# High Speed Rail In America?



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 19, 2016)

There are plenty of high speed trains worldwide such as in China, Japan, and Europe, but America doesn't even have one, except on the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington.

Does anyone know how long it's going to possibly take to bring High Speed Rail to North America, including Canada, whether for regional service or long-distance service, as well as freight service? It would also be nice to have high speed freight service, because they could move freight faster and more efficiently.

And if they ever bring high speed rail, why is it preferred to use electricity instead of diesel? I personally think diesel is better than overhead wires. And also, the locomotive manufacturers are making diesel locomotives that are a whole lot cleaner for the environment.


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 19, 2016)

The biggest difference that causes high speed rail to be a nonstarter in North America is the massive distances between cities and the lack of critical population density.

Electric trains are typically lighter and have better acceleration than diesel trains, which are really just electric locomotives that carry their own electrical generating station.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Feb 19, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> The biggest difference that causes high speed rail to be a nonstarter in North America is the massive distances between cities and the lack of critical population density.
> 
> Electric trains are typically lighter and have better acceleration than diesel trains, which are really just electric locomotives that carry their own electrical generating station.


I see.

And speaking of lighter, I forgot. They are also making diesel locomotives that are lighter, designed specifically for high speed. For example, the EMD F125's and Siemens Chargers. These locos are expecting to reach a top speed of 125 MPH.


----------



## Eric S (Feb 19, 2016)

I would disagree with the distance and density issue - there are plenty of regions in North America with major cities located near each other and with population densities comparable to Europe.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 19, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> There are plenty of high speed trains worldwide such as in China, Japan, and Europe, but America doesn't even have one, except on the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington.


Some portions of the Acela Express service corridor could have claimed a legitimate high speed designation if they had existed back in the mid 1960's when Acela level speeds were still considered cutting edge. A half century later in 2016 there is no reason to call Acela high speed anything.



CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Does anyone know how long it's going to possibly take to bring High Speed Rail to North America, including Canada, whether for regional service or long-distance service, as well as freight service? It would also be nice to have high speed freight service, because they could move freight faster and more efficiently.


At this point the only remaining proposals are in California (government funded) and Texas (privately funded) and both are likely to suffer continued delays and setbacks by anti-rail and anti-public-service groups and politicians. At the moment I'd put the best case scenario for a single Tokyo to Osaka equivalent distance trip somewhere in the ballpark of 2030.



CSXfoamer1997 said:


> And if they ever bring high speed rail, why is it preferred to use electricity instead of diesel? I personally think diesel is better than overhead wires. And also, the locomotive manufacturers are making diesel locomotives that are a whole lot cleaner for the environment.


In simple terms electricity is what turns the wheels regardless of the original power source. Using a conventional diesel engine to create the electricity adds more weight, more moving parts, reduces general efficiency, limits the maximum horsepower, and releases greater volumes of more destructive pollution than most forms of large scale energy generation.



CCC1007 said:


> The biggest difference that causes high speed rail to be a nonstarter in North America is the massive distances between cities and the lack of critical population density.


Although a nationwide system of high speed rail that crisscrossed the entire country is likely to remain impractical there are several large cities in the US that have all the traits necessary to benefit greatly from regional high speed rail links. What makes the US transportation landscape unique isn't our size or our density but rather our willingness to meekly accept permanent defeat before we even bother to try. What the US has that no other industrial country seems to share is a rather large contingent of anti-rail partisans who cannot be reasoned with and will simply make up excuses to avoiding funding passenger rail under any circumstances.


----------



## CCC1007 (Feb 19, 2016)

Check your PM's CSX


----------



## Seaboard92 (Mar 2, 2016)

I think there is also a political issue in this country that undermines it as well. That we are unable to invest in things that the conservatives see as a money loss investment. While in places like Germany it's a good investment to build more HSL lines. Even today they are working on one to cut the travel time from Berlin to München in half and add a large city in the route (Erfurt) as well.

What we fail to see in this country is the economic impact of high speed rail in this country. Yes it costs money and requires a subsidy to keep running. But at the same time the local economy around it benefits to a level that repays the investment. If you want high speed rail right now your best bet is to move somewhere else.


----------



## me_little_me (Mar 2, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> The biggest difference that causes high speed rail to be a nonstarter in North America is the massive distances between cities and the lack of critical population density.
> 
> Electric trains are typically lighter and have better acceleration than diesel trains, which are really just electric locomotives that carry their own electrical generating station.


Add to that the fact that the rails and rail right of way are mostly owned by freight railroads who do not need high speed tracks

Add to that America's love of the car.

Add to that is WWII when much of Europe was devastated so in the process of rebuilding, they had the opportunity to pioneer faster rail during a time when few could afford cars or gasoline and the road infrastructure was in shambles.

Add to that, NIMBY in the U.S. which didn't exist to a high extent when U.S. railroads were built or when Europe's were rebuilt.

Add to that U.S. railroads who made passenger travel worse and worse in an effort to get out of passenger business which likely spawned a generation of people not used to taking rail.

Add to that the fact that people are reluctant to spend big money on something that is all promises when they can't see the benefits but they see the costs and disruption and the poor quality of existing rail.


----------



## DSS&A (Mar 24, 2016)

Hi,

Here's an article about the lobbying against high speed rail and the current status. We may have to wait for China or Japan to fund HSR in the our country, or at least the first route.

http://www.manufacturing.net/news/2016/03/why-there-still-no-high-speed-rail-network-america


----------



## trainviews (Mar 25, 2016)

Eric S said:


> I would disagree with the distance and density issue - there are plenty of regions in North America with major cities located near each other and with population densities comparable to Europe.


Yes. The distance is a bogus myth put forward by the anti train lobby. Is it feasible everywhere in the US? No, but both seabords and much of the whole eastern half of the US is having plenty of city pairs where High Speed Rail is feasible. Countries like Spain or Sweden has vast areas with low population density, but both have very successful HSR systems where feasible.

If there is any important difference between the US and Europe it is more the hollowed out city centres in the US and the lack of efficient transit and regional rail to connect with a HSR terminal. But even that differs vastly from one metro area to the next...

As for electrification - when you look at train systems around the world 125 mph seems to be pretty much the top speed for diesel. From there catenary rules surpreme and for good reasons.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 25, 2016)

trainviews said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> > I would disagree with the distance and density issue - there are plenty of regions in North America with major cities located near each other and with population densities comparable to Europe.
> ...


Well, there is one diesel locomotive I know of that reached a top speed of 140 mph. It was from British Rail.


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 25, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> trainviews said:
> 
> 
> > Eric S said:
> ...


Is it still in service, if not, why, if so, which model?


----------



## jis (Mar 25, 2016)

British Rail Class 43 (Intercity 125) sets are capable of 140mph+, and have allegedly been tested at upto 148mph in their original Paxman Valenta powered configuration. But they have never been operated commercially above 125mph.

The Russians have claimed that a TEP90 set achieved 168mph but it is not reliably documented. The Spaniards have claimed 158mph for a Talgo XXI but apparently that has not been reliably documented either. In any case none of those experiments led to any commercial diesel operation above 125mph.

The Class 43's are going to be replaces by British Class 800 and 801 manufactured by Hitachi, both capable of 140mph when running under electric power. The Class 800 is capable of operating under diesel power at 100mph. The Brits have chosen to just electrify all routes where speed higher than 125mph is envisaged.


----------



## CSXfoamer1997 (Mar 25, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> CSXfoamer1997 said:
> 
> 
> > trainviews said:
> ...


The British Rail HST Class 43. It runs at 125 MPH in service, but ran a record of 148 MPH.


----------



## jis (Mar 25, 2016)

In addition to the HST 125s there are the Alstom Class 180 DMUs Voith/Hydraulic transmission and Bombardier Class 220, 221 and 222 all DMUs with electric transmission, that run regular service at 125mph. The Brits are consistently moving away from loco hauled trains to DMUs, EMUs or DEMUs.


----------



## leemell (Mar 25, 2016)

California HSR now has really nothing it is way to implement the first operational segment from Bakersfield to San Jose. The last current major law suit was ruled against by the trial judge after the Court of Appeals sent it back to him telling him he was wrong to affirm it the first time. The new business plan has in it enough money to complete the first link for revenue service without new financing.. The IOS is currently scheduled to start in 2025. For status of current construction go here.


----------



## trainviews (Mar 26, 2016)

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> trainviews said:
> 
> 
> > Eric S said:
> ...


Oh I didn't mean to say Diesel trains couldn't be faster. In theory I don't think there's anything making it impossible to make diesel trains that can run at even higher speeds. So far it just haven't proven feasible to use them in any regular service.

It's a question of them being economically and operationally inferior to electrics when you get up to HSR. Diesels get too heavy with a corresponding worse fuel economy and lower acceleration, enabling them to reach the top speed at shorter stretches before they have to slow down again. Add the push in many countries to get rid of as much fossil fuel as possible is also a factor.

So diesel is relegated to slower and more lightly trafficed lines where the investment in new straighter track and/or catenary doesn't pay.


----------



## Carolina Special (Mar 27, 2016)

It seems to me the whole hyperloop concept brought forward by Elon Musk is effectively high speed rail. There are evidently a couple of companies aiming to build test tracks to see if it works. If hyperloop works and turns out to be cost effective-two big caveats-it seems to me it would eventually change passenger and freight transportation forever. An average 600 MPH would beat any existing HSR and prove quite competitive with airlines.

Or perhaps I just remember the subshuttles of Gene Rodenberry's 1970s "Genesis II" much too fondly. :unsure:


----------



## RSG (Mar 27, 2016)

me_little_me said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > The biggest difference that causes high speed rail to be a nonstarter in North America is the massive distances between cities and the lack of critical population density.
> ...


All very good points. I would add to those the fact that there is still this romanticism with airline travel, among those who set policy (gub'mint-types and their benefactors/patrons), and, still, among the general public. Oh sure, they [the traveling public] say they hate it and are ready to take to social media anytime they get more than a wedgie from a cramped airline seat, but they are perfectly willing to hop on a plane the next time they have to go somewhere, even if they could just as easily drive. As pointed out on other threads, that aspect of travel is only going to get worse, particularly as the system starts to implode and the carriers meld together in order to maintain some semblance of profitability. Perhaps when air travel more closely resembles prisoner transport, that attitude will start to change.

Another factor I'm surprised no one has mentioned yet is that the entirety of railroad crossings would need to be retrofitted anywhere a high-speed rail line was put into operation. A factor prevalent here which is generally absent in many other parts of the world is the necessity to remake crossings virtually idiot-proof (and I would define 'idiot' quite broadly). In other countries citizenry generally have enough sense to keep their distance from moving trains and the tracks they run on, yet residents of the United States seem to take it as a challenge and/or assume that locomotives are like really big trucks and can just slam on the brakes if they don't happen to move off the tracks in time. Making the crossings generally reflective of that necessity would be an undertaking in itself.

Add to the above is the general tendency for the blame for any train-interloper collision to be assigned to the operators of the train and owners of the rail line, instead of the presumed victim. Even actions which are clearly the fault of the intruder upon the rail system will result in some amount of going-away money from someone, and both bean-counters and legal advisors generally advise the members of the rail industry to make a sympathy offer and move on. This adds both to the cost of operation and the reluctance to build any sort of system that would increase current liability.

As for the power debate, the days of new catenary wire being strung where it has never existed before are over. Telecommunications providers have buried their lines once they converted to fiber optic transmission sources and many communities are pressuring electric service providers to bury their lines ASAP, or at least whenever they do rebuilds of existing infrastructure. That trend will only accelerate as NIMBYism becomes more prevalent.

My two cents: high-speed rail service in the US will largely be restricted to corridor service between intermediate points. It would likely be the most efficient method of implementing that type of a system and offer the most potential for cost-recovery since most of the corridor service serves larger population centers where rail travel offers a distinct advantage as well as an existing familiarity.


----------



## jis (Mar 28, 2016)

No real high speed rail track anywhere in the world has any grade crossing. They are all grade separated. And also they are all electrified with overhead catenary, unless they happen to be Maglev


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 28, 2016)

jis said:


> No real high speed rail track anywhere in the world has any grade crossing. They are all grade separated. And also they are all electrified with overhead catenary, unless they happen to be Maglev


However, high speed trains in France also operate on conventional trackage to get to the stations in downtown, sometimes including grade crossings on these conventional lines which are shared traffic.


----------



## jis (Mar 28, 2016)

CCC1007 said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > No real high speed rail track anywhere in the world has any grade crossing. They are all grade separated. And also they are all electrified with overhead catenary, unless they happen to be Maglev
> ...


But they do not operate at high speed on those tracks. They operate as conventional trains. That is the case almost everywhere. High speed trains operate at regular speeds on non high seed tracks. Happens even in Japan on the Akita Shinkansen.


----------



## CCC1007 (Mar 28, 2016)

jis said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> > jis said:
> ...


I was more hoping to start people thinking about building dedicated high speed trackage outside the major urban areas and using the existing infrastructure to achieve downtown to downtown service, though the conventional trackage will probably need to be upgraded to allow for more trains to use it in town.


----------



## leemell (Mar 28, 2016)

RSG said:


> me_little_me said:
> 
> 
> > CCC1007 said:
> ...


Not really. Caltrain on the San Francisco (home of mega-NIMBYism) peninsula is in the preparation process of electrifying all for its tracks right now. No cantenary before as they are all diesel.


----------



## jis (Mar 28, 2016)

RSG said:


> As for the power debate, the days of new catenary wire being strung where it has never existed before are over.


Looking around the world, based on what I am seeing, I cannot help but come to the inevitable conclusion that you are living in your own fantasyland


----------



## RSG (Mar 28, 2016)

jis said:


> RSG said:
> 
> 
> > As for the power debate, the days of new catenary wire being strung where it has never existed before are over.
> ...


"Around the world" is not the United States (aside from pockets like the SF Bay Area). Among tree-huggers, the biggest complaint about wind turbines is bird kills and other wildlife impact. Among neighbors of wind farms, it's new transmission lines that are needed to transmit the power from the site of production to the nearest electrical grid. It's now almost impossible to build new cellular telephone antenna towers without a plan to hide or disguise them, even in smaller communities.

In other countries with strong central planning, it's probably relatively easy to string new wires or infrastructure; that is not the case in the United States, particularly the interior West. A regional rail line (_sans_ catenary power) was eventually derailed after a number of years due to mounting opposition to the proposal, from a broad number of interests across several states. That is only one reason why coast-to-coast HSR in the US will not come to pass.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Mar 28, 2016)

RSG said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > RSG said:
> ...


The idea that you equate the rest of the world with the Bay Area betrays a stupendous level of ignorance. How much traveling outside of the US have you actually experienced? Your 1980's era "tree-hugger" labeling is both naive and outdated. The vast majority of environmentalists strongly prefer electric trains leveraging renewable energy (wind, hydro, wave, tidal, geothermal, photovoltaic, solar thermal, biofuel etc.) over fossil fuel aircraft and private vehicles. Your attempt to equate cellular towers with renewable grid infrastructure is both silly and erroneous. It's kind of amazing to me how confident you seem to be with a topic in which you appear to have little if any firsthand knowledge.


----------



## leemell (Mar 29, 2016)

RSG said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> > RSG said:
> ...


You know that the SF area is densely populated by one of the most liberal populations in the US? In LA, a brand new 11 mile catenary just opened in the San Gaberial valley.In about 60 days. 7 miles of brand new catenary opens in West LA and Santa Monica, the original home of NIMBYs. I think you are just wrong about this. BTW, in the central valley the first 100 miles of new cantenary of more than 500 is under construction.


----------



## RSG (Mar 29, 2016)

Devil's Advocate said:


> The idea that you equate the rest of the world with the Bay Area betrays a stupendous level of ignorance. How much traveling outside of the US have you actually experienced? Your 1980's era "tree-hugger" labeling is both naive and outdated. The vast majority of environmentalists strongly prefer electric trains leveraging renewable energy (wind, hydro, wave, tidal, geothermal, photovoltaic, solar thermal, biofuel etc.) over fossil fuel aircraft and private vehicles. Your attempt to equate cellular towers with renewable grid infrastructure is both silly and erroneous. It's kind of amazing to me how confident you seem to be with a topic in which you appear to have little if any firsthand knowledge.


I wasn't equating the "rest of the world" with the Bay Area in general, only in reference to the comment about Caltrans constructing new catenary lines in the Bay Area.

I seem to have hit a nerve. Trust me, it's okay to be a "tree hugger". Even some of my best friends would probably identify with some part of that labeling or at least the environmental concern behind it.

As for "renewable grid infrastructure", I do have a certain amount of experience with it. Either way, a wind turbine, caternary wire, and cellular towers all have the same net effect for some people. If this wasn't the case, then the Kennedy family wouldn't have opposed the Cape Wind project.


----------



## RSG (Mar 29, 2016)

leemell said:


> You know that the SF area is densely populated by one of the most liberal populations in the US?


I do know that; I was there last summer. Perhaps the locals are not concerned about new catenary installations because there other issues they are concerned with?



> In LA, a brand new 11 mile catenary just opened in the San Gaberial valley.In about 60 days. 7 miles of brand new catenary opens in West LA and Santa Monica, the original home of NIMBYs. I think you are just wrong about this. BTW, in the central valley the first 100 miles of new cantenary of more than 500 is under construction.


I'm assuming that the new construction is around rail installations which themselves are sheltered somewhat from public view and that no instalations are blocking anyone's view of the San Gabriel Mountains.


----------



## Eric S (Mar 29, 2016)

This whole discussion seems bizarre. There have been any number of electric rail lines constructed in the US in recent years (mostly transit, typically light rail/streetcar) including in the Denver area. Caltrain is actively planning electrification. And the United States is hardly a unique snowflake, unlike anywhere else in the world - what works elsewhere can and does work here.


----------



## jis (Mar 29, 2016)

It should also be noted that railway electrification is typically mostly on railway property or on easements granted for such. They do not clutter up anything else. And today's modern catenary infrastructure can be made quite unobtrusive with thoughtful design and engineering. I do not think that the New Haven - Boston electrification should be taken as a shining example of good modern design. The South Amboy to Long Branch electrification of NJ Transit which predates the NHV - BOS electrification is a better example. The Denver A line is also quite good.

According to one rough estimate there is 5,000+ main line route km undergoing new 25kV OHE electrification in the world this year. In addition there are numerous LRT and such lower voltage electrification using catenary infrastructure that looks similar to the mainline one. Admittedly the US share of this is disproportionately small. But then in general advanced passenger train development share is disproportionately small for the US too.

This is the reason that I believe anyone who claims that the days of railway electrification using OHE are over is disconnected from reality.

It should be added that there are segments of LRT lines through downtown that are now getting inductive transfer electrification involving no overhead equipment. The power transfer equipment is all buried in the middle of the track and is activated only when a train is covering the portion of the track. This of course is more expensive than OHE, but makes sense for reducing clutter over streets and parks in the densely populated areas. But it is unlikely that this technology would be broadly deployed in high speed main line rail operations anytime soon.


----------



## afigg (Mar 29, 2016)

RSG said:


> I wasn't equating the "rest of the world" with the Bay Area in general, only in reference to the comment about Caltrans constructing new catenary lines in the Bay Area.
> 
> I seem to have hit a nerve. Trust me, it's okay to be a "tree hugger". Even some of my best friends would probably identify with some part of that labeling or at least the environmental concern behind it.
> 
> As for "renewable grid infrastructure", I do have a certain amount of experience with it. Either way, a wind turbine, caternary wire, and cellular towers all have the same net effect for some people. If this wasn't the case, then the Kennedy family wouldn't have opposed the Cape Wind project.


You did not hit a "nerve". You posted a broad statement about the use and deployment of catenary that is in the whaaattt? category. As jis stated, even in the US there is overhead catenary going up on light rail lines, streetcar lines, 40 plus miles of heavy rail regional lines in Denver, and so on.


----------



## leemell (Mar 29, 2016)

RSG said:


> leemell said:
> 
> 
> > You know that the SF area is densely populated by one of the most liberal populations in the US?
> ...


This railway is about as far from shelter as you can get. It is brand new tracks in the center of partly elevated freeway where all of the local residents can see it and on the south side it is in the view of the mountains.


----------



## jis (Mar 29, 2016)

The OHE electrification of the Peninsula Line between San Francisco and San Jose is advancing and it will be visible from all sorts of extremely expensive properties owned by extremely influential people, some of whom will try to block it, and will fail, just like they failed in preventing the trackage from getting elevated to grade separate it from cross streets in many areas. Vanity of the rich can only go so far.


----------



## cirdan (Apr 1, 2016)

jis said:


> It should be added that there are segments of LRT lines through downtown that are now getting inductive transfer electrification involving no overhead equipment. The power transfer equipment is all buried in the middle of the track and is activated only when a train is covering the portion of the track. This of course is more expensive than OHE, but makes sense for reducing clutter over streets and parks in the densely populated areas. But it is unlikely that this technology would be broadly deployed in high speed main line rail operations anytime soon.


Not least because battery technology isn't anywhere near there yet.

The energy you need to store for a light rail train to maybe amble along for a mile or less at 20mph is quite different to that required to push a high speed train at 220mph over hundreds of miles. Those batteries occupy space and weight and thus make the entire system less efficient and economical.

Even the light rail lines that use batteries, normally only use them on relatively short sections where architectural concerns or particularly well-connected nimbyism have enforced it. They typically do run off catenary on other sections. I expect that as technology involves that costs will come down and range will increase making more and longer sections possible. But we're still multiple generations from running high speed trains off batteries, if indeed that will ever happen.


----------

