# Amtrak In High Speed Rail



## Jonathan Band (Oct 14, 2011)

I started this post because there is more and more talk about high speed rail in politics. I don't care if Amtrak will get more service because of it but I absolutely hate the idea of a NATIONAL high speed rail network. I would love to see corridors like in the northeast and in California but a national high speed rail system in a country this huge doesn't seem right. I wanted to see what others thought of a high speed rail system. To me the "slow speeds" and ability to see the scenery is part of taking the train. In my opinion I would much rather take a three day trip and see all the scenery this country has to offer than take a 200mph train where I can't even snap a picture from the lounge car.

PLEASE put in your opinion I am anxious to see what others think about this topic.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 14, 2011)

I would like to see a semi-national system...that is to say, in an ideal situation I'd like to see a New York-Florida train jammed down to 16 hours. I think we all know how realistic that is, but that is the essence of what I'd like to see: A network of trains that offer a good overnight connection between most major cities east of Denver (i.e. Chicago-Denver, Chicago-New York, New York-Florida, etc.), with departures post-4 PM and arrivals pre-9 AM where possible. I'd _also_ like to see "daylight" counterparts set up so you could "sling" from an overnight CHI-WAS train (for example) onto a daylight train headed south to Charlotte or Atlanta.

Higher speeds are a means to an end, the end in question being tighter timetables that offer appealing travel times. With that said, I would prefer to see serious efforts made to improve connectivity on some shorter LD segments (CHI-DEN leaps to mind). Also, I _really_ don't think you'd need a "bullet train" for a lot of the links. Rolling stock that is based on the Acela (as far as top speeds and general shape, though as I understand it the design wants for some mechanical points) would probably do for this...for the most part, you'd be looking at runs of less than 1400 miles (most would be in the 800-1200 range), meaning you'd "only" need to timetable about 75-85 MPH for most runs.


----------



## jphjaxfl (Oct 15, 2011)

If the United States is going to compete with nations like China that are building high speed rail systems, we need to do the same. Of course the automobile, oil and other lobby groups do not want high speed rail because they know it would eventually impact their bottom line. The best the US has to offer in a modern rail system is the Acela Express which reaches a top speed of 150 mph for a very small portion on the 459 mile NE corridor between Boston and Washington. I travel a lot on business, but in most cases taking Amtrak isn't pratical, but on the northeast corridor trains are able to compete with planes. However, the northeast corridor is outdated infrastructure due to speed limit constraints in the Baltimore tunnels and other places. Many of my business collegues have indicated they would travel on an Acela type high speed train for trips of 500 miles or less like Jacksonville to Atlanta, Jacksonville to Miami or Tampa and other corridors. Business people cannot afford to spend 12-17 hours on a train. I often times will travel on Amtrak from Jacksonville to Washington or other corridor cities because of the overnight schedule that is attractive, but few of my collegues want to try to sleep on a train even with the finest accomodations. They would rather spend 4-5 hours flying and then sleep in a hotel room. Unfortunately, the rail infrastructure in the US is 19th or early 20th century at best so it would take billions of dollars and 20-25 years to bring it up to the 21st century. I have traveled by train in Europe, Japan and other places with high speed rail systems. My collegues and I often comment..why can't the US have something like this? It is good to have a few long distance cruise type trains for people who want to see the US to connect high speed corridors, but I can tell you with the current political climate in Washington, their days mays be numbered. If the US wants to be a world class country, high speed rail needs to be in the future.


----------



## tp49 (Oct 15, 2011)

jphjaxfl said:


> If the United States is going to compete with nations like China that are building high speed rail systems, we need to do the same. Of course the automobile, oil and other lobby groups do not want high speed rail because they know it would eventually impact their bottom line.


Here's the thing the US will never compete with China when it comes to high speed rail. It's just not possible. Reason being is the a difference in governing systems. In China it is very easy to get a public works project approved and built quickly because the government owns all of the land in China. Thus, if they want a rail line to go somewhere that's where it goes. The government pays a sum to the occupants of the land and then builds what it wants. Try that here in the US and the between the environmental impact studies and other regulatory hoops required before you get to the issue of fair market value for the private property that would have to be acquired via eminent domain and all of the litigation that comes with that. A process that would take a year or two (maybe less) before a shovel is put into the ground in China would take 10-20 years here. The US will be lucky is any of the true HSR projects get built within the next twenty to thirty years.


----------



## MattW (Oct 15, 2011)

The thing about trains is that they don't just link A and G, but A, to B, to C, to D, to E, to F, to G. Using a hypothetical service along the old Western and Atlantic from Atlanta to Chattanooga, you're not just linking Chattanooga to Atlanta, but you're linking at least Acworth, Cartersville, Adairsville, Calhoun, Dalton, and Ringold to all the other cities. No reason for high speed rail to not work the same way. IF you have to corridors that come within reasonable distance of each other, why not link them up? Let's say you have the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington. Then you have a southeast corridor linking Atlanta to Raleigh (yes, I know the actual Southeast HSR plans are a bit different). Why not just make the Raleigh-Washington connection? Why not have some run-through trains instead of terminating at the exact limits of the specific corridor. This is how Europe works. Germany's Inter City Expresses operate into Vienna, Paris, Copenhagen with TGVs also operating into parts of Germany.

Once you've linked enough corridors, you suddenly have a national system. Maybe the inter-corridor service won't be as frequent as intra-corridor, but people can't ride what doesn't exist.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 15, 2011)

MattW said:


> The thing about trains is that they don't just link A and G, but A, to B, to C, to D, to E, to F, to G. Using a hypothetical service along the old Western and Atlantic from Atlanta to Chattanooga, you're not just linking Chattanooga to Atlanta, but you're linking at least Acworth, Cartersville, Adairsville, Calhoun, Dalton, and Ringold to all the other cities. No reason for high speed rail to not work the same way. IF you have to corridors that come within reasonable distance of each other, why not link them up? Let's say you have the Northeast Corridor from Boston to Washington. Then you have a southeast corridor linking Atlanta to Raleigh (yes, I know the actual Southeast HSR plans are a bit different). Why not just make the Raleigh-Washington connection? Why not have some run-through trains instead of terminating at the exact limits of the specific corridor. This is how Europe works. Germany's Inter City Expresses operate into Vienna, Paris, Copenhagen with TGVs also operating into parts of Germany.
> 
> Once you've linked enough corridors, you suddenly have a national system. Maybe the inter-corridor service won't be as frequent as intra-corridor, but people can't ride what doesn't exist.


The main problem is that, at present, you have two hangups:

1) In the NEC, there are problems with conflicting power requirements (the line up to Albany isn't electrified in the same way the NEC mainline is), precluding through services from Albany to anywhere past NYP.

2) Most of our corridors are badly separated. The closest thing we have to making this work is the Carolinan (connecting the NEC to the NC lines). You _might_ be able to make some through services work in CHI (I know there's precedent for a Milwaukee-St. Louis service of some sort in the Abraham Lincoln), but there you probably either need a push-pull setup or some reworking at CUS. Aside from a few outliers, though, we basically have a New York hub, a Chicago hub, a regional system in CA, and a pair of corridors in the NW and in NC.

If you had some corridors located in other places (say, the 3Cs, which got axed by OH's governor, or a larger clump of corridors in the SE), then you could seriously look at operating additional interconnecting services (which would have some ridership synergy with the attached corridors even if a transfer was necessary).


----------



## mfastx (Oct 15, 2011)

IMO, Amtrak seems to run the Acela just fine. I think they would be able to run other corridors, but it might help to have other private (or semi-private) companies, so that prices can be more competative.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 16, 2011)

The problem with competition is infrastructure access. Building rail lines isn't cheap, and the freights already pull their hair out with accommodating Amtrak. How do you think they're going to like the idea of dealing with a couple more companies? Also, I'm not sure that competition would do much good in any environment that isn't _very_ profitable: The services would likely end up cannibalizing one another until you wound up back in a monopoly situation...and added a backlog of deferred maintenance to boot.

The only exception I could see is if enough corridors operating on a single freight started turning a major profit...though the situation is virtually impossible to envision now, I _could_ see one of the freights bidding for a state corridor operation at some point (especially as it would give them nearly complete control over scheduling vis-a-vis their freight shipping) and going from there.


----------



## AlanB (Oct 16, 2011)

Anderson said:


> 1) In the NEC, there are problems with conflicting power requirements (the line up to Albany isn't electrified in the same way the NEC mainline is), precluding through services from Albany to anywhere past NYP.


The line to Albany isn't electrified period!

Yes, about 20 miles of the route on Metro North tracks is electrified, but that's a drop in the bucket of the 140+ miles between NYP and Albany.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 16, 2011)

AlanB said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> > 1) In the NEC, there are problems with conflicting power requirements (the line up to Albany isn't electrified in the same way the NEC mainline is), precluding through services from Albany to anywhere past NYP.
> ...


I know this was mentioned somewhere before, but remind me what Amtrak uses on the Empire Service, Maple Leaf, Adirondack, and LSL to get around the diesel ban in Manhattan?


----------



## Trogdor (Oct 16, 2011)

1) There is no "diesel ban" in Manhattan.

2) Nevertheless, to avoid getting diesel fumes into NYP, they use P32AC-DM (dual mode) engines, based on the P40/P42 design, but with third-rail capability.

3) You have "incompatible" electric requirements in Europe, and they still manage to link their HSR systems together. So, that is not an insurmountable problem.


----------



## jis (Oct 16, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> 1) There is no "diesel ban" in Manhattan.
> 
> 2) Nevertheless, to avoid getting diesel fumes into NYP, they use P32AC-DM (dual mode) engines, based on the P40/P42 design, but with third-rail capability.
> 
> 3) You have "incompatible" electric requirements in Europe, and they still manage to link their HSR systems together. So, that is not an insurmountable problem.


Agree. Afterall Acelas and Regionals work just fine in spite of three different electrical systems on the NEC.

And as we speak, the Brits are showing how the lack of electrification in part of the system need not prevent run through 125mph service either. Of course if the primary activity is finding excuses for not doing something, almost everything is impossible. Actually, the Brits want to run their until now DMUs under electric mode wherever electrification is available because that is overall less polluting and more energy efficient. That is just the opposite of the general approach in the US which is run electric only if nothing else works, with general disregard for pollution, efficiency etc..


----------



## MattW (Oct 16, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> 1) There is no "diesel ban" in Manhattan.
> 
> 2) Nevertheless, to avoid getting diesel fumes into NYP, they use P32AC-DM (dual mode) engines, based on the P40/P42 design, but with third-rail capability.
> 
> 3) You have "incompatible" electric requirements in Europe, and they still manage to link their HSR systems together. So, that is not an insurmountable problem.


To add a bit to what Trogdor is saying, the P32s only operate on third rail for a short portion of their route on the Empire connection, they operate on diesel on the remainder of their route. They are less powerful when drawing from third rail and the New York Penn Station third rails are top-contact as is the Long Island Railroad while Metro North's electrification is bottom-contact.


----------



## Anderson (Oct 16, 2011)

Trogdor said:


> 1) There is no "diesel ban" in Manhattan.
> 
> 2) Nevertheless, to avoid getting diesel fumes into NYP, they use P32AC-DM (dual mode) engines, based on the P40/P42 design, but with third-rail capability.
> 
> 3) You have "incompatible" electric requirements in Europe, and they still manage to link their HSR systems together. So, that is not an insurmountable problem.


1) Ok, this was a policy misunderstanding on my part. As I understood it, there was a ban of some sort in place surrounding non-electric engines in NYP (which I think dated back to the steam era).

2/3) I'm not familiar with the situation in Continental Europe. I _do_, however, like the BR model (with the dual-power multiple units).


----------



## Green Maned Lion (Oct 19, 2011)

jis said:


> Trogdor said:
> 
> 
> > 1) There is no "diesel ban" in Manhattan.
> ...


That's because prior to the ALP45dp, American hybrids were cheaply designed to limp along in electric mode. Contemplating a empire train running all the way to C-H is unpleasant.


----------

