty decent within the 610 loop as that is what they are concentrating on.



On past visits to Houston I have riden the bus from downtown to the Galleria and it's really quite OK. It's cheap and it's fast and the driver was friendly and told me where to get off. I wouldn't know what to criticize about it really.

But unfortuantely many people won't be seen dead in a bus so there is an acceptance barrier there.

It's a pity the plans to put a light rail line out that way were put on hold.


----------



## Rover

I thought I posted this already, but here's an update on the rail line...









Texas Central Railroad reaches two milestones for Nation’s first high-speed train


The high speed train between Dallas and Houston is one step closer to being a reality.




www.kbtx.com


----------



## frequentflyer

What Was Behind Greg Abbott’s Bullet Train Flip-flop?


Rural Texans have long accepted that strips of their land might be acquired to build oil pipelines and highways. But the prospect of a high-speed rail line has sparked a whole different level of outrage.




www.texasmonthly.com





Woah woah Shaggy.


----------



## MARC Rider

frequentflyer said:


> What Was Behind Greg Abbott’s Bullet Train Flip-flop?
> 
> 
> Rural Texans have long accepted that strips of their land might be acquired to build oil pipelines and highways. But the prospect of a high-speed rail line has sparked a whole different level of outrage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texasmonthly.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Woah woah Shaggy.


Well, obviously some creative thinking is needed. When Walt Disney went to central Florida to buy land for what became Walt Disney World, his agents buying the land were very careful to not let the buyers know that it was a deep-pockets developer buying land for a big development. This was done, of course, to keep land prices from increasing rapidly.

In the case of Texas, it seems easier. Just tell the local landowners that you're buying the land to build a highway. That should find wide acceptance among the land sellers. Then, once all the land has been acquired, get a whole bunch of environmental activists to start agitating against the evil highway (or make it an oil or gas pipeline if there's already a highway in the area). Then just change your mind and build a railway instead, now that you own the right of way free and clear.


----------



## railiner

MARC Rider said:


> Well, obviously some creative thinking is needed. When Walt Disney went to central Florida to buy land for what became Walt Disney World, his agents buying the land were very careful to not let the buyers know that it was a deep-pockets developer buying land for a big development. This was done, of course, to keep land prices from increasing rapidly.
> 
> In the case of Texas, it seems easier. Just tell the local landowners that you're buying the land to build a highway. That should find wide acceptance among the land sellers. Then, once all the land has been acquired, get a whole bunch of environmental activists to start agitating against the evil highway (or make it an oil or gas pipeline if there's already a highway in the area). Then just change your mind and build a railway instead, now that you own the right of way free and clear.


Why not just find a way to build it in the I-45 right-of-way?


----------



## John Bredin

frequentflyer said:


> What Was Behind Greg Abbott’s Bullet Train Flip-flop?
> 
> 
> Rural Texans have long accepted that strips of their land might be acquired to build oil pipelines and highways. But the prospect of a high-speed rail line has sparked a whole different level of outrage.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.texasmonthly.com


What an exasperating farrago of BS thrown at this project! As the article notes, these rural landowners have had various corridors (highways, pipelines, electric transmission lines) plowed across their land by eminent domain, but this one is a step too far.

The opponents argue that this condemnation is not for public benefit, as required to have eminent domain power. However:

*the last I checked, the people who live in and around Houston and Dallas-Fort Worth and could take this train between those vast metropolitan areas are still part of the Texan public, much as these rural gripers believe otherwise,

*as the article points out, the HSR would relieve "crippling congestion on I-45" even for those who never ride the train,

*I wasn't aware oil and gas pipelines were publicly-owned for the public benefit.  



> Meier, for one, said she worried her property value would be tanked by noise, vibrations from the train, maintenance crews coming on and off her land, an easement much larger and more intrusive than those used for pipelines, and other unknown variables that could arise from the unusual project.


As opposed to the tranquil quiet and utter lack of vibrations from a highway? Or the not-quite-unknown variable of leaking pipelines, when her precious land would be ruined?

Opponents of improved passenger rail have squawked at any public investment in it while not blinking at billions of tax dollars for highways and airports. So this project is intended to require no public funding, which should've resolve that objection if they were arguing in good faith. Nope. The very thing that's supposed to overcome that objection -- the key role of the Japanese, with decades of HSR experience -- is another strike against the project. 



> "There are those who think that because this project is being funded by foreign nationals, that doesn’t constitute the American public,” Ellis said.


Do they think the multinational oil & gas industry running pipelines across their land is 100% American?! Nope. Apparently Japanese government money in railways is bad, but sovereign wealth fund (foreign government) money in pipelines is just jim-dandy.  Not to mention this argument pulled from their, umm, ten-gallon hats:



> “Texas Central’s last hope is an infusion of money from Japan and the enactment of the Green New Deal, providing a taxpayer bailout on the project before it ever even gets started,” the legislators’ letter read.


How the h*ll did the Green New Deal get dropped into this punch-bowl?! If Texas Central's plans and documents make any reference to the Green New Deal, much less relying on its passage, I'll eat my (definitely NOT ten-gallon) hat in barbecue sauce!


----------



## DSS&A

Texas Central Railway signs $1.6 Billion contract to build power supply system for its railroad. 









Texas Central Railroad finds the power source behind high-speed rail project - Railway Track and Structures


Texas Central Railroad finds the power source behind high-speed rail contract; signs with Kiewit and Mass Electric for core electrical systems.




www.rtands.com


----------



## MisterUptempo

*Texas Central signs $16 billion contract with Webuild to build Texas high-speed rail -KBTX*



> By Adrienne DeMoss
> _Updated: 2 hours ago_
> DALLAS, Texas (KBTX) - The developers of the high-speed train between Houston and Dallas, Texas Central Railroad, has signed a $16 billion contract with Webuild, an industrial group that specializes in construction and civil engineering, to lead the civil construction team that will build the Texas passenger line.
> 
> The 200 mph train would connect two of the largest cities in Texas, with a stop in the Brazos Valley along the way. The project will create a super-economy, connecting people in the 4th and 5th largest U.S. markets looking for safe, reliable, green and productive travel options, according to a release from Texas Central.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------
> 
> According to the contract, Webuild will execute all the heavy construction for the project, designing and building all 236 miles of the alignment. Nearly half of the high-speed rail will be on a viaduct, a type of bridge that consists of a series of arches, piers or columns that support an elevated railway.



Texas Central signs $16 billion contract with Webuild to build Texas high-speed rail


----------



## cirdan

How nice of them to explain what a viaduct is .

Will they be describing the train as a caboose I wonder ?


----------



## VentureForth

They need to stop using the N700 JR livery and try some of their own branding.


----------



## George Harris

We can hope and pray they do end up using the Japanese equipment. Two big plusses: Seats that turn, and equipment slightly wider than the AAR clearance plates so a platform can be built to meet ADA offsets from the car side and still pass an American standard freight car and engine. (The European equipment is too narrow for that.) Then there is the much longer experience with moving large volumes of people at high speeds. Oh, yeah, they may be moving at higher speeds in some places in Europe, but the speed in Japan is limited by geography and alignment, not ability of the equipment.


----------



## VentureForth

Absolutely. I fully expect them to use the N700 sets. Honestly, by the time they are ready, JR will have new equipment and may retrofit their "obsolete" N700 series for sale to Texas. I doubt we will have use for 16-car sets, though. It would be interesting to know exactly what sort of configuration they are considering. I think a 6-car set is what they've relegated older shinkansen sets for lesser routes to. That would probably be a starting point. Of course, no diners in any of the existing Japanese fleet. We'll probably require one because it's what we "need". 

Since this is going to be an exclusive ROW, are the Federal crash & glazing requirements going to be in effect?


----------



## nullptr

They are going to be using 8 car sets.








The Project - Texas Central







www.texascentral.com





My understanding is that the RPA they got from FRA is to allow them to use the N700s "as is" but I won't claim to be an expert in FRA regulations. Texas Central Railroad High-Speed Rail Safety Standards


----------



## George Harris

Wow! Why say something in 10 words when you can use 10 pages, or is it in this case more on the order of 100 pages? Let's just say that to my knowledge there have been two derailments of Shinkansen equipment, both due to earthquakes and in both cases everyone on the train quite literally walked away from the event. One was in Japan and involved the entire train. The other was in Taiwan and only the last car derailed.


----------



## VentureForth

Ahh - deeply embedded in the 77 pages:



> TCRR plans to implement the latest, service-proven_* derivative*_ of the N700 trainset...



Still, they need to lose the JR livery. Come up with something original. This ain't the Tokaido Texkansen.


----------



## nullptr

In other news, the Texas Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a lower courts ruling that let Texas Central use survey and eminent domain. Ending this particular court battle.


----------



## daybeers

VentureForth said:


> This ain't the Tokaido Texkansen.


Has a nice ring to it, doesn't it?


----------



## neroden

nullptr said:


> In other news, the Texas Supreme Court won't hear an appeal of a lower courts ruling that let Texas Central use survey and eminent domain. Ending this particular court battle.



Finally. This was a foregone conclusion because the law on this has been crystal clear for over 100 years, but wow, did the anti-rail NIMBY extremists throw a lot of time and money into causing delays. Glad to see that over with.


----------



## George Harris

Some of the major advantages of the Shinkansen trainsets are:
1. Single level,
2. Can have ADA compliant platform to car floor spacing
3. The ADA compliant platform will still pass AAR standard freight equipment
4. High reliability - 
5. Low vehicle weight per passenger
6. Long experience under high passenger loadings should have most of the "bugs" worked out.
My opinion is that this is one of the smartest decisions made on the whole system.


----------



## Anderson

VentureForth said:


> Ahh - deeply embedded in the 77 pages:
> 
> 
> 
> Still, they need to lose the JR livery. Come up with something original. This ain't the Tokaido Texkansen.


My guess is that there may be some tweaks needed (e.g. door width for US wheelchair standards). The "derivative" comment could also leave flexibility to adjust some elements of the seating plans (e.g. having a "full" Green car/Business Class car or moving said car to one end of the train), slip in a catering cart station, dispense with the smoking room, or otherwise adjust capacity. Ditching the smoking room is the most likely change, probably followed by a slight overall reduction in capacity and having a full Green/Business car at one end of the train rather than half a car in the middle.


----------



## VentureForth

Anderson said:


> My guess is that there may be some tweaks needed (e.g. door width for US wheelchair standards). The "derivative" comment could also leave flexibility to adjust some elements of the seating plans (e.g. having a "full" Green car/Business Class car or moving said car to one end of the train), slip in a catering cart station, dispense with the smoking room, or otherwise adjust capacity. Ditching the smoking room is the most likely change, probably followed by a slight overall reduction in capacity and having a full Green/Business car at one end of the train rather than half a car in the middle.


I thought they got rid of the smoking rooms in Japan. Maybe not... There ARE conductor rooms which Amtrak needs to figure out how to use instead of manspreading in the Cafe. The Cafe carts is a good idea to keep, and vending machines. I would also expect them to go 2x2 seating rather than keep the 2x2. The phone booths can probably be reimagined, too. 

No current diners on any of the shinkansen as far as I know. Don't think they will be needed for less than 3 hours as long as ample onboard snacks are available.


----------



## joelkfla

VentureForth said:


> I would also expect them to go 2x2 seating rather than keep the 2x2.


???


----------



## railiner

VentureForth said:


> No current diners on any of the shinkansen as far as I know. Don't think they will be needed for less than 3 hours as long as ample onboard snacks are available.


The Texas train full route is only 90 minutes…shorter than some commuter trains, so food service shouldn’t be a concern…


----------



## AlamoWye

Well, their website does mention this in the "Joy of the Journey" section: "Choice of service levels, with quiet, work-friendly cabins and food and beverage options to fit your needs and budget."


----------



## George Harris

The Shinkansen sets as built for Taiwan were 12 car sets with one car having ADA compliant width doors. 
Maybe no diners, but snacks, coffee, tea, for sure.
I am sure VentureForth was trying to say 2x2 versus 2x3. The 2x3 wasn't that bad for this 220 pound American, but then when I experienced it I had been in Asia for several years so was used to the way things were there.


----------



## VentureForth

Sorry. Yes. N700 coach is 2x3 seating.


----------



## joelkfla

VentureForth said:


> Sorry. Yes. N700 coach is 2x3 seating.


Didn't know that. It does sound tight for an intercity train.


----------



## George Harris

Shinkansen Body Width: 3380 mm = 11'-1", or if you want to be picky, 133.071 inches = 11'-1 1/16" 
Superliner Body Width: 10'-2"
Standard Bus Body Width: 8'-6"
(AAR Clearance Outline: 10'-8")
So, the Shinkansen is 2'-7" wider than a bus, and 11 inches wider than a Superliner. This is why 3-2 is not really that tight on a Shinkansen. If we go 2-2, that should handle a carload of 300 pounders. 

Here are the ADA platform offset requirements:
*49 CFR § 38.93 (d)*
(1) Requirements. Cars operating in stations with high platforms, or mini-high platforms, shall be coordinated with the boarding platform design such that the horizontal gap between a car at rest and the platform shall be no greater than 3 inches and the height of the car floor shall be within plus or minus 5/8 inch of the platform height. Vertical alignment may be accomplished by car air suspension, platform lifts or other devices, or any combination.

Anybody doing design work better think: You do not DESIGN for a gap of 3 inches. Best design for a gap of around 2 1/2 inches and vertical difference zero, or maybe platform 1/4 inch low, but no more. Notice that if you do a 2 1/2 inch gap, add to a Shinkansen half width of 5'-6 1/2" you have a 5'-9" inch offset, which clears a AAR standard width vehicle by 5 inches. Not lavish, but enough. A smart designer will have a taper to something like a 6'-6" offset over the last 5 to 10 feet on each end of the platform, which should be beyond any passenger door.


----------



## Bob Dylan

George Harris said:


> Shinkansen Body Width: 3380 mm = 11'-1", or if you want to be picky, 133.071 inches = 11'-1 1/16"
> Superliner Body Width: 10'-2"
> Standard Bus Body Width: 8'-6"
> (AAR Clearance Outline: 10'-8")
> So, the Shinkansen is 2'-7" wider than a bus, and 11 inches wider than a Superliner. This is why 3-2 is not really that tight on a Shinkansen. If we go 2-2, that should handle a carload of 300 pounders.
> 
> Here are the ADA platform offset requirements:
> *49 CFR § 38.93 (d)*
> (1) Requirements. Cars operating in stations with high platforms, or mini-high platforms, shall be coordinated with the boarding platform design such that the horizontal gap between a car at rest and the platform shall be no greater than 3 inches and the height of the car floor shall be within plus or minus 5/8 inch of the platform height. Vertical alignment may be accomplished by car air suspension, platform lifts or other devices, or any combination.
> 
> Anybody doing design work better think: You do not DESIGN for a gap of 3 inches. Best design for a gap of around 2 1/2 inches and vertical difference zero, or maybe platform 1/4 inch low, but no more. Notice that if you do a 2 1/2 inch gap, add to a Shinkansen half width of 5'-6 1/2" you have a 5'-9" inch offset, which clears a AAR standard width vehicle by 5 inches. Not lavish, but enough. A smart designer will have a taper to something like a 6'-6" offset over the last 5 to 10 feet on each end of the platform, which should be beyond any passenger door.


Good info from a Real Pro! Thanks George.


----------



## me_little_me

AlamoWye said:


> Well, their website does mention this in the "Joy of the Journey" section: "Choice of service levels, with quiet, work-friendly cabins and food and beverage options to fit your needs and budget."


Likely it would be similar to what is offered on Brightline.


----------



## George Harris

One other thought on the N700: Even though 5 inches wider than the AAR standard, it should be able to go anywhere on the US railroad system outside the Northeast, where it seems that many facilities were designed based on trying to "shrink wrap" the equipment of 100+ years ago. For most of the system track centers are 13'-0" or greater, and that is for lines built in the late 1800's. The standard used for the last 50+ years is to have tracks spaced at 14'-0" centers or larger. The the space to a fixed object adjacent to the track has been 8'-0" for the last 60+years and prevails almost everywhere outside the northeast, and is currently 9'-0"


----------



## Anderson

me_little_me said:


> Likely it would be similar to what is offered on Brightline.


Which is a snack cart (with folks in Select getting more pass-throughs and not having to pay). The main thing would be needing to design storage for said carts.

Also, there's a _very_ good chance that Texas Central will have access-controlled platforms, so in all likelihood there won't be nearly as much ticket-checking work for the conductors (even if I expect that the "system" for Texas Central will likely be a bit more than 2-3 stations...my guess is that even if they don't expand beyond the general Houston-Dallas market, you're looking at 5-8 stops all told...the three currently indicated [Dallas/Downtown, the intermediate stop, and then Houston/Beltway], a Dallas/Beltway station, either a Houston/Downtown extension (I think there will be some pressure for this), and possibly something further out in the Houston metro area, and then the distinct possibility of serving Love Field, Fort Worth, or somewhere else in the Dallas area. Another one or two intermediate stops might also happen (I suspect that a sufficiently ambitious developer could probably pay enough for a stop to go in right by a few hundred acres they've bought for a 50-mile-out-of-town TOD).

Do remember, not all trains need to make all stops, and a Hikari/Nozomi/Kodama service model makes some sense.


----------



## cirdan

VentureForth said:


> I thought they got rid of the smoking rooms in Japan. Maybe not... There ARE conductor rooms which Amtrak needs to figure out how to use instead of manspreading in the Cafe.



I don't know how they do it in Japan but i don't generally like the idea of staff vanishing off into some private area. They need to be visible to be approachable, especially in a situation where there will be many first-time rail travelers who might have questions or needs.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Anderson said:


> Ditching the smoking room is the most likely change, probably followed by a slight overall reduction in capacity and having a full Green/Business car at one end of the train rather than half a car in the middle.


I believe the smoking rooms were removed in preparation for the Olympics.



VentureForth said:


> No current diners on any of the shinkansen as far as I know. Don't think they will be needed for less than 3 hours as long as ample onboard snacks are available.


In Japan most trains do not carry much if any food but passengers have meal and drink options at larger stations across each route.



joelkfla said:


> Didn't know that. It does sound tight for an intercity train.


It may sound uncomfortable but I found it fine as implemented. Adding at least one car with fewer seats and extra leg room would be wise though.



cirdan said:


> I don't know how they do it in Japan but i don't generally like the idea of staff vanishing off into some private area. They need to be visible to be approachable, especially in a situation where there will be many first-time rail travelers who might have questions or needs.


Japan has some of the best service staff I’ve ever seen but these trains will be staffed by Americans so it will probably be similar to US airlines.



VentureForth said:


> manspreading is horrible.





VentureForth said:


> Manspreading on unreserved trains is horrible





VentureForth said:


> manspreading in lounge/cafe





VentureForth said:


> manspreading in the Cafe.


Is this really the best way to go about making your case?


----------



## MARC Rider

In reference to complaints about "manspreading" by staff in the cafe cars:



Devil's Advocate said:


> Is this really the best way to go about making your case?



I have to agree with the comment. In any event, I have observed that the train staff who take up space allocated for passengers in the cafe cars are about equally divided between male and female staff.


----------



## Anderson

cirdan said:


> I don't know how they do it in Japan but i don't generally like the idea of staff vanishing off into some private area. They need to be visible to be approachable, especially in a situation where there will be many first-time rail travelers who might have questions or needs.


I think there's a balance. The point, IMO, is that the staff have a "You go here, not there" space (both for reasons such as not losing seating in the cafe _and _so pax know where they can find someone). Whether that is an "office", seat 60 in the Business Class car, or Table 16 in the lounge car, it should at least be clear where to find them.


----------



## v v

What's "manspreading"? All sorts of images spring to mind, some not attractive at all...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

v v said:


> What's "manspreading"? All sorts of images spring to mind, some not attractive at all...


Some Amtrak staff do stake out and use up areas intended for passengers and it can be a problem when the train is full but staff of both sexes do this and turning it into yet another gender war is a poor way to go about fixing it IMO.


----------



## MARC Rider

cirdan said:


> I don't know how they do it in Japan but i don't generally like the idea of staff vanishing off into some private area. They need to be visible to be approachable, especially in a situation where there will be many first-time rail travelers who might have questions or needs.


In addition to answering questions from first-time rail travelers, members of the train crew have other duties that might be better done without interruption from passengers. A conductor can go off and do paperwork, and the assistant conductor is still on hand for dealing with passengers. Even cafe attendants, who are, after all, service workers, not servants, sometimes need to do stuff like inventory and balancing accounts without interruption. Obviously, that sort of work should be done at times when they don't need to interact with the passengers.


----------



## v v

Devil's Advocate said:


> Some Amtrak staff do stake out and use up areas intended for passengers and it can be a problem when the train is full but staff of both sexes do this and turning it into yet another gender war is a poor way to go about fixing it IMO.



Phew, thanks DA, have seen that too and not always a good look. But that's a lot better than some of the images I conjoured up!


----------



## John Bredin

v v said:


> What's "manspreading"? All sorts of images spring to mind, some not attractive at all...


This is manspreading. Also this (the "space hog")


----------



## railiner

George Harris said:


> Shinkansen Body Width: 3380 mm = 11'-1", or if you want to be picky, 133.071 inches = 11'-1 1/16"
> Superliner Body Width: 10'-2"
> Standard Bus Body Width: 8'-6"
> (AAR Clearance Outline: 10'-8")
> So, the Shinkansen is 2'-7" wider than a bus, and 11 inches wider than a Superliner. This is why 3-2 is not really that tight on a Shinkansen. If we go 2-2, that should handle a carload of 300 pounders.
> 
> Here are the ADA platform offset requirements:
> *49 CFR § 38.93 (d)*
> (1) Requirements. Cars operating in stations with high platforms, or mini-high platforms, shall be coordinated with the boarding platform design such that the horizontal gap between a car at rest and the platform shall be no greater than 3 inches and the height of the car floor shall be within plus or minus 5/8 inch of the platform height. Vertical alignment may be accomplished by car air suspension, platform lifts or other devices, or any combination.
> 
> Anybody doing design work better think: You do not DESIGN for a gap of 3 inches. Best design for a gap of around 2 1/2 inches and vertical difference zero, or maybe platform 1/4 inch low, but no more. Notice that if you do a 2 1/2 inch gap, add to a Shinkansen half width of 5'-6 1/2" you have a 5'-9" inch offset, which clears a AAR standard width vehicle by 5 inches. Not lavish, but enough. A smart designer will have a taper to something like a 6'-6" offset over the last 5 to 10 feet on each end of the platform, which should be beyond any passenger door.


You can add the Amfleet and Horizon 10'-6" width to that list. At least at the "belt line". The width at the high level platform level is the former standard 10'. The Amfleet carbody curves in, and the Horizon's have a "notch" to allow more platform clearance. The Horizon's were derived from commuter cars of different types, but often have 3-2 commuter seating...


----------



## VentureForth

It means taking up more than your fair share of space for whatever reason. I guess it does have a gender connotation, but I've heard it used for all genders. Point is, as been appropriate responded to, the Cafe car in an Amtrak train _should_ be a place for passengers to congregate. Not a place for the crew to take up 25% of the seating for their paperwork.

So a couple of points. Generally people in Japan never seen to ever need assistance from a conductor. A conductor is not a customer service person. He's (sorry, not sorry, - THEY) are a purser and integral to the operation of the train. If one needs assistance, they can simply knock on the door of the frosted window, private conductor's room when necessary, as I needed to once, to report some sort of malfunction on the train.

Some of the Shinkansen and some of the long distance limited express trains still offer trolley cart food service, but you're right. Most people get their food and drink from a kiosk or platform restaurant at the station. I think we can all agree that dining and cafe cars on short duration trips reduce revenue seating. I would expect vending machines and/or trolley cart service on the Texas route would be ample and revenue positive.


----------



## joelkfla

me_little_me said:


> Likely it would be similar to what is offered on Brightline.





Anderson said:


> Which is a snack cart (with folks in Select getting more pass-throughs and not having to pay). The main thing would be needing to design storage for said carts.


IIRC, someone said somewhere that the 2nd part of Brightline's car order (now in production for the Orlando segment) includes some sort of food service car. I don't have any further details.


----------



## v v

John Bredin said:


> This is manspreading. Also this (the "space hog")



Closer to the initial thoughts


----------



## cirdan

MARC Rider said:


> In addition to answering questions from first-time rail travelers, members of the train crew have other duties that might be better done without interruption from passengers. A conductor can go off and do paperwork, and the assistant conductor is still on hand for dealing with passengers. Even cafe attendants, who are, after all, service workers, not servants, sometimes need to do stuff like inventory and balancing accounts without interruption. Obviously, that sort of work should be done at times when they don't need to interact with the passengers.



This is probably true on an LD train on a multi-day trip.

But we are talking about a 90 minute train ride here.

Surely most of the paperwork and inventory can be done before, between and after the journey?

There are commuter railroads that have longer end-to-end journey times.


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> I think there's a balance. The point, IMO, is that the staff have a "You go here, not there" space (both for reasons such as not losing seating in the cafe _and _so pax know where they can find someone). Whether that is an "office", seat 60 in the Business Class car, or Table 16 in the lounge car, it should at least be clear where to find them.



On my last trip in Austria there was a web page you could access through the train wifi and besides displaying up to date information on the progress of the train and listing connecting trains at the stations served, you could order from a selection of food and drinks and also hygienic and sanitary items and even assorted souvenirs, pay online, and the ordered would be brought to your seat within a couple of minutes.

Some items could not be ordered because I assume they had run out. This would indicate the ordering system was connected to the inventory system and would thus lessen the need to do the inventory manually.

They also had airline style buttons to summon personnel, but I never tried that.


----------



## George Harris

Not much new here for the readers on this site, but from a semi-technical publication:








$20B Dallas-Houston high-speed rail project moves forward


The project is based on Central Japan Railway's Tokaido Shinkansen system. It aims to travel at up to 200 mph, faster than any other rail service in the U.S., according to Texas Central Railroad.




www.smartcitiesdive.com


----------



## Anderson

joelkfla said:


> IIRC, someone said somewhere that the 2nd part of Brightline's car order (now in production for the Orlando segment) includes some sort of food service car. I don't have any further details.


That was my understanding early on (and it makes sense since the trip in question is around three hours, and Miami-Tampa [or Miami-Jacksonville] would be in the 4-5 hour range IINM). I've heard some mixed reports as to whether that is still the case (the order seems to have morphed a few times).


----------



## John Bredin

Texas Supreme Court will hear the case of whether the Texas Central Railway is a railroad for purposes of exercising eminent domain. Link.  Link. 

The appellants' proposition, swallowed by the trial court but not the intermediate appellate court, is that TCR isn't a railroad, and thus cannot exercise the eminent domain powers Texas statutes clearly grant to railroads, because TCR doesn't have a railroad in being right now. How a railroad is ever supposed to begin under this "logic" is a puzzlement ... to nobody but the appellants, their NIMBY supporters, and the judge who bought this mind-numbingly-stupid argument.


----------



## MARC Rider

John Bredin said:


> How a railroad is ever supposed to begin under this "logic" is a puzzlement ... to nobody but the appellants, their NIMBY supporters, and the judge who bought this mind-numbingly-stupid argument.



The argument may be "mind-numbingly stupid," but our legal history is full of court rulings that enshrine "mind-numbingly stupid" arguments. And this is 21st century Texas we're talking about.  So nothing would surprise me.


----------



## George Harris

John Bredin said:


> The appellants' proposition, swallowed by the trial court but not the intermediate appellate court, is that TCR isn't a railroad, and thus cannot exercise the eminent domain powers Texas statutes clearly grant to railroads, because TCR doesn't have a railroad in being right now. How a railroad is ever supposed to begin under this "logic" is a puzzlement ... to nobody but the appellants, their NIMBY supporters, and the judge who bought this mind-numbingly-stupid argument.


First, note, "not the intermediate appellate court", so it looks like the NIMBY logic is now trying an appeal further up the chain of courts. If they fail in the Texas system, will they then try to make a federal case out of it? If all else fails, the TC should go out and buy some short line somewhere so they truly are an operating railroad. As you say, eminent domain had to be available for the initial construction of all the railroads in Texas (and most other states as well.) Further, up until something like 50 or less years ago, a railroad operating in Texas had to be headquartered in Texas. This led to such entities as the Gulf Colorado and Santa Fe for the ATSF lines in Texas, the Missouri Kansas Texas of Texas for MKT lines in Texas. For the later, they solved the issue by closing their St. Louis corporate headquarters and headquartering their entire system in Dallas.


----------



## Bob Dylan

John Bredin said:


> Texas Supreme Court will hear the case of whether the Texas Central Railway is a railroad for purposes of exercising eminent domain. Link.  Link.
> 
> The appellants' proposition, swallowed by the trial court but not the intermediate appellate court, is that TCR isn't a railroad, and thus cannot exercise the eminent domain powers Texas statutes clearly grant to railroads, because TCR doesn't have a railroad in being right now. How a railroad is ever supposed to begin under this "logic" is a puzzlement ... to nobody but the appellants, their NIMBY supporters, and the judge who bought this mind-numbingly-stupid argument.


This is surprising since the All Republican Supreme Court( Texas hasn't elected a Democrat Statewide since 1994) are Shills for Corporations as the Court only deals with Civil Matters.(our Court of Criminal Appeals handles all Criminal Matters)


----------



## John Bredin

George Harris said:


> If they fail in the Texas system, will they then try to make a federal case out of it?


I seriously doubt they could. The federal courts generally don't take appeals on questions of state law, and whether TCR is a railroad under Texas eminent domain statutes is purely a question of state law.

That's a double-edged sword. If TCR wins in the Texas Supreme Court, that's almost surely it for this challenge. But if they lose, that's probably it as well. I suppose if TCR lost they could argue in federal court that such a crabbed interpretation of state law was aimed directly at TCR (UP, BNSF, etc. can exercise eminent domain, as can electric utilities and pipelines, but TCR can't even though it's clearly building a railroad) and thus a "class of one" equal protection violation.


----------



## joelkfla

George Harris said:


> As you say, eminent domain had to be available for the initial construction of all the railroads in Texas (and most other states as well.)


I think most railroads built in Texas and elsewhere in the 19th century were either land grants, or built by wealthy financiers and politicians who could pretty much do whatever the heck they wanted.


----------



## neroden

I don't know the politics of the Texas Supreme Court members, but the signs are -- given that they already rejected this appeal once -- that they're planning to shut the door to this sort of complaint for good. Supporting Texas Central would be the corporatist approach and they seem to lean corporatist. It's also legally correct, of course, not that that usually matters in Texas.

The alternative is that they've been bribed or blackmailed by Abbott or something to take anti-rail positions for political reasons, but I don't think he is enough of an anti-rail fanatic to do that.


----------



## Anderson

I still don't see why TCR hasn't just bought a shortline somewhere in the state (with a view towards selling it off ASAP once their main operation is running...) so as to moot this whole thing. Frankly, buying a faltering shortline might be cheaper than the cost of litigation, and there's plenty of precedent for antics like this being carried out to acquire charters and the like over the decades.


----------



## cirdan

joelkfla said:


> I think most railroads built in Texas and elsewhere in the 19th century were either land grants, or built by wealthy financiers and politicians who could pretty much do whatever the heck they wanted.


It was a time that virtually everybody welcomed railroads . Except maybe the First Nations whose land was being taken .


----------



## ehbowen

joelkfla said:


> I think most railroads built in Texas and elsewhere in the 19th century were either land grants, or built by wealthy financiers and politicians who could pretty much do whatever the heck they wanted.


Back in the day a railroad surveying team would often be met by city fathers offering them a right-of-way straight through the middle of town and their choice of lots for a depot and terminal. Sometimes a cash bonus to boot. Read Keith L. Bryant Jr.'s _History of the Atchison, Topeka, & Santa Fe Railway_. Or play Railroad Tycoon!

Editing to add: That's exactly why Galesburg, IL, is on the main line of the Santa Fe. The midwest was already overbuilt when William Barstow Strong decided to extend the AT&SF from Kansas City (where it already had a strong gateway) to Chicago over its own rails (thus making the Santa Fe the only through carrier from Chicago to California until the arrival of the mega-merger era). Strong was prepared to just forego all local traffic and build the fastest, most direct route from KC to Chi, although he was hampered a bit at the eastern end, as the most expeditious way for him to earn entrance to Chicago proper was to buy up the failed Chicago & St. Louis Railroad, "two streaks of rust" but Strong's "airline" was able to use their alignment from Streator into Chicago, not to mention their lease at Dearborn Station. However, when the city fathers of Galesburg got wind of the new construction, they held out a $100,000 (plus right-of-way, plus twenty acres of land for terminal facilities) carrot to earn a place on the main line...and the rest is history!


----------



## neroden

Anderson said:


> I still don't see why TCR hasn't just bought a shortline somewhere in the state (with a view towards selling it off ASAP once their main operation is running...) so as to moot this whole thing. Frankly, buying a faltering shortline might be cheaper than the cost of litigation, and there's plenty of precedent for antics like this being carried out to acquire charters and the like over the decades.


Well, I looked at the list of shortlines. Some are joint lines owned by the class Is; many are owned by Watco or G&W or another large firm; some are captives of specific factories; many are controlled by local port authorities; there are, frankly, only a few others. None of them are faltering. 

Fort Worth & Western, which cooperates with the operation of tourist trains and runs extensively on DART-owned trackage, might be the most cooperative to expanding passenger service.


----------



## cirdan

neroden said:


> Well, I looked at the list of shortlines. Some are joint lines owned by the class Is; many are owned by Watco or G&W or another large firm; some are captives of specific factories; many are controlled by local port authorities; there are, frankly, only a few others. None of them are faltering.
> 
> Fort Worth & Western, which cooperates with the operation of tourist trains and runs extensively on DART-owned trackage, might be the most cooperative to expanding passenger service.



I ma sure there must be disused but operable trackage somewhere that somebody would be willing to sell and on which a pro forma minimal railroad could be established. A couple of switching moves a year would surely suffice to be able to claim to have an operational railroad?


----------



## west point

How about the former electrified coal line ?


----------



## Anderson

cirdan said:


> I ma sure there must be disused but operable trackage somewhere that somebody would be willing to sell and on which a pro forma minimal railroad could be established. A couple of switching moves a year would surely suffice to be able to claim to have an operational railroad?





neroden said:


> Well, I looked at the list of shortlines. Some are joint lines owned by the class Is; many are owned by Watco or G&W or another large firm; some are captives of specific factories; many are controlled by local port authorities; there are, frankly, only a few others. None of them are faltering.
> 
> Fort Worth & Western, which cooperates with the operation of tourist trains and runs extensively on DART-owned trackage, might be the most cooperative to expanding passenger service.


I don't think having a pax operation is necessary. Just something moving...something...over tracks...would _seem _to suffice.


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

I wonder how the courts might view obtaining a short line strictly for this reason. There is a case I have been following in my own backyard where a shipper was trucking frozen fish brought from Akaska to St. Stephen NB by ship into the US. Normally the Jones Act would require this fish to have been carried from Alaska by a US flag carrier. The shipper got around this by building a 100 foot "railroad" onto which they would load the cargo then offload it onto the trucks for delivery to the US. This used a loophole in the Jones Act that allowed foreign flag vessels as long as the cargo traveled through Canada by rail. The courts ruled that the Jones Act still applied as the 100 foot RR was obviously a ruse to get around the Jones Act. Currently the case is still being appealed.


----------



## cirdan

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> I wonder how the courts might view obtaining a short line strictly for this reason. There is a case I have been following in my own backyard where a shipper was trucking frozen fish brought from Akaska to St. Stephen NB by ship into the US. Normally the Jones Act would require this fish to have been carried from Alaska by a US flag carrier. The shipper got around this by building a 100 foot "railroad" onto which they would load the cargo then offload it onto the trucks for delivery to the US. This used a loophole in the Jones Act that allowed foreign flag vessels as long as the cargo traveled through Canada by rail. The courts ruled that the Jones Act still applied as the 100 foot RR was obviously a ruse to get around the Jones Act. Currently the case is still being appealed.



In this case the ruse was to "carry stuff by railroad" which IMHO is a clearly defined principle and what they did was maybe within the letter of the law but clearly not within its spirit. In the case of Texas Central the bar is much lower as they only need to "have a railroad" - and you can clearly question what the spirit of such a requirement is and probably conclude its pure legal malarkey. Besides which there are plenty of railroad lines all over the USA which clearly have ceased to have any purpose but are still legally and officially railroads and nobody would question this. If not being used suffices to disqualify track from being a railroad then this would have pretty far reaching consequences.


----------



## frequentflyer

On another website there is an article about TCR having funding issues. They went with a Japan Railroad design, why not have them set up funding? Too much pie in the sky thinking going on here. TCR need to look at ways to cut costs, not looking hopeful for this line and I was a supporter of the concept.


----------



## iliketrains

Hello. I live in Texas in a small town and the proposed high-speed rail will pass within walking distance of my home!! Unfortunately, my land is not needed; so, no money for me! And my town is not the mid-stop. However, I am excited about this much-needed advancement and don't understand why anyone would not support this! Can someone give me a simple summary of where this project stands and when will construction possibly begins? I am not finding a clear-cut answer on the internet. Thanks!


----------



## neroden

iliketrains said:


> Hello. I live in Texas in a small town and the proposed high-speed rail will pass within walking distance of my home!! Unfortunately, my land is not needed; so, no money for me! And my town is not the mid-stop. However, I am excited about this much-needed advancement and don't understand why anyone would not support this! Can someone give me a simple summary of where this project stands and when will construction possibly begins? I am not finding a clear-cut answer on the internet. Thanks!



We don't know, is the answer. Currently obstructionists are filing essentially bogus court cases trying to obstruct Texas Central. The obstructionists found one judge willing to ignore a century of established law in order to side with them, after losing many cases; this was overturned on appeal, but the obstructionists are hoping the Texas State Supreme Court is corrupt enough to agree to ignore a century of established law in order to pay off political allies.

The Texas Governor, Lieutenant Governor (the "we should kill grandmother to help the economy" guy), and the state AG (who is the subject of three separate criminal prosecutions) have decided to side with the obstructionists, apparently because they think this will benefit them politically (they don't show any signs of having genuinely strong opinions, since they all said positive things about Texas Central in the past). So they may be able to throw further roadblocks in the way of Texas Central. If you support Texas Central, I'd advise voting against all three of them.

I don't know how long it'll take for Texas Central to navigate this morass of anti-rail obstructionists and the politicians who favor them. Or whether they'll succeed. Nobody else knows either.

After that's dealt with -- Texas Central claims to have full funding already lined up (but has not demonstrated this to the public -- oftentimes companies can be a bit rosy about saying they have full funding).

They have picked a route and station locations. They have got most of the land they need, except for the holdouts. They have passed environmental clearance. They have picked their technological partners, so we know what rolling stock they'll use, who'll build the tracks, etc. -- the design is essentially complete and has been shown to the public.

So it's basically just (a) getting past the obstructionists and (b) funding.


----------



## cirdan

Unfortunately the main source of information on progress is Texas Central themselves. And we have no way of knowing how much creative optimism and vaporware they are using to pad their press releases. Not being a publicly traded company they can get away with a certain degree of evasive vagueness.


----------



## MARC Rider

neroden said:


> We don't know, is the answer. Currently obstructionists are filing essentially bogus court cases trying to obstruct Texas Central. The obstructionists found one judge willing to ignore a century of established law in order to side with them, after losing many cases; this was overturned on appeal, but the obstructionists are hoping the Texas State Supreme Court is corrupt enough to agree to ignore a century of established law in order to pay off political allies.
> 
> The Texas Governor, Lieutenant Governor (the "we should kill grandmother to help the economy" guy), and the state AG (who is the subject of three separate criminal prosecutions) have decided to side with the obstructionists, apparently because they think this will benefit them politically (they don't show any signs of having genuinely strong opinions, since they all said positive things about Texas Central in the past). So they may be able to throw further roadblocks in the way of Texas Central. If you support Texas Central, I'd advise voting against all three of them.
> 
> I don't know how long it'll take for Texas Central to navigate this morass of anti-rail obstructionists and the politicians who favor them. Or whether they'll succeed. Nobody else knows either.
> 
> After that's dealt with -- Texas Central claims to have full funding already lined up (but has not demonstrated this to the public -- oftentimes companies can be a bit rosy about saying they have full funding).
> 
> They have picked a route and station locations. They have got most of the land they need, except for the holdouts. They have passed environmental clearance. They have picked their technological partners, so we know what rolling stock they'll use, who'll build the tracks, etc. -- the design is essentially complete and has been shown to the public.
> 
> So it's basically just (a) getting past the obstructionists and (b) funding.


Seems to me that if you want something like this to succeed (in Texas, anyway), you need to but all of the land secretly (using dummy corporations or something), the way Walt Disney did in Central Florida, and not announce any plans about the location of your route until all of the land has been acquired.


----------



## neroden

MARC Rider said:


> Seems to me that if you want something like this to succeed (in Texas, anyway), you need to but all of the land secretly (using dummy corporations or something), the way Walt Disney did in Central Florida, and not announce any plans about the location of your route until all of the land has been acquired.


This is how the Loop was built in Chicago. Shell corporations set up to acquire the rights. There was one which was set up just to acquire *one block*.

However, environmental clearances required publishing the route for Texas Central.


----------



## jis

neroden said:


> This is how the Loop was built in Chicago. Shell corporations set up to acquire the rights. There was one which was set up just to acquire *one block*.
> 
> However, environmental clearances required publishing the route for Texas Central.


I suspect that this may be one reason that Brightline has been trying to stick to highway RoWs wherever they can. It just is easier to get through EISs, though sometimes even that does not totally avoid problems. Witness the SR 417 shenanigans between OIA and WDW.

Texas Central by its very nature and the nature of the state in which it is trying to make progress admittedly has a much bigger potential problem in that they don't have the tacit bipartisan approval from the state leadership for admittedly possibly somewhat dubious to bizarre reasons. But I guess at this point they'd take support in whatever form it comes for whatever reason.


----------



## VentureForth

Not only has this thread stagnated, but it seems like the TCR progress has stalled... Anything new to report from anyone?


----------



## frequentflyer

Nope, nothing to report and its looking like the Texas Supreme Court will rule against them in June. 

Someone explain to me why TCR cannot use the electrical line ROW? TCR looks to shaky financial wise too. Why shoot for the moon with the Japan Rail system, why not use a slower cheaper system? Hard to take people serious when they state they want HSR and have no sound financial plan.


----------



## AlamoWye

Today, June 24, the Texas Supreme Court decided that Texas Central Railway is indeed a railroad under Texas law and has eminent domain authority. However, the railroad is in arrears in property taxes and its CEO has resigned. Quite confusing what might happen next.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

frequentflyer said:


> Hard to take people serious when they state they want HSR and have no sound financial plan.


Private funding was supposed to be the solution for why Americans cannot have clean and efficient transportation. Meanwhile CAHSR shows actual progress.



frequentflyer said:


> Why shoot for the moon with the Japan Rail system, why not use a slower cheaper system?


We already have a slower cheaper system and most Texans have shown no interest in using it.



frequentflyer said:


> Nope, nothing to report and its looking like the Texas Supreme Court will rule against them in June.


Three for three on this post.


----------



## frequentflyer

1. CAHSR is your standard bearer for a High Speed Rail project? Liberal Californians have cooled on the project and they are footing the bill.

2. Shocked, really shocked they won the Texas Supreme Court ruling, but it may be a moot point anyway. Time for Texas Central to show the money. Wasn't that the reason for going with JNR? 

Despite the ruling got a feeling we have seen the last of Texas Central. I would love to be wrong.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

frequentflyer said:


> 1. CAHSR is your standard bearer for a High Speed Rail project?


I never said anything about standard bearing but if I had to pick I'd probably choose the project with actual infrastructure. Since you chose to bring it up what is your standard bearer for HSR in the US?



frequentflyer said:


> 2. Shocked, really shocked they won the Texas Supreme Court ruling, but it may be a moot point anyway.


You're shocked that a brand new railroad can be granted permission to buy land before laying track? I would have been shocked if the court could have penned a coherent counterpoint.



frequentflyer said:


> Time for Texas Central to show the money. Wasn't that the reason for going with JNR? Despite the ruling got a feeling we have seen the last of Texas Central. I would love to be wrong.


You're just all over the place with these remarks. If you actually support Texas Central why do your posts sound like they long for the day that it's finally killed off for good?


----------



## Ziv

AlamoWye said:


> Today, June 24, the Texas Supreme Court decided that Texas Central Railway is indeed a railroad under Texas law and has eminent domain authority. However, the railroad is in arrears in property taxes and its CEO has resigned. Quite confusing what might happen next.


Good news on the court decision. Not so good on the lack of financing options.
This may be a bridge too far, but would BrightLine be considering taking this over? 
Are there other players that might be interested in getting a foothold in the North American passenger rail business? Like JR Group? Yeah, it is a longshot...
But JR Texas has a certain sound to it! LOL!


----------



## AmtrakMaineiac

Ziv said:


> This may be a bridge too far, but would BrightLine be considering taking this over?


Brightline has a lot on its plate already especially if they are doing the LA to Las Vegas line as well as what they are building in FL.


----------



## frequentflyer

Devil's Advocate said:


> I never said anything about standard bearing but if I had to pick I'd probably choose the project with actual infrastructure. Since you chose to bring it up what is your standard bearer for HSR in the US?
> 
> 
> You're shocked that a brand new railroad can be granted permission to buy land before laying track? I would have been shocked if the court could have penned a coherent counterpoint.
> 
> 
> You're just all over the place with these remarks. If you actually support Texas Central why do your posts sound like they long for the day that it's finally killed off for good?


I have followed this project very closely really hoping it would come to fruition. Having lived through the DFW-Houston HSR project in the 90s that was killed by SWA. This time around SWA gave the project its blessing and the Governor got behind the project. A nice website and fancy plans to build stations in Dallas and NW Houston (still don't get that one). Throughout all of the hype, details on financing were scarce and now with the opportunity to start the CEO leaves. Giving credence what the critics have stated from day one. Sad, because there is business case for HSR between DFW-HOU, shame no one can close the case. 

As regards CAHSR, sad that a state that wanted HSR has so badly ruined this project and future HSR projects to come.


----------



## west point

Unexplained resignations are always suspicious. One company I was at an employee had an incident where he just did not feel well and said he could not function. 2 weeks later resigned moddle of day. Lots of speculation about illegal medication. Was dead in 6 weeks of a brain tumor not found until resigned. Spent last days as you can guess.

Another person was skiing with some I knew. Good skier but told everyone he needed to go back to Hotel before noon. Dead in 2weeks after resigning in 1 week.


----------



## zetharion

If Texas Central uses eminent domain and seizes all the land then goes belly up, do they get to auction off the land they seized? By my nature I am always 100% cynical when it comes to for profit entities using eminent domain to take land to build their for profit ventures. I assume they take the land at less than actual value since Texas is very business friendly. Is there any wording on how much of it they can take on either side of the tracks so build out shops and such?

Dont get me wrong I am all for new rail networks but taking someones land comes at a real cost.


----------



## Charles785

First of all with passenger rail I will admit to a strong bias in favor of overnight conventional long distance trains with full dining cars. And of course these trains can also serve short distance passengers wanting to travel between any city pairs along the route.

So, what I'm wondering, if there are too many obstacles for this Texas Railway project to actually be developed could the focus return to, say, something like the former Chicago to Galveston Sana Fe Texas Chief (later the Amtrak Lone Star) that would be configured to serve Dallas (maybe including some suburbs and Denton) and serve passengers all along the route including Dallas to Houston commuters? 

Now I know there's some hostility with Amtrak management and their board of directors toward the long distance service but after all, the original Amtrak mandate was to create a national inter-city system. So obviously Amtrak would need pressure from Congressional representatives and senators from Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to create a route like this.

Politically, could this approach be more feasible than that Texas Railway project? I do know that in 2018 Congressional pressure was brought to bear on getting Amtrak to back away from their terrible idea of breaking up the Southwest Chief route with a bus bridge from western Kansas to Albuquerque.

Oh - another bias of mine, because I live in Kansas, would be that a route like this would return Amtrak service to Wichita


----------



## jis

It should be noted that Texas Central and Amtrak LD service are not competing for the same funds, so what happens to one has very little effect on the other directly. They also do not have any direct management link. In other words, it is not really an either/or proposition. At present Congress has to act to facilitate any addition of new LD service. Without their specific intevention, it is quite unlikely that any new LD train will get added in the near future. Congress is not a party to anything that Texas Central does at present IIRC.


----------



## MARC Rider

zetharion said:


> If Texas Central uses eminent domain and seizes all the land then goes belly up, do they get to auction off the land they seized? By my nature I am always 100% cynical when it comes to for profit entities using eminent domain to take land to build their for profit ventures. I assume they take the land at less than actual value since Texas is very business friendly. Is there any wording on how much of it they can take on either side of the tracks so build out shops and such?


Texas might be "business friendly," but they also have a fundamentalist faith in the sanctity of "private property." Thus, unless there is actual bribery of the judge(s) overseeing the eminent domain proceedings (which I suppose is possible in theory, but we don't even know who the judges would be), I don't think that Texas Central would be able to buy the land at less than its actual market value.

If Texas Central goes "belly up," it can do so in two ways. The first would be chapter 11, in which the company is reorganized, debts are paid off at some fraction of their value, and the company continues to (attempt) to do business. The other way is Chapter 7, in which the company stops doing business and whatever assets it has are sold off (liquidated) in order to pay the outstanding debts. If the company was able to buy land and it went into chapter 11, it would presumably keep the land and continue to build the railway, now freed from past debts. If the company went into chapter 7, I suppose the bankruptcy trustees would want to sell the land for as much as they could in order to maximize the cash on hand to pay debts.


----------



## MikefromCrete

Charles785 said:


> First of all with passenger rail I will admit to a strong bias in favor of overnight conventional long distance trains with full dining cars. And of course these trains can also serve short distance passengers wanting to travel between any city pairs along the route.
> 
> So, what I'm wondering, if there are too many obstacles for this Texas Railway project to actually be developed could the focus return to, say, something like the former Chicago to Galveston Sana Fe Texas Chief (later the Amtrak Lone Star) that would be configured to serve Dallas (maybe including some suburbs and Denton) and serve passengers all along the route including Dallas to Houston commuters?
> 
> Now I know there's some hostility with Amtrak management and their board of directors toward the long distance service but after all, the original Amtrak mandate was to create a national inter-city system. So obviously Amtrak would need pressure from Congressional representatives and senators from Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Oklahoma, and Texas to create a route like this.
> 
> Politically, could this approach be more feasible than that Texas Railway project? I do know that in 2018 Congressional pressure was brought to bear on getting Amtrak to back away from their terrible idea of breaking up the Southwest Chief route with a bus bridge from western Kansas to Albuquerque.
> 
> Oh - another bias of mine, because I live in Kansas, would be that a route like this would return Amtrak service to Wichita



A high density high speed frequent service between two huge metropolitan areas and a single long distance train meanadering between two places thousands of miles apart are not compatible. Texas Central would tap a large market of people traveling between two metropolitan areas. High speed and high density would attract people who might otherwise fly or drive. An LD train, traveling at 79 miles per hour would not attract a large number of people, no matter how nice the dining car might be. There's a place for both high speed and regular ID trains, but one can't substitute for the other.


----------



## John Bredin

frequentflyer said:


> 1. CAHSR is your standard bearer for a High Speed Rail project?


Of course it's the standard bearer: just like standard bearers in pre-WWI armies, it's been constantly harried and shot at by its enemies to prevent it going forward.

Has it had real issues? Yes. But IMHO opponents have repeatedly and grossly exaggerated them in an effort to make it out to be a boondoggle. Is is expensive? Yes, but building in earthquake-prone areas is never cheap, and highways have to face many of the same costs. It arguably started "in the middle of nowhere" but (1) that section would have to be built at some point, and (2) one of the key "shoulda started there" segments -- entry to San Francisco -- is happening with Caltrain electrification.

Ultimately, lots of projects get brickbats when they're being built, because all the costs are there but the benefits (except design & construction jobs) aren't there yet. I know Millennium Park in Chicago was the target of endless criticism until it opened, and indeed it was late (not open for the actual millennium) and over budget, but almost nobody regrets it once it opened -- or that the organizers shifted mid-stream from bland neoclassical design to more innovative designs. More particular to California, there was a lot of skepticism and naysaying about the now-beloved Golden Gate Bridge.


----------



## George Harris

MARC Rider said:


> Texas might be "business friendly," but they also have a fundamentalist faith in the sanctity of "private property." Thus, unless there is actual bribery of the judge(s) overseeing the eminent domain proceedings (which I suppose is possible in theory, but we don't even know who the judges would be), I don't think that Texas Central would be able to buy the land at less than its actual market value.


I do not know where you get what appears to be your concept that eminent domain means you are getting the land at less than market value. That is absolutely NOT the case. Eminent domain means, at least everywhere I have been anywhere near it, you pay at least market value. In fact, determination of market value is a major part of the process. Normally in practice you end up paying somewhat of a premium over what the open sale market value would be. In practice eminent domain is only used with unwilling sellers. Most agencies would prefer to negotiate a price without the need for legal compulsion being used to force the sale. There are a lot of non-highway agencies that have the power to obtain land by eminent domain when negotiations fail, such as utility companies, pipelines, etc. Sometimes it may only be an easement, but there are several agencies that go for fee simple purchase only.


----------



## cirdan

AmtrakMaineiac said:


> Brightline has a lot on its plate already especially if they are doing the LA to Las Vegas line as well as what they are building in FL.


are the two projects ring-fenced, or could problems on one potentially bring down the other?


----------



## cirdan

I think it is difficult to deny that there were massive cost overruns on CAHSR and that these were caused by massive over-optimism and to some extent incompetence.

Compared for example to the much greater rate of progress made on Brightline, at a fraction of the cost, I think there is an argument here for the better being the greatest enemy of the good. 

I do support CAHSR and I do hope it will succeed, but it can at times be very difficult to defend.


----------



## toddinde

MARC Rider said:


> Texas might be "business friendly," but they also have a fundamentalist faith in the sanctity of "private property." Thus, unless there is actual bribery of the judge(s) overseeing the eminent domain proceedings (which I suppose is possible in theory, but we don't even know who the judges would be), I don't think that Texas Central would be able to buy the land at less than its actual market value.
> 
> If Texas Central goes "belly up," it can do so in two ways. The first would be chapter 11, in which the company is reorganized, debts are paid off at some fraction of their value, and the company continues to (attempt) to do business. The other way is Chapter 7, in which the company stops doing business and whatever assets it has are sold off (liquidated) in order to pay the outstanding debts. If the company was able to buy land and it went into chapter 11, it would presumably keep the land and continue to build the railway, now freed from past debts. If the company went into chapter 7, I suppose the bankruptcy trustees would want to sell the land for as much as they could in order to maximize the cash on hand to pay debts.


Of course that “sanctity of private property” interestingly doesn’t extend to highways or airports. Seems more selective than some kind of libertarian purity.


----------



## joelkfla

cirdan said:


> I think it is difficult to deny that there were massive cost overruns on CAHSR and that these were caused by massive over-optimism and to some extent incompetence.
> 
> Compared for example to the much greater rate of progress made on Brightline, at a fraction of the cost, I think there is an argument here for the better being the greatest enemy of the good.
> 
> I do support CAHSR and I do hope it will succeed, but it can at times be very difficult to defend.


I don't disagree with your first paragraph, but CAHSR to Brightline is not a fair comparison.

Brightline is not HSR. The coastal portion is at the high end of conventional rail speed, and is in essence reinstalling double track on an already owned ROW that had been double tracked in the past, upgrading signaling and grade crossings, and replacing bridges. The east-west portion is being built from scratch but on existing highway ROW, and is Higher Speed Rail.


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> I don't disagree with your first paragraph, but CAHSR to Brightline is not a fair comparison.
> 
> Brightline is not HSR. The coastal portion is at the high end of conventional rail speed, and is in essence reinstalling double track on an already owned ROW that had been double tracked in the past, upgrading signaling and grade crossings, and replacing bridges. The east-west portion is being built from scratch but on existing highway ROW, and is Higher Speed Rail.


For the East-West portion it may be more appropriate to say that it is being build along a highway RoW, but not exactly on it at every point. That is why there was the issue with Deseret. Some places it is right along the highway, other places it is at some distance from the highway.


----------



## MARC Rider

toddinde said:


> Of course that “sanctity of private property” interestingly doesn’t extend to highways or airports. Seems more selective than some kind of libertarian purity.


My point wasn't that eminent domain isn't impossible in Texas, it's that if they do it, they have a cultural norm to pay the property owner the fair market price. There might well be cases of corruption where the property owner gets the shaft, but those are violating the cultural norms that the locals strongly care about.


----------



## MARC Rider

George Harris said:


> I do not know where you get what appears to be your concept that eminent domain means you are getting the land at less than market value. That is absolutely NOT the case. Eminent domain means, at least everywhere I have been anywhere near it, you pay at least market value. In fact, determination of market value is a major part of the process. Normally in practice you end up paying somewhat of a premium over what the open sale market value would be. In practice eminent domain is only used with unwilling sellers. Most agencies would prefer to negotiate a price without the need for legal compulsion being used to force the sale. There are a lot of non-highway agencies that have the power to obtain land by eminent domain when negotiations fail, such as utility companies, pipelines, etc. Sometimes it may only be an easement, but there are several agencies that go for fee simple purchase only.


I'm not sure how I gave the idea that I think that eminent domain involves buying the land at less than market prices (except in cases of corruption). I agree with what you wrote.


----------



## cirdan

joelkfla said:


> Brightline is not HSR. The coastal portion is at the high end of conventional rail speed, and is in essence reinstalling double track on an already owned ROW that had been double tracked in the past, upgrading signaling and grade crossings, and replacing bridges. The east-west portion is being built from scratch but on existing highway ROW, and is Higher Speed Rail.


My point is that there isn't really a razor that sets HSR apart from HrSR. There is a continuum and there is not one that is always good and one that is always inferior. There are plenty of rather awful and pointless HSR projects out there just as much as there are good ones, and ditto for HrSR and conventional rail. Also, speed itself is not all important, what matters just as much is door to door journey times and convenience, as well as location of stations and availablity of onward connections, which can do a lot to augment or also negate any speed advantages of the train itself. Not to mention frequency of service, ease of booking and access and any pre-boarding formalities or requirements.


----------



## west point

Texas Central has a good plan. However, 
1. Instead of building a separate station at Dallas just build a viaduct to go over Amtrak, TRE, and Dallas light rail (DART) to over the Dallas Union station tracks.. Make the DAL stop adjaecent to DAL US. That way the previousl 2nd floor station lobby would be used with a direct access to Texas Central, With elevators and esculators Union Station would become a very intermodal station. Add some bus routee stops then even betters.

Elevated TC tracks would be able to expand toward FTW in future.

2. Then the Houston station, Locating the station NNW of downtown not very friendly. TC should limit the scope of the Houston station and get with local officials to plan a station location near down town that would include Amtrak and Houston light rail. When station is completed then the NNW station would become suburban station.

3. With a combined station at DALLAS operating the proposed DAL - MEI Amtrak train would give Houston residents a quicker way to get to the Crescent route's stations.. TC is willing to get passengers on the national Amtrak reservation system that will give both RRs more revenue.


----------



## frequentflyer

This explains where the project is now.

"Because, as we’ve previously noted, this is a badly needed win for the beleaguered company. Although Texas Central representatives insist everything is just fine in the past few months it has come out that Texas Central has failed to pay property taxes in various counties, has seen its CEO Carlos Aguilar abruptly announced his resignation on LinkedIn of all places, and dissolved its board of directors. On top of that, the website has a gaping blank space where the executive team should be and the phone number listed on the website to contact the company is currently out of service.

So, all in all, this legal win a big deal for Texas Central, but it remains to be seen what they will—or can—do with the big hammer that is eminent domain now that the Texas Supreme Court has guaranteed that they do in fact have the right to wield it.'



https://www.houstonpress.com/houston/Print?oid=13638981



Now somebody needs to write a 30 Billion dollar check (hopefully that is the actual price and they don't pull a CAHSR).


----------



## zetharion

Would a tunnel below the existing highway be cheaper than $30 billion? This had to of been considered right?


----------



## MARC Rider

frequentflyer said:


> This explains where the project is now.
> 
> "Because, as we’ve previously noted, this is a badly needed win for the beleaguered company. Although Texas Central representatives insist everything is just fine in the past few months it has come out that Texas Central has failed to pay property taxes in various counties, has seen its CEO Carlos Aguilar abruptly announced his resignation on LinkedIn of all places, and dissolved its board of directors. On top of that, the website has a gaping blank space where the executive team should be and the phone number listed on the website to contact the company is currently out of service.


How does a CEO have the power to dissolve the Board of Directors? I thought it worked the other way around. The shareholders elect a board, the board hires executives, and if they don't like them, they can fire them.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

MARC Rider said:


> How does a CEO have the power to dissolve the Board of Directors? I thought it worked the other way around. The shareholders elect a board, the board hires executives, and if they don't like them, they can fire them.


Because there was no board? It's unclear from that statement if the corp dissolved the board or the CEO did. Very interesting, as they say,


----------



## west point

If TC just had 1 or more major stockholders ( 50% +1 shares ) they could dissolve the board unless a super majority to dissolve was required.


----------



## Metra Electric Rider

I'm picturing Bette Midler now, in her best imitation of Joan Collins (probably imitating Joan Crawford) telling the board that she will fire them all if they don't do her bidding - from Big Business.


----------



## cirdan

I'm no lawyer, but if there is no board and no CEO, who then (if anybody) is in control? Who can take executive decisions?

Has Texas Central essentially already thrown the towel?


----------



## west point

cirdan said:


> I'm no lawyer, but if there is no board and no CEO, who then (if anybody) is in control? Who can take executive decisions?
> 
> Has Texas Central essentially already thrown the towel?


Stockholder(s) could only be one share.


----------



## frequentflyer

StackPath



"Texas Central has a plan, organizers say more details coming 'at an appropriate time'"

We will see.


----------



## Bob Dylan

frequentflyer said:


> StackPath
> 
> 
> 
> "Texas Central has a plan, organizers say more details coming 'at an appropriate time'"
> 
> We will see.


Cue Johnny Mathis singing "The Twelfth of Never".


----------



## marcoloco

We first heard about this in 1990 with a completion date of 2005. SWA made sure it never happened. Then we heard about it again this 2nd time around and it's going nowhere fast. This project is all about politics and money (under the table money, that is) and will never happen. Can you think of any other reason it's not being built? And just so you understand what's going on, after this project is dead, you'll hear about it again in about 15 years and the same process wil start all over.


----------



## John Bredin

marcoloco said:


> This project is all about politics and money (under the table money, that is) and will never happen. Can you think of any other reason it's not being built?


The _opposition_ to this project has been all about politics: "Texas is an oil/trucks/highways state!" and "How dare a private company (that's not an electric utility, or oil pipeline, or....) use eminent domain!"

If there _was_ any under-the-table money here, the pols would "stay bought" and this thing would be under construction. 

And the sheer amount and ridiculousness -- "Texas Central is not a railroad because it's not running trains right now!"  -- of that opposition is precisely the reason it's not being built.

Hopefully it _will_ be built. Yes, there were the aforementioned pessimistic signs, including the CEO resigning. But Texas Central then won in the Texas supreme court, which would have been essentially fatal to the project if it came out the other way. The signs of contraction are just as consistent with investors hedging their bets against that possibility -- while notably still spending $$$ fighting in the supreme court -- as it is with simply giving up. Unlike some, I make little inference from the fact that TC's organizers aren't turning on a dime from fighting for the existence of the project to moving forward ambitiously.


----------



## Bob Dylan

Hope


John Bredin said:


> The _opposition_ to this project has been all about politics: "Texas is an oil/trucks/highways state!" and "How dare a private company (that's not an electric utility, or oil pipeline, or....) use eminent domain!"
> 
> If there _was_ any under-the-table money here, the pols would "stay bought" and this thing would be under construction.
> 
> And the sheer amount and ridiculousness -- "Texas Central is not a railroad because it's not running trains right now!"  -- of that opposition is precisely the reason it's not being built.
> 
> Hopefully it _will_ be built. Yes, there were the aforementioned pessimistic signs, including the CEO resigning. But Texas Central then won in the Texas supreme court, which would have been essentially fatal to the project if it came out the other way. The signs of contraction are just as consistent with investors hedging their bets against that possibility -- while notably still spending $$$ fighting in the supreme court -- as it is with simply giving up. Unlike some, I make little inference from the fact that TC's organizers aren't turning on a dime from fighting for the existence of the project to moving forward ambitiously.


I hope you're right but I'm from Missouri on this one!


----------



## John Bredin

Fair enough, the proof of the pudding will be in the eating. If TC doesn't start moving forward in some way (land acquisition, hiring, at least an updated website ) in a few months, then the issues were deeper than fighting the eminent-domain legal-political battle.


----------



## Rover

toddinde said:


> Of course that “sanctity of private property” interestingly doesn’t extend to highways or airports. Seems more selective than some kind of libertarian purity.


Or Mega-Stadiums...


----------



## Devil's Advocate

marcoloco said:


> We first heard about this in 1990 with a completion date of 2005. SWA made sure it never happened. Then we heard about it again this 2nd time around and it's going nowhere fast. This project is all about politics and money (under the table money, that is) and will never happen. Can you think of any other reason it's not being built? And just so you understand what's going on, after this project is dead, you'll hear about it again in about 15 years and the same process wil start all over.


I’ve read and reread this vaguely conspiratorial post several times but I still cannot make heads or tales of what you’re actually trying to say.


----------



## cirdan

Devil's Advocate said:


> I’ve read and reread this vaguely conspiratorial post several times but I still cannot make heads or tales of what you’re actually trying to say.


I agree.

Intra-Texas travel is only a tiny portion of SW's overall business. Ditto big oil. Why trucking companies or electrical utilities would want to fight the project evades me completely. So if bribes were really being payed, and if any of that should ever be made public (and remember, sooner or later almost everything above a certain size does come to the surface), the damage would be far greater than the purpose the bribes were supposed to achieve.

There is an old saying, never to ascribe to conspiracy what you can ascribe to incompetence.


----------



## Chris I

cirdan said:


> I agree.
> 
> Intra-Texas travel is only a tiny portion of SW's overall business. Ditto big oil. Why trucking companies or electrical utilities would want to fight the project evades me completely. So if bribes were really being payed, and if any of that should ever be made public (and remember, sooner or later almost everything above a certain size does come to the surface), the damage would be far greater than the purpose the bribes were supposed to achieve.
> 
> There is an old saying, never to ascribe to conspiracy what you can ascribe to incompetence.


At the time of the initial proposal (the 90s), Southwest was a significantly smaller airline, and they were heavily reliant on intra-Texas routes.

You can find a few citations to the efforts of the airline back in that period:


https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=jalc











Bullet Train Failed Once, but It’s Back (Published 2014)


Texas tried to establish a high-speed rail line before, but a lot has changed since 1989, and the newest effort, by Texas Central Railway, may have much better luck.




www.nytimes.com


----------



## Anderson

Chris I said:


> At the time of the initial proposal (the 90s), Southwest was a significantly smaller airline, and they were heavily reliant on intra-Texas routes.
> 
> You can find a few citations to the efforts of the airline back in that period:
> 
> 
> https://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1383&context=jalc
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bullet Train Failed Once, but It’s Back (Published 2014)
> 
> 
> Texas tried to establish a high-speed rail line before, but a lot has changed since 1989, and the newest effort, by Texas Central Railway, may have much better luck.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.nytimes.com


The key change is that in the 1990s, the Wright Amendment meant that Southwest could _only_ do short-haul flights from DAL (IIRC they were limited to flying to TX, OK, AR, LA, NM...and then MS and KS as well...and could not even do connecting flights through, say, ABQ or MSY on the same ticket). So there was a _strong_ incentive for Southwest to fight (since losing Dallas-Houston would hit them _hard_).

When that went away, the incentives inverted: DAL is gate-capped (16 gates for Southwest, 4 for others IIRC) but Southwest can fly anywhere from there, so now it is in their interests to _get rid of _Dallas-Houston (so those flights can go to NYC, LAX, etc.). Right now, that's like 15-16 flights/day (IAH and HOU combined), so that's basically an entire gate they'd _gain_.

[Edit: Add in DAL-AUS and DAL-SAT and from what I can tell you get another 18 flights/day. So if you could complete the Texas Triangle HSR, Southwest would probably regain about 2-3 gates' worth of space at DAL, which is _big_. This gets even bigger if they could get the train to be extended to Love Field, since they could probably keep those passengers on connecting tickets.]


----------



## Touchdowntom9

If Brightline proves successful after they launch Orlando and Tampa, I would be curious to see if they try to take over this project. Seems like a lot of the legal work is accomplished to a degree and would be a huge market opportunity if they could beat a car by an hour and a half by averaging 120mph on the route. Real difference is that atleast Brightline has financial backing and experience, TC has neither.


----------



## Anderson

Touchdowntom9 said:


> If Brightline proves successful after they launch Orlando and Tampa, I would be curious to see if they try to take over this project. Seems like a lot of the legal work is accomplished to a degree and would be a huge market opportunity if they could beat a car by an hour and a half by averaging 120mph on the route. Real difference is that atleast Brightline has financial backing and experience, TC has neither.


I think they might let it go if TC still wants it, and given the timeline on Tampa (at least 4-5 years IIRC) TC _should_ be pretty far along its merry way by then. Frankly, they might also have trouble carrying the relevant debt loads on top of FL and Vegas.


----------



## Touchdowntom9

Anderson said:


> I think they might let it go if TC still wants it, and given the timeline on Tampa (at least 4-5 years IIRC) TC _should_ be pretty far along its merry way by then. Frankly, they might also have trouble carrying the relevant debt loads on top of FL and Vegas.


I dont think TC will be around much longer. But also remember the more collateral you have, the easier it is to maintain large loads of debt. Having 3 separate and unique rail networks in the US will make them a much more stable borrower in the eyes of lenders.


----------



## Touchdowntom9

frequentflyer said:


> 1. CAHSR is your standard bearer for a High Speed Rail project? Liberal Californians have cooled on the project and they are footing the bill.
> 
> 2. Shocked, really shocked they won the Texas Supreme Court ruling, but it may be a moot point anyway. Time for Texas Central to show the money. Wasn't that the reason for going with JNR?
> 
> Despite the ruling got a feeling we have seen the last of Texas Central. I would love to be wrong.


If Brightline's Orlando extension and Brightline West land on their feet, I would bet these guys are going to look hard at this for their next opportunity. They have the team and expertise to build this unlike anyone else in the US. Could be as close to a plug and play situation for Brightline if they pick up where TC left off.


----------



## frequentflyer

Touchdowntom9 said:


> If Brightline's Orlando extension and Brightline West land on their feet, I would bet these guys are going to look hard at this for their next opportunity. They have the team and expertise to build this unlike anyone else in the US. Could be as close to a plug and play situation for Brightline if they pick up where TC left off.


Good point. Who says the line has to be electrified. CAHSR is apparently holding off catenary and going Hydrogen FLIRT trains. No reason why a capable company like Brightline could not resurrect the project and drastically cut costs.


----------



## joelkfla

frequentflyer said:


> Good point. Who says the line has to be electrified. CAHSR is apparently holding off catenary and going Hydrogen FLIRT trains. No reason why a capable company like Brightline could not resurrect the project and drastically cut costs.


I thought it was the existing regional trains that were FLIRTing with hydrogen, not CAHSR.


----------



## Touchdowntom9

frequentflyer said:


> Good point. Who says the line has to be electrified. CAHSR is apparently holding off catenary and going Hydrogen FLIRT trains. No reason why a capable company like Brightline could not resurrect the project and drastically cut costs.


Agreed--you don't need this train to hit 200mph to be a success. The Shinkansen wasnt built in one sweet, it was built and gradually upgraded. If you ran it using dual mode Chargers (like Amtrak just ordered) and ran it at 125mph for the entire route (but keeping the route designed for high speed turns), you would need much less capital to get that project started and could add electrification later on once you are having success. If you can beat a car by an 1.5 hours on a 3.5 hour drive, you have yourself a market for a product.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

frequentflyer said:


> CAHSR is apparently holding off catenary and going Hydrogen FLIRT trains.


I was only able to find one test order of four hydrogen trains with an 80MPH speed limit and no obvious connection to CAHSR.



frequentflyer said:


> No reason why a capable company like Brightline could not resurrect the project and drastically cut costs.


Maybe we should wait for Brightline to turn a profit or build something outside of Florida before we start awarding them unproven accolades.



Touchdowntom9 said:


> The Shinkansen wasnt built in one sweet, it was built and gradually upgraded. If you ran it using dual mode Chargers (like Amtrak just ordered) and ran it at 125mph for the entire route (but keeping the route designed for high speed turns), you would need much less capital to get that project started and could add electrification later on once you are having success. If you can beat a car by an 1.5 hours on a 3.5 hour drive, you have yourself a market for a product.


To reach 125MPH in the US you would need Class 7 track and by the time you're building that the additional cost to reach Class 8 or 9 is negligible. Locking this project into diesel-electric power for the next two or three decades is likely to dissuade the very people who are most open to using a train over a car.


----------



## frequentflyer

Devil's Advocate said:


> I was only able to find one test order of four hydrogen trains with an 80MPH speed limit and no obvious connection to CAHSR.
> 
> 
> Maybe we should wait for Brightline to turn a profit or build something outside of Florida before we start awarding them unproven accolades.
> 
> 
> To reach 125MPH in the US you would need Class 7 track and by the time you're building that the additional cost to reach Class 8 or 9 is negligible. Locking this project into diesel-electric power for the next two or three decades is likely to dissuade the very people who are most open to using a train over a car.


I should have clarify the FLIRTS, which are replacing some of the San Joaquins which will be using CAHSR track. 

They may not have posted a profit but at least they have moved dirt and have a track record of completing projects. 

The whole building rail projects without government help is a sham to me. Of they need government help.


----------



## GDRRiley

Touchdowntom9 said:


> If Brightline proves successful after they launch Orlando and Tampa, I would be curious to see if they try to take over this project. Seems like a lot of the legal work is accomplished to a degree and would be a huge market opportunity if they could beat a car by an hour and a half by averaging 120mph on the route. Real difference is that atleast Brightline has financial backing and experience, TC has neither.


Right now they are capital limited. I don't think we will see them expand outside of brightline west and flordia service for a while. Unless states and or feds given them money for new lines.


----------



## GDRRiley

frequentflyer said:


> Good point. Who says the line has to be electrified. CAHSR is apparently holding off catenary and going Hydrogen FLIRT trains. No reason why a capable company like Brightline could not resurrect the project and drastically cut costs.


because the only way you break 125mph cheaply is with wires. 
You can do 150-160mph with gas turbines but those are insanely expensive to operate.


----------



## GDRRiley

frequentflyer said:


> I should have clarify the FLIRTS, which are replacing some of the San Joaquins which will be using CAHSR track.


they are not, the service will be truncated.


frequentflyer said:


> The whole building rail projects without government help is a sham to me. Of they need government help


brightline west uses weird state issued private company bonds and cheap state owned ROWs. 
that was their request to any other state who had a good city pair/pairs


----------



## frequentflyer

joelkfla said:


> I thought it was the existing regional trains that were FLIRTing with hydrogen, not CAHSR.


Yes it is. There was an article, apparently now removed that stated the Amtrak SQ was going to use the completed portions of the CAHSR. Its now removed. Now I guess the plan is to meet at Merced and change trains.

There was another article that stated to save money on CAHSR construction there were seriously looking at Hydrogen power locomotives. It was in the LA times, I guess that idea has been changed too.


----------



## GDRRiley

frequentflyer said:


> There was another article that stated to save money on CAHSR construction there were seriously looking at Hydrogen power locomotives. It was in the LA times, I guess that idea has been changed too.


be careful around LA times and CAHSR Ralph Vartabedian wants the project killed and lies about it often
the only people who were pushing that were some politicians who just wanted to kill the program and use the funding for local transit


----------



## Touchdowntom9

GDRRiley said:


> Right now they are capital limited. I don't think we will see them expand outside of brightline west and flordia service for a while. Unless states and or feds given them money for new lines.


Sure, but if they are able to show profitability on 2 active train lines, their ability to borrow will increase dramatically. In addition, if the first two ventures prove successful, fortress is likely to keep funding their expansion.


----------



## Touchdowntom9

GDRRiley said:


> because the only way you break 125mph cheaply is with wires.
> You can do 150-160mph with gas turbines but those are insanely expensive to operate.


I was saying that you might not need to break 125 to be initially successful as long as you can hit that speed throughout and avoid slowdowns. They would want to average 120mph or so, and if it’s a dedicated line that should be possible if well designed with max superelevation etc


----------



## Anderson

Touchdowntom9 said:


> Agreed--you don't need this train to hit 200mph to be a success. The Shinkansen wasnt built in one sweet, it was built and gradually upgraded. If you ran it using dual mode Chargers (like Amtrak just ordered) and ran it at 125mph for the entire route (but keeping the route designed for high speed turns), you would need much less capital to get that project started and could add electrification later on once you are having success. If you can beat a car by an 1.5 hours on a 3.5 hour drive, you have yourself a market for a product.


I would agree if Texas Central went downtown-to-downtown. Stopping out in the Houston suburbs is a bit of a hiccup.


----------



## Anderson

GDRRiley said:


> brightline west uses weird state issued private company bonds and cheap state owned ROWs.
> that was their request to any other state who had a good city pair/pairs


I mean, Brightline (in FL) mostly uses a "cheap" privately-owned ROW (combined with access to two publicly-owned ROWs with a small patch in the Orlando area when you take the general scope of the project as a whole), since the owner of FEC decided that passenger business was worth bringing back (even if only to make a killing in real estate with).

In general, though, I think the answer is that in general you need an intact (or mostly-intact) ROW that you can access to make things viable for a private investor. That could be an existing railroad (Brightline), an interstate (Brightline and Brightline West), or conceivably a shortline (probably a Class II given the scale/scope needed). _In theory_ one of the Class Is could decide to play ball, but that seems unlikely given the current management mindset - they're so short-term focused that I don't think most of them would take a contract for 99 years of paid access with guaranteed base payments for access.

[I jest, slightly - UP was willing to entertain some of the LA-Vegas folks, but I can't speak to what priority those folks would have had.]


----------



## GDRRiley

Anderson said:


> I mean, Brightline (in FL) mostly uses a "cheap" privately-owned ROW (combined with access to two publicly-owned ROWs with a small patch in the Orlando area when you take the general scope of the project as a whole), since the owner of FEC decided that passenger business was worth bringing back (even if only to make a killing in real estate with).


Remember brightline and FEC are no longer owned by the same company, they just are using a bunch of existing agreements.


Anderson said:


> In general, though, I think the answer is that in general you need an intact (or mostly-intact) ROW that you can access to make things viable for a private investor. That could be an existing railroad (Brightline), an interstate (Brightline and Brightline West), or conceivably a shortline (probably a Class II given the scale/scope needed). _In theory_ one of the Class Is could decide to play ball, but that seems unlikely given the current management mindset - they're so short-term focused that I don't think most of them would take a contract for 99 years of paid access with guaranteed base payments for access.
> 
> [I jest, slightly - UP was willing to entertain some of the LA-Vegas folks, but I can't speak to what priority those folks would have had.]


UP seem to be willing to do a 50 if not 100 year lease if you build and maintain your tracks and you don't interfere with them. at least to counties and state goves.


----------



## The Quaking Widow

Anderson said:


> I would agree if Texas Central went downtown-to-downtown. Stopping out in the Houston suburbs is a bit of a hiccup.


Yes, there are so many of them!


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> I would agree if Texas Central went downtown-to-downtown. Stopping out in the Houston suburbs is a bit of a hiccup.


Taking Texas Central into downtown Houston would require an awful lot of eminent domain and cause huge costs plus delays engendered by endless legal disputes. This is the sort of thing a government-run railroad might do, but a privately operated railroad might be more cautious about.


----------



## joelkfla

cirdan said:


> Taking Texas Central into downtown Houston would require an awful lot of eminent domain and cause huge costs plus delays engendered by endless legal disputes. This is the sort of thing a government-run railroad might do, but a privately operated railroad might be more cautious about.


Are there any freeways that have enough unused ROW?


----------



## jis

joelkfla said:


> Are there any freeways that have enough unused ROW?


Unfortunately building elevated ROWs with pillars even in very narrow freeway or other main thoroughfare medians are looked down upon in the US apparently. That is how a preponderance of new Metros are built in Asia.


----------



## joelkfla

jis said:


> Unfortunately building elevated ROWs with pillars even in very narrow freeway or other main thoroughfare medians are looked down upon in the US apparently. That is how a preponderance of new Metros are built in Asia.


I was thinking more of ground-level ROW, like Brightline built along 528 and had been planning along 417, and I think there are still some sections planned in the I-4 median to Tampa.


----------



## west point

Brightline has a built in advantage that almost no other lines can meet. The FEC track is mostly a straight arrow ROW that is allowing 110 MPH operatio. Even so, some curve easing has taken plave. Also, the aount of grades is much less. Suspect that its fuel consumption per mile will meet Amtrak's guel consumption with P-42s. Now Amraks' ACL-42 may be able to match with its many grades, curves, and stop and goes.

The current freight ROWs are built or rebuilt to eliminate with allowing curves.


----------



## VentureForth

cirdan said:


> Taking Texas Central into downtown Houston would require an awful lot of eminent domain and cause huge costs plus delays engendered by endless legal disputes. This is the sort of thing a government-run railroad might do, but a privately operated railroad might be more cautious about.


Let guv'ment build it then sell it and it's debt to a private company for pennies on the dollar.


----------



## Anderson

GDRRiley said:


> Remember brightline and FEC are no longer owned by the same company, they just are using a bunch of existing agreements.


Yes, but they were executed under common ownership at the time. The break-up occurred after things were worked out between what I believe amounted to two divisions within the same corporate parent.


----------



## Anderson

cirdan said:


> Taking Texas Central into downtown Houston would require an awful lot of eminent domain and cause huge costs plus delays engendered by endless legal disputes. This is the sort of thing a government-run railroad might do, but a privately operated railroad might be more cautious about.


This is largely true. My point is that this still creates an issue in terms of "selling" the trip to folks.

Note that I said largely: If they could get access to the UP line into downtown, I believe you'd be looking at something like 1500-3000 feet of construction for a connection heading down to the Amtrak station. Alternatively, there's a BNSF line heading into downtown...but if I had to guess, UP might have the ROW needed to bypass downtown (even if they'd need to be paid a pretty penny to do so) while BNSF would be more constrained. There might also be a partly/fully disused ROW that would allow access to downtown - there were a _lot_ of mergers here, so there's a _lot_ of track that's been made redundant, and in quite a few cases ROWs survive largely because it simply doesn't make sense to "break" them.

[Having one or two suburban stations on each end would still make sense - first, because it's possible that given an intact operating line the local government on one end or the other might opt for commuter service; and second, because it means you don't need a massive parking deck in the middle of downtown.]


----------



## MARC Rider

Just saw this on the web. Wonder what it means.









Texas Central still has a pulse, but residents and landowners demand answers - Railway Track and Structures


Texas Central still has a pulse, but residents and landowners demand answers; back taxes in several counties have been paid.




www.rtands.com


----------



## jis

I spoke to someone from the Texas ARP who is extremely familiar with the Texas Central happenings and knows several people in the organization, at the RPA Fall Council Meeting in Kansas City a few days back. He basically told me that Texas Central is in hibernation and may or may not come out of it depending on how a few unspecified things turn out.


----------



## GDRRiley

not surprised I expect they'll get bought out if they can't move forward for the land they own.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> I spoke to someone from the Texas ARP who is extremely familiar with the Texas Central happenings and knows several people in the organization, at the RPA Fall Council Meeting in Kansas City a few days back. He basically told me that Texas Central is in hibernation and may or may not come out of it depending on how a few unspecified things turn out.


Not paying property taxes (if those reports are true) doesn't sound like a sustainable way of hibernating assets.


----------



## jis

cirdan said:


> Not paying property taxes (if those reports are true) doesn't sound like a sustainable way of hibernating assets.


Maybe it is just wishful thinking on the part of some rail enthusiasts, only to be blown apart as is most commonly the case with most such rail projects


----------

