# High Speed Rail Proposed for United City-States of America



## Manny T

Check out this map from the Washington Post for a new high speed rail system for the United City-States of America:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/29/six-maps-that-will-make-you-rethink-the-world/?wpisrc=nl_az_most


----------



## Bob Dylan

Manny T said:


> Check out this map from the Washington Post for a new high speed rail system for the United City-States of America:
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/29/six-maps-that-will-make-you-rethink-the-world/?wpisrc=nl_az_most


Interesting, thanks for sharing! 
If only the morons in Congress and State and Local Governments would read and understand this, we could quit begging for pennies to keep our inadequate and outdated rail transportation systems running!


----------



## CSXfoamer1997

Sweet! And when?


----------



## CCC1007

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Sweet! And when?


$$$$$


----------



## BoulderCO

They seem to have forgotten Minneapolis to Seattle - i.e. Empire Builder.


----------



## John Bobinyec

CSXfoamer1997 said:


> Sweet! And when?


Not to be flippant about it, but only in your dreams.

jb


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

It's not the first national system high speed rail proposal. Here are some others:

America 2050: http://www.america2050.org/pdf/2050_Map_Passenger_Network.pdf

California Rail Map/ First Cultural.com: https://www.ocf.berkeley.edu/~atwu/maps/US-High-Speed-Rail-System-by-FirstCultural-2013-02-03.pdf

US High Speed Rail Association: http://www.ushsr.com/ushsrmap.html


----------



## daybeers

CCC1007 said:


> $$$$$


Don't you mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?


----------



## CCC1007

daybeers said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> $$$$$
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
Click to expand...

Pretty much...


----------



## Caesar La Rock

Let's see California's high speed rail is already under construction. Brightline (also under construction) is doing something similar to what has been proposed in Florida many times, even though trains will only hit 125mph.


----------



## Manny T

Yes BoulderCO the Empire Builder is gone in the sense that the route is not a high speed route under the proposal. The thinking behind this imaginary proposal is to divide the U.S. into 7 regions and then, instead of dividing it by state lines, connecting it by high speed rail lines that link the URBAN centers--where "everybody" is going to live. Denver is the urban center for the Great Plains region. It will be linked to St. Louis and Kansas City to the east and Salt Lake City to the west. The trains are viewed in this proposal as a carrier for trade, commerce and passengers, not scenic looking out of the window type activities. Maybe Amtrak will still be around to run land cruises and pleasure excursions!


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Right now I believe Amtrak can run HSR along the Acela (BOS-WAS), Keystone (HAR-NYP), and Wolverine (CHI-DET/Pontiac), and they are working on CHI-STL HSR. There are studies underway in the Midwest (http://www.midwesthsr.org/) and Southeast (http://www.sehsr.org/). Connect Harrisburg to either Detroit or Chicago and you've potentially got a brand new faster Broadway Limited between NYP/PHL and CHI. In the Southeast, WAS-ATL looks to be in motion. If they can get ATL to Florida (ORL/MIA) that could be the new NEC to Florida route (instead of Silver Star we can call it Gold Star) and while it would be longer it would include several larger cities along the route. I would say that would be a good start towards a national HSR map.

NEC to Chicago: NYP-PHL-HAR-PGH-CLE-TOL-DET-CHI

NEC to Florida: NYP-PHL-WAS-Richmond-Raleigh-CLT-ATL-Florida

If we ever can get around Shore Line East's capacity limits we can extend either or both to BOS.

Certainly there's progress in California and there is talk of a Dallas-Houston route (Texas Central) but connecting either of those to Chicago is going to be much longer in distance and there aren't as many big cities in between. Anything from Chicago to California is almost certainly going to go through Denver with a connection to Xpress West. CHI-STL soon will be HSR, they can either go from STL to DAL along the TE route or go from STL to KCY and then along the old Lone Star to Dallas/Houston with San Antonio another option.


----------



## jis

Amtrak does not have any segment that would be rightfully called HSR anywhere else in the world these days. A few small segments of the NEC spine come close. But that's about it. There is nothing in PHL - HAR, or the Michigan Line that would be called HSR by anyone except a few in the US, and there is little chance that using the current ROW they will ever become HSR by world standard.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> Amtrak does not have any segment that would be rightfully called HSR anywhere else in the world these days. A few small segments of the NEC spine come close. But that's about it. There is nothing in PHL - HAR, or the Michigan Line that would be called HSR by anyone except a few in the US, and there is little chance that using the current ROW they will ever become HSR by world standard.


They're clearly the gold standard of the US even though by worldwide standards they are poor. Even if Amtrak averages 90 mph on a CHI-PGH-NYP line (925 miles) that's a 10-11 hr trip which many on this board would sign up for. And at the very least there isn't the freight interference problems on the Keystone and Wolverine routes that plague other routes.


----------



## ainamkartma

I want a fast Front Range train as much as anyone, but calling Albuquerque-Pueblo an "urban corridor" is just silly. Small towns, separated by tens of miles of unpopulated open country.

Ainam "230 miles from Santa Fe to Walsenburg: three stops, maybe?" Kartma


----------



## ainamkartma

If one were dreaming of a national high speed rail network, wouldn't a direct link Kansas City to Chicago be an obvious part of the dream?

Ainamkartma


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

ainamkartma said:


> If one were dreaming of a national high speed rail network, wouldn't a direct link Kansas City to Chicago be an obvious part of the dream?
> 
> Ainamkartma


Currently CHI-STL-KCY is 567 miles and takes 12 hr 15 min (303-313, including 1 hr layover in STL) while CHI-KCY is 437 miles and takes 7 hr 11 min.

But IF (big IF) we can run these trains at 100 mph, then the difference between a STL diversion and going straight through would be maybe an hour and a half which might be worth it to include STL than going straight through. It also depends on how well the Illinois HSR CHI-STL is going. If that gets done, it's fewer miles to link that to STL (283 mil) than a brand new 437 mile track and St. Louis is way more populous than the Quad Cities.


----------



## jis

To get 90mph average on the CHI - NYP route we will need to get something like 125mph max speed on significant part of the route. That is not going to happen easily.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

jis said:


> To get 90mph average on the CHI - NYP route we will need to get something like 125mph max speed on significant part of the route. That is not going to happen easily.


Give me 70 mph then, still an improvement. And it's not just the speed, it's eliminating freight interference. I remember practically sitting on the CL just outside of WAS, assumedly because of CSX. We get a freight free line between HAR and DET or HAR and CHI and I wouldn't even care that much about the speed.

CP offered $28 billion to buy NS. How much do you think it will take to just buy HAR-CHI from NS? $10-$15B? Not that Congress will spend it but at least put some figures out there.


----------



## jis

Since presumably we are talking a hostile takeover, the price is hard to pin down. I doubt anyone will agree to an eminent domain kind of deal for such at present. Maybe in 30 years, when we have transformed the US into a socialist heaven.


----------



## MattW

You have to buy it, then you have to upgrade it. So go ahead and double the figure for just buying it.


----------



## me_little_me

daybeers said:


> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> $$$$$
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
Click to expand...

This country can afford the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But even if we had that much in budget surpluses over as many years as it takes to build, it would never happen IMHO. Look at all the fighting over FEC Brightline and CAL high speed line on issues that had nothing to do with the cost of building the lines.


----------



## daybeers

me_little_me said:


> daybeers said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CCC1007 said:
> 
> 
> 
> $$$$$
> 
> 
> 
> Don't you mean $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> This country can afford the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$. But even if we had that much in budget surpluses over as many years as it takes to build, it would never happen IMHO. Look at all the fighting over FEC Brightline and CAL high speed line on issues that had nothing to do with the cost of building the lines.
Click to expand...

Not to mention Congress...


----------



## railiner

The vast distances in that proposal are just a pipe dream....we already have high speed transportation in those markets much more suitable....you know....airliner's....


----------



## Manny T

That is a good point. The author doesn't provide any justification beyond the map itself to explain why high speed rail would be desirable on these long distance routes, as opposed to air travel.


----------



## trainviews

railiner said:


> The vast distances in that proposal are just a pipe dream....we already have high speed transportation in those markets much more suitable....you know....airliner's....


I tend to agree.

True HSR is feasible and should be built in large parts of the US, but a national network that looks nice on a map is really not worth the money. Nor is transcontinental passengers of any significance here. No matter what you build - the vast majority of them will stay in the planes.

Where the investment is worthwhile is in corridors, where time and comfort allows the train to be competitive with air. How fast that is differs from corridor to corridor. On the NEC the present speed is evidently fast enough to beat the airlines. Other corridors would have to faster, and that can only be done on largely new alignments.

And then some relations will never be feasible. Denver to the west coast would cost a very large number of billions and it is still too far to be able to get travel times competitive with air. The market that prefers to spend 10 hours+ in a train to a few hours flight will always be a niche market, and that does not warrant investments of that order.

That said, the whole eastern US is thick with corridors where HSR would be very successful. As Philly writes the whole eastern seabord is an obvious place to start. Even if Northeast to Miami never gets fast enough to beat the air market, there are so many good middle markets that it would be very successful and probably generate a nice operating surplus.

But for it to happen we need a fundamental shift in transportation policies in the US. This is not right around the corner, but both Californa HSR and Brightline might help change the game once they start operating.


----------



## Anderson

I tend to think there's room for a decent network of HSR lines...but as noted, it's _mostly_ east of the Mississippi. I have real trouble stringing together a serious coast-to-coast link that would have a shot at working (basically there are two marginal routes for this: The old Desert Wind routing and the Sunset routing). I think you can justify a pretty good network out to MSP/OMA/KCY/OKC/FTW/SAS, but once you get west of there you have about 500-1000 miles of relative nothingness in terms of population density and relative hell in terms of geography. On the western side I could see a system based out of CA and going into AZ, NV, and possibly WA/OR (though there's a gap there, too).

If we made a national decision to go for an HSR network you'd get _something_ out there for political reasons (I cannot see omitting that region entirely, if just because of the Senate) even if it ended up being more of a modestly beefed-up version of Amtrak (e.g. the bullet train goes as far as Omaha but there are 2-3x daily Zephyrs going through).

As to the NEC-Florida market, no, you might not beat the air market outright...but if you could get average speeds up to 100 MPH over the run and you're still willing to run some overnight trains, an 11:30-12:00 run from NYP-ORL means you can start looking at trains which depart up north at 1800-2200 and arrive in Central FL at 0600-1000 (or which run down the FEC and get to Miami between 0800-1200). On the one hand the concept of the overnight market changes, but on the other hand I think there's a ready-made market (business travel aside) for being able to take the train down, get to Disney or Universal when the parks open on the first day of your vacation, and being able to stay until pretty much park close on the last day. Moreover, especially on the Orlando/Tampa end of that operation, there are some _impressive_ options in terms of equipment utilization if you could somehow shave the time down to about 11:00 (e.g. being able to turn your sets for an immediate return to New York in the daytime, followed by cycling to a later slot for the evening trip to allow for servicing).


----------



## jis

Historically CHI - DEN has been a market that has been able to support relatively higher speed and dense rail traffic. Don;t know if that is repeatable any more, but I suspect it may be.


----------



## Anderson

jis said:


> Historically CHI - DEN has been a market that has been able to support relatively higher speed and dense rail traffic. Don;t know if that is repeatable any more, but I suspect it may be.


I tend to agree (heck, it generates something like 40k/yr with one train per day where you lose half of a day on the Chicago end and the train is subject to being sold out). You've got enough intermediate pairs from Omaha/Lincoln eastwards.

The main problem is that Denver (and the Front Range along with it) are sort-of isolated (SLC is a long haul with nothing in the middle over any route that can be run reasonably fast, and it in turn is horridly isolated as well). I think if you could pair a reasonably fast (e.g. average speed of at least 80 MPH/runtime of <12 hours) train from Chicago to Denver with decent regional networks on each end (and multiple frequencies, of course) I think you could get a robust system there.


----------



## cirdan

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> To get 90mph average on the CHI - NYP route we will need to get something like 125mph max speed on significant part of the route. That is not going to happen easily.
> 
> 
> 
> Give me 70 mph then, still an improvement. And it's not just the speed, it's eliminating freight interference. I remember practically sitting on the CL just outside of WAS, assumedly because of CSX. We get a freight free line between HAR and DET or HAR and CHI and I wouldn't even care that much about the speed.
> 
> CP offered $28 billion to buy NS. How much do you think it will take to just buy HAR-CHI from NS? $10-$15B? Not that Congress will spend it but at least put some figures out there.
Click to expand...

Does the line have to be taken over wholesale?

Wasn't that corridor 4-track back in the days of the PRR?

And now its 2-track, maybe 3-track in places like Horseshoe Curve.

So maybe somebody could talk to NS and say, can we give you $$$$$ for the ROW you're not using?

A modest Amtrak service could be run on a line that's single track with short sections of double track. This is what Brightline wants to do.

There might still be a couple of pinchpoints such as at junctions where freights could slow down Amtrak, but it would be a huge improvement over today.

And construction coulod be phased as funds permit, with Amtrak continuing to use NS tracks in the interim.


----------



## jis

Grade separating the passenger tracks from freight at the junctions should not be all that expensive as an additional cost to get more predictable passenger service, I should think.

Indian Railways is doing something like this while they ironically build a new freight network to move the freight trains off the passenger network. The logic for doing a new freight trackage bypassing urban centers is that they wish the passenger network to continue to run through downtowns.

There is a vague plan to create a third HSR network eventually on the so called "Golden Quadrilateral" routes which will bypass urban centers but provide connections into the classic networks at both ends of select large urban center allowing trains to switch to the classic network to serve city center stations wherever desired.

Of course there is a difference between opportunistically building bits and pieces of an unplanned system vs. building out a planned system in many small steps, like the US Interstate system was built.


----------



## Anderson

Alright, I have to wonder: Presuming a decision not to do "full" HSR or electrify (likely limiting operations to 125 MPH or thereabouts), what's the highest average speed one could hope for on a 110/125 MPH alignment? I know FEC is shooting for about 80 MPH average, I'm just wondering if it is feasible to "nudge" an operation any faster without needing the whole kit and caboodle of HSR equipment, overhead wire, etc.


----------



## CCC1007

That would depend on how many stations you stop at, how many less than clear indications you get, curvature of the route, and amount of double track is layers on the route.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Anderson said:


> Alright, I have to wonder: Presuming a decision not to do "full" HSR or electrify (likely limiting operations to 125 MPH or thereabouts), what's the highest average speed one could hope for on a 110/125 MPH alignment? I know FEC is shooting for about 80 MPH average, I'm just wondering if it is feasible to "nudge" an operation any faster without needing the whole kit and caboodle of HSR equipment, overhead wire, etc.


Are we considering freight interference into your question?


----------



## Anderson

Ok, here are my presumptions:
(1) Freight interference is mostly avoided. Either the tracks are owned/leased by the passenger operator, there's agreed-upon physical separation even if the tracks are nominally freight-owned (and the dispatching agreement is pretty bad for the freight operator to break), or there's temporal separation of some sort. Note that these options aren't mutually-exclusive, but the bottom line is that freight actually is subordinate to passenger operations unless you have a truly extraordinary situation (and/or the passenger train is horridly out-of-slot).
(2) I'm presuming that the route is entirely double-tracked or is double-tracked anywhere the passenger operations would demand it.
(3) Stop-wise, I'm assuming roughly one stop every 50 miles (on average) with a possible second "suburban" stop on each side of a sufficiently major/sprawling city (e.g. Chicago, Washington, Orlando). Basically take AAF's present system plan and plop the long-expected Cocoa stop onto it for an idea of what I'm thinking.
(4) I'm presuming that there are few-to-no cases where you have a "bad stretch" (e.g. operations under about 40 MPH) that isn't in the immediate vicinity of an all-trains-stop-here station (where they'd have to slow down a little ways out anyway). Basically you deal with the super-slow stretches like, IIRC, Springfield IL by either "fixing" the issue (possibly elevating track, possibly other, still-expensive options) or building a bypass.


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

Amtrak now owns most of BOS-WAS (except New Haven to New Rochelle, owned by Metro-North), Harrisburg-NYP, and part of the Wolverine route (Michigan DOT owns Kalamazoo-Detroit), but the CHI-STL route is still listed as owned by Union Pacific. Is the UP line being upgraded to 110 mph or will it be a new line?


----------



## cirdan

Anderson said:


> Alright, I have to wonder: Presuming a decision not to do "full" HSR or electrify (likely limiting operations to 125 MPH or thereabouts), what's the highest average speed one could hope for on a 110/125 MPH alignment? I know FEC is shooting for about 80 MPH average, I'm just wondering if it is feasible to "nudge" an operation any faster without needing the whole kit and caboodle of HSR equipment, overhead wire, etc.


As far as I am aware the best ever done with conventional trains on conventional non electrifed tracks over long distances was British Rail's HST service with 125mph commercial top speed and start to stop averages of around 100mph being operated where conditions were favorable. I think the Didcot to Swindon was for many years and maybe still is the world's fastest start to stop scheduled diesel passenger train, basically because they go full speed basically as fast as they could accelerate there and there were no go-slow bits in the middle.

Today with multiple units rather than locomotives, you could accelerate a bit faster on the same nominal power and maybe shave a few minutes extra.

However, in the long run, electrification is just the more attractive proposition. This is why the East Coast was electrified in the late 1980s and the Great Western is being electrified now.


----------



## jis

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> Amtrak now owns most of BOS-WAS (except New Haven to New Rochelle, owned by Metro-North), Harrisburg-NYP, and part of the Wolverine route (Michigan DOT owns Kalamazoo-Detroit), but the CHI-STL route is still listed as owned by Union Pacific. Is the UP line being upgraded to 110 mph or will it be a new line?


The UP line is being upgraded. AFAICT there is no plan nor money to acquire that track from UP.

OTOH Poughkeepsie to Hoffmans part of the Empire Corridor is leased from CSX by NYSDOT and is now maintained, operated and dispatched by Amtrak.

Deland to Poinciana around Orlando is now owned and operated by the Central Florida Rail Authority (Sun Rail) and used by Amtrak Silver Service. Similarly Mangonia to Miami Intermodal Center (at Miami Airport) is owned and operated by Tri Rail and used by Amtrak Silver Service.


----------



## Anderson

cirdan said:


> Anderson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Alright, I have to wonder: Presuming a decision not to do "full" HSR or electrify (likely limiting operations to 125 MPH or thereabouts), what's the highest average speed one could hope for on a 110/125 MPH alignment? I know FEC is shooting for about 80 MPH average, I'm just wondering if it is feasible to "nudge" an operation any faster without needing the whole kit and caboodle of HSR equipment, overhead wire, etc.
> 
> 
> 
> As far as I am aware the best ever done with conventional trains on conventional non electrifed tracks over long distances was British Rail's HST service with 125mph commercial top speed and start to stop averages of around 100mph being operated where conditions were favorable. I think the Didcot to Swindon was for many years and maybe still is the world's fastest start to stop scheduled diesel passenger train, basically because they go full speed basically as fast as they could accelerate there and there were no go-slow bits in the middle.
> 
> Today with multiple units rather than locomotives, you could accelerate a bit faster on the same nominal power and maybe shave a few minutes extra.
> 
> However, in the long run, electrification is just the more attractive proposition. This is why the East Coast was electrified in the late 1980s and the Great Western is being electrified now.
Click to expand...

I agree with the point about the attractiveness of the proposition (electrification vs diesel operation); I was really more looking at the question of what could be managed if for some reason you can't cover all of a service with electrification (e.g. the sprawling services south of Washington, DC) and don't want to lose half an hour somewhere with a "toaster pop".

I'm basically looking at, presuming you could meet the operational separation requirements (e.g. having a more-or-less full dedicated track with good passing sidings), what you could theoretically do with the Florida services without getting into a fight over overhead wires (or Chicago-Denver, or any of a number of other services).


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

If the US ever considered investing in "high speed rail" (outside the NEC), what would be the targets in terms of distance and/or speed (ignore specific geographic areas or population for now)?

Assume the average car through highway traffic averages 50 mph (counting for local traffic and stops).

If the trip is 50 miles, even if we can go 100 mph on the train, you would save 1/2 hour. I'd probably still rather drive so I can set my own schedule. For a 100 mile trip at a train speed of 100 mph then you would save a full hour and that might start to become attractive.

Now I don't fly but too far a trip most people would rather fly. Assume a 500 mile trip at 100 mph (5 hours). I'm guessing that flight would be about 2 hours in the air but add security considerations the overall trip could be 3 or maybe 4 hours (last time I flew was the mid 90's so I have no idea as to the actual times). I can see people willing to take the train for 500 miles if it is only 1-2 more hours (also such train could also stop at intermediate points so the 100-200 mile trip which we already know is reasonable). Beyond that (assuming 100 mph) you're looking at many more hours extra on the train and those who are afraid of flying (me) or enjoy the scenery are taking LD trains now and time isn't as important (although I think all of us would like a faster train). Even at 100 mph, I doubt for a 1000 mile trip these "high speed trains" will ever be competitive with air travel (although it would be much better than cars or buses). Now if we could go 200 mph then everything changes).

So I'm thinking at 100 mph maybe 100-500 mile trips would be the target audience. Feel free to discuss the numbers.


----------



## jis

Just to give you a ballpark figure, with no checked bags and with TSA-Pre it takes me 3.5 to 4 hours curb to curb from Orlando to Newark. The gate to gate time is about 2:45 out of that.

Having a checked bag adds at least 45 mins but more like an hour to that.

Note that Orlando has notoriously long TSA lines, but with Pre it is much better than without, and the lines move relatively smoothly usually.


----------



## me_little_me

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> So I'm thinking at 100 mph maybe 100-500 mile trips would be the target audience. Feel free to discuss the numbers.


I agree that 100mph consistent travel (except for slowing down for stations) would be sufficient for most trips of this length. As to shorter trips, trains could compete with cars and air if they went to large city airports. Half of airline hub city traffic (if my memory is correct) consists of short connecting flights from nearby airports. Given that trains can do this albeit even at less than 100mph, not only would it be better than a car but by eliminating local flights, would reduce airport costs by eliminating "hop" flights.


----------



## cirdan

jis said:


> Amtrak does not have any segment that would be rightfully called HSR anywhere else in the world these days. A few small segments of the NEC spine come close. But that's about it. There is nothing in PHL - HAR, or the Michigan Line that would be called HSR by anyone except a few in the US, and there is little chance that using the current ROW they will ever become HSR by world standard.


One of the issues that caused the UK's HS1 line from London to the Channel Tunnel to be delivered so late is that it was effectively a greenfield line. Some shorts ections are in places that had railroads before but mostly it was new build. As the London area has a high amount of sprawl, it was virtually impossible to find an alignment that didn't interfere with something. Lots of homes had to be acquired and legal cases bogged the project down and in fact forced them to chanhge their plans and reroute in many cases.

If there will ever be a greenfields route to dupliacte something like the NEC, they had better start early by earmarking land and making sure nothing gets built on it that will be expensive to take down when the time comes.


----------



## jis

Or they have to tunnel under everything in deep tubes. Expensive.

When they added capacity to the Tokyo Central they constructed the tracks that are used by among other, the NeX Airport Express trains. It is all in tunnels in central Tokyo with no footprint on the surface.

On the NEC South, there are significant lengths where speeds can be increased a bit more. The problem is track center distance. To fix that some minimal amount of land will have to be acquired along the ROW at its edges. This is actually feasible between Jersey Ave. (County) and Trenton (Ham), and at several places in Delaware and Maryland. NEC North is an entirely different kettle of fish. The only vaguely feasible way may be the extremely expensive proposition of building out along the LIE and digging under the Long Island Sound to get to RI basically avoiding all of Connecticut, which of course is also politically fraught. I would not hold my breath on that one. The alternative is to try to build some bypassess that are straighter around the worst parts. that won;t be easy either. Ironically I-95 has a significantly straighter alignment than the railroad which was apparently built along whatever cow path was available, even back then.


----------



## Casey Jones

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> So I'm thinking at 100 mph maybe 100-500 mile trips would be the target audience. Feel free to discuss the numbers.


Absolutely, the 500 mile and under midtown to midtown market (large population centers) is the prime area for train transportation.


----------



## ainamkartma

Casey Jones said:


> Philly Amtrak Fan said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm thinking at 100 mph maybe 100-500 mile trips would be the target audience. Feel free to discuss the numbers.
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely, the 500 mile and under midtown to midtown market (large population centers) is the prime area for train transportation.
Click to expand...

Sure, but with perhaps a couple of caveats:

1) At the present "HSR" speeds in the US, like the Acela, and

2) Assuming there exist nonstop flights between the endpoints: if flying involves changing planes at an intermediate hub, the equation changes.

I made a little stupid model of when flying or the train is faster, as a function of distance. I made the following assumptions:

1) There is an additional time overhead associated with flying over taking the train, which involves everything from getting to the possibly remote airport to security to required check in times to the time it takes the plane to get from the gate to cruising speed. I "determined" this time by forcing the rail and air trip from NYP to WAS to take the same amount of total time, which has been demonstrated in the past to be roughly the case. The result was 2.5 hours of extra overhead time associated with flying, which at least is more or less consistent with reality.

2) The cruise speed of a plane is 400 mph. I just made this up.

3) The additional overhead associated with stopping at a hub enroute is two hours. I just made this up as well, based loosely on the many hundreds of hours I have spent in DFW and other airports over the decades.

Under these assumptions, obviously taking the train will be quicker for short trips and flying will be quicker for long ones, with a "crossover distance" at which the times are equal, with the crossover distance varying with train speed and number of airplane stops. We can make a little table of the results (I hope the formatting works!):

Crossover distance (flying is quicker if the distance is longer than this)

Number of stops enroute by air 0 (nonstop) 1 (stop at hub)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Train average speed 77 mph 240 miles 430 miles (77 mph is the average speed of an Acela between NYP and WAS)

100 333 600

150 600 1000

So, sure, 500 miles is about the right cut off with the caveats mentioned above. If we could build true high speed rail in the US, though, or if we were connecting non-hub cities with few or no nonstop flight connections, a longer distance might be time-competitive with flying. Memphis-San Antonio (625 miles by air, 727 by road), to pick a pair of random non-hub cities: 11 hours driving time, 8 hours flying (according to my assumptions above), but would only take six or so hours by 100 mph high speed rail.

So given higher speeds and non-hub cities, the threshold where air takes over might be significantly higher.

Ainamkartma


----------



## CraigDK

jis said:


> ...
> 
> On the NEC South, there are significant lengths where speeds can be increased a bit more. The problem is track center distance.
> 
> ...


I know track center distance has been mentioned as an issue in the past. What sort of spacing is being suggested at a minimum for track centers?


----------



## jis

Apparently, ideally they would want something like 15' or more (if you really want two trains traveling at 186mph to cross without causing significant aerodynamic problems, but are unlikely to get too far beyond 13.5' to 14' with a little bit of luck and added expense. Currently some are as low as 12'2" Fortunately for the areas where they want to go to 160mph, apparently they can get it up to above 12'6" and closer to 13' in many places. This business of what is safe at 12'6" and 13' has been a major part of the study involving those high speed runs.


----------



## CraigDK

jis said:


> Apparently, ideally they would want something like 15' or more (if you really want two trains traveling at 186mph to cross without causing significant aerodynamic problems, but are unlikely to get too far beyond 13.5' to 14' with a little bit of luck and added expense. Currently some are as low as 12'2" Fortunately for the areas where they want to go to 160mph, apparently they can get it up to above 12'6" and closer to 13' in many places. This business of what is safe at 12'6" and 13' has been a major part of the study involving those high speed runs.


Well 15' does certainly present a challenge, I suppose it could be worse.... Beyond physically having the property, it would most likely require rebuilding or replacing a fair number of the bridges along that particular stretch of tracks. Thinking aloud; assuming 4 tracks, it would be 45' between the centers of the two outer tracks, add 15' on each side of that you are now at 75'. If you went to 16' centers (as a worse case) and 16' outside the outer centers, that would be 80'.

I won't hold my breath that they will every actually rebuild a stretch of the southern NEC for 186 mph, but I sure would enjoy seeing that...


----------



## Casey Jones

CraigDK said:


> jis said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently, ideally they would want something like 15' or more (if you really want two trains traveling at 186mph to cross without causing significant aerodynamic problems, but are unlikely to get too far beyond 13.5' to 14' with a little bit of luck and added expense. Currently some are as low as 12'2" Fortunately for the areas where they want to go to 160mph, apparently they can get it up to above 12'6" and closer to 13' in many places. This business of what is safe at 12'6" and 13' has been a major part of the study involving those high speed runs.
> 
> 
> 
> Well 15' does certainly present a challenge, I suppose it could be worse.... Beyond physically having the property, it would most likely* require rebuilding or replacing a fair number of the bridges* *along that particular stretch of tracks. Thinking aloud; assuming 4 tracks, it would be 45' between the centers of the two outer tracks, add 15' on each side of that you are now at 75'. If you went to 16' centers (as a worse case) and 16' outside the outer centers, that would be 80'.*
> 
> I won't hold my breath that they will every actually* rebuild a stretch of the southern NEC for 186 mph,* but I sure would enjoy seeing that...
Click to expand...

Enormous outlay of tax dollars for minimal results.


----------



## cirdan

ainamkartma said:


> 3) The additional overhead associated with stopping at a hub enroute is two hours. I just made this up as well, based loosely on the many hundreds of hours I have spent in DFW and other airports over the decades.
> 
> Under these assumptions, obviously taking the train will be quicker for short trips and flying will be quicker for long ones, with a "crossover distance" at which the times are equal, with the crossover distance varying with train speed and number of airplane stops. We can make a little table of the results (I hope the formatting works!):
> 
> Crossover distance (flying is quicker if the distance is longer than this)
> 
> Number of stops enroute by air 0 (nonstop) 1 (stop at hub)
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Train average speed 77 mph 240 miles 430 miles (77 mph is the average speed of an Acela between NYP and WAS)
> 
> 100 333 600
> 
> 150 600 1000
> 
> So, sure, 500 miles is about the right cut off with the caveats mentioned above. If we could build true high speed rail in the US, though, or if we were connecting non-hub cities with few or no nonstop flight connections, a longer distance might be time-competitive with flying. Memphis-San Antonio (625 miles by air, 727 by road), to pick a pair of random non-hub cities: 11 hours driving time, 8 hours flying (according to my assumptions above), but would only take six or so hours by 100 mph high speed rail.
> 
> So given higher speeds and non-hub cities, the threshold where air takes over might be significantly higher.
> 
> Ainamkartma


Apparently experience from France shows that in situiations where train and plane are about equivalent in terms of door to door speeds, people still prefer the train, with more people using trains athan planes.

And even in cases where the train is actually slower than the plane, there is a tolerance band where the train still leads the market. It's only when flyng can save you three hours or more that the market share of trains falls off rapidly.

I think this is down to such factors as perceived comfort, more generous carry-on allowances, no harrasment by security etc.


----------



## ainamkartma

cirdan said:


> Apparently experience from France shows that in situiations where train and plane are about equivalent in terms of door to door speeds, people still prefer the train, with more people using trains athan planes.
> And even in cases where the train is actually slower than the plane, there is a tolerance band where the train still leads the market. It's only when flyng can save you three hours or more that the market share of trains falls off rapidly.
> 
> I think this is down to such factors as perceived comfort, more generous carry-on allowances, no harrasment by security etc.


I agree with all this, but I would add that there is also some evidence supporting your position from the US: for NYP to WAS, where at least there is a common perception that flying and rail are time equivalent, rail beats air for mode share by about two to one. But for NYP to Boston, where there is no such perception, air beats rail by about 1.5 to one. (And for Boston-Washington, over your three hour difference cut off, the rail share is a tiny fraction of air, although I have no source to back this up.)

Source for the NYP to WAS and BOS assertions.

Ainamkartma


----------



## Philly Amtrak Fan

ainamkartma said:


> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently experience from France shows that in situiations where train and plane are about equivalent in terms of door to door speeds, people still prefer the train, with more people using trains athan planes.
> And even in cases where the train is actually slower than the plane, there is a tolerance band where the train still leads the market. It's only when flyng can save you three hours or more that the market share of trains falls off rapidly.
> 
> I think this is down to such factors as perceived comfort, more generous carry-on allowances, no harrasment by security etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all this, but I would add that there is also some evidence supporting your position from the US: for NYP to WAS, where at least there is a common perception that flying and rail are time equivalent, rail beats air for mode share by about two to one. But for NYP to Boston, where there is no such perception, air beats rail by about 1.5 to one. (And for Boston-Washington, over your three hour difference cut off, the rail share is a tiny fraction of air, although I have no source to back this up.)
> 
> Source for the NYP to WAS and BOS assertions.
> 
> Ainamkartma
Click to expand...

On p. 38 of the report:

"Amtrak’s intercity trains carry 46,000 people on average each day in the NEC Region, making up 54 percent of all Amtrak intercity rail trips in the U.S. Amtrak estimates it captures 75 percent of air-rail travelers between New York and Washington and 54 percent of air-rail travelers between New York and Boston."

So for New York-Boston, rail beats air, not the other way around. No data for Washington-Boston.


----------



## Anderson

At least on the basis of the mass turnover at NYP I am inclined to suspect that the share WAS-BOS isn't very large. I actually remember a few years ago when Southwest pulled out of a few airports, Amtrak noted that they were making an unusual amount of headway in some odd-and-end markets (PHL-PVD and PHL-BOS come to mind from that).


----------



## ainamkartma

Philly Amtrak Fan said:


> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> cirdan said:
> 
> 
> 
> Apparently experience from France shows that in situiations where train and plane are about equivalent in terms of door to door speeds, people still prefer the train, with more people using trains athan planes.
> And even in cases where the train is actually slower than the plane, there is a tolerance band where the train still leads the market. It's only when flyng can save you three hours or more that the market share of trains falls off rapidly.
> 
> I think this is down to such factors as perceived comfort, more generous carry-on allowances, no harrasment by security etc.
> 
> 
> 
> I agree with all this, but I would add that there is also some evidence supporting your position from the US: for NYP to WAS, where at least there is a common perception that flying and rail are time equivalent, rail beats air for mode share by about two to one. But for NYP to Boston, where there is no such perception, air beats rail by about 1.5 to one. (And for Boston-Washington, over your three hour difference cut off, the rail share is a tiny fraction of air, although I have no source to back this up.)
> 
> Source for the NYP to WAS and BOS assertions.
> 
> Ainamkartma
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> On p. 38 of the report:
> 
> "Amtrak’s intercity trains carry 46,000 people on average each day in the NEC Region, making up 54 percent of all Amtrak intercity rail trips in the U.S. Amtrak estimates it captures 75 percent of air-rail travelers between New York and Washington and 54 percent of air-rail travelers between New York and Boston."
> 
> So for New York-Boston, rail beats air, not the other way around. No data for Washington-Boston.
Click to expand...

See figure 14 on page 36 for the daily rail passengers NYC-BOS.

The air number in that chart corresponds to the BOS-LGA passengers _only_ from Table 17 on page 42. So the 1.5 to one number that I stated above is (the annual air passengers to JFK, EWR, and LGA from Table 17, summed up and divided by 365) divided by the daily Amtrak ridership extracted from Figure 14.

Sorry for not being more clear with the reference.

I'm not sure where Amtrak's 54% claim comes from; it is not consistent with any of the other data presented in the report. That doesn't mean it is wrong, though; the report contains plenty of other internal inconsistencies.

Ainamkartma


----------



## Anderson

Well, in the case of Washington, what airport(s) are being used? DCA, obviously, but are IAD and BWI in the mix? BWI is sticky since that "should" also sweep in Baltimore Penn (and BWI) stations in terms of city pair comparison, nevermind New Carrollton and Alexandria. On the New York end, if you throw in EWR, JFK, and LGA, do you also sweep in New Rochelle, Newark Penn, Newark Liberty, and Metropark? And on the Boston end, do you include only South Station or do you also kick in Back Bay and Route 128?


----------



## MARC Rider

ainamkartma said:


> 2) The cruise speed of a plane is 400 mph. I just made this up.



According top the flight tracker I accessed during my last airplane trip, our 737 cruised at about 450 mph on the south/westbound leg and at about 550-600 mph on the north/eastbound leg. (This is ground speed, not airspeed.) Takeoff and landings were somewhere between 150 and 200 mph. After takeoff, it took a good 20-30 minutes to to reach cruising speed, and on landing we started slowing down a good 30-45 minutes before actual touchdown.


----------



## VentureForth

ainamkartma said:


> (77 mph is the average speed of an Acela between NYP and WAS)


I figured closer to 68 MPH. 457 miles in 6h45m...

Interestingly with the jetstream moving from West to East, yes, the groundspeeds can vary by a couple hundred mph depending on direction.


----------



## brianpmcdonnell17

VentureForth said:


> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> (77 mph is the average speed of an Acela between NYP and WAS)
> 
> 
> 
> I figured closer to 68 MPH. 457 miles in 6h45m...
> Interestingly with the jetstream moving from West to East, yes, the groundspeeds can vary by a couple hundred mph depending on direction.
Click to expand...

The 68 MPH number is WAS-BOS, 77 MPH is WAS-NYP. The northern NEC is curvier and therefore slower. The trains also sometimes stop in NYP for awhile, which further reduces the average speed.


----------



## VentureForth

We must clear the skies!!


----------



## ScouseAndy

Both these figures are very respectful London - Glasgow is 357 miles by train via the west coast main line - an express service averages about 79mph (4 1/2 hrs roughly) but many services average 65mph (5 1/2 hours).

While not true high speed the WCML is one of the most modern lines in the U.K. having had almost $2 Billion invested in modernisation in recent years. The HS2 line (which will run half way only is budgeted £56 billion sterling) and will only shave 20 minutes off the entire journey (if it ever is finished) and is no way value for money!

Sorry to ramble on but in short it's not far off comparable routes in Europe with far less investment and as the UK proves shaving minutes off a journey costs billions and takes light years.


----------



## VentureForth

brianpmcdonnell17 said:


> VentureForth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ainamkartma said:
> 
> 
> 
> (77 mph is the average speed of an Acela between NYP and WAS)
> 
> 
> 
> I figured closer to 68 MPH. 457 miles in 6h45m...
> Interestingly with the jetstream moving from West to East, yes, the groundspeeds can vary by a couple hundred mph depending on direction.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 68 MPH number is WAS-BOS, 77 MPH is WAS-NYP. The northern NEC is curvier and therefore slower. The trains also sometimes stop in NYP for awhile, which further reduces the average speed.
Click to expand...

Yes - you are right. Your NYP was misread into my brain as BOS.


----------



## Rover

Today, on the Newsy channel (on Roku) they ran a 3 minute piece on "Why not High Speed Rail in America?" and compared travel times from several city pairs to what it would take as compared to travel times on existing high speed rail in China, Japan, & Europe.

Their video said that the reasons high speed rail would not take off here, like it has in other countries, was due to infrastructure and right of way costs, and, that Americans love their cars too much.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/03/11/why-doesnt-the-united-states-have-high-speed-bullet-trains-like-europe-and-asia/#5d0fec9ac080

http://www.cnn.com/2015/05/03/opinions/smart-high-speed-trains-america/index.html


----------



## me_little_me

Rover said:


> Their video said that the reasons high speed rail would not take off here, like it has in other countries, was due to infrastructure and right of way costs, and, that Americans love their cars too much.


That doesn't explain why people fly between many somewhat-close (i.e. drivable) city pairs.

19 non-stop flights per day from Atlanta to Charlotte as an example (Delta and American). A four hour drive.


----------



## Rover

me_little_me said:


> Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their video said that the reasons high speed rail would not take off here, like it has in other countries, was due to infrastructure and right of way costs, and, that Americans love their cars too much.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't explain why people fly between many somewhat-close (i.e. drivable) city pairs.
> 
> 19 non-stop flights per day from Atlanta to Charlotte as an example (Delta and American). A four hour drive.
Click to expand...

Driving in traffic sucks. The 3 1/2 - 4hr drive from Dallas to Austin is Hell. I'm just not a highway road warrior.


----------



## Bob Dylan

So True Rover!

I-35 is a Nightmare in Texas, especially from San Antonio to Dallas, so taking the Eagle is an excellent alternative.

#22 AUS-DAL = 5 Hours* /#21 DAL-AUS= 6Hours* ( *the Layover in FTW is around an Hour/ you can ride TRE between FTW and DAL to shorten the Layover)

Leave the Driving to Amtrak!!


----------



## Rover

Bob Dylan said:


> So True Rover!
> 
> I-35 is a Nightmare in Texas, especially from San Antonio to Dallas, so taking the Eagle is an excellent alternative.
> 
> #22 AUS-DAL = 5 Hours* /#21 DAL-AUS= 6Hours* ( *the Layover in FTW is around an Hour/ you can ride TRE between FTW and DAL to shorten the Layover)
> 
> Leave the Driving to Amtrak!!


And that time will be shortened whenever the Texas high speed rail lines are built. Maybe after Texas secedes from the Union...


----------



## jebr

me_little_me said:


> Rover said:
> 
> 
> 
> Their video said that the reasons high speed rail would not take off here, like it has in other countries, was due to infrastructure and right of way costs, and, that Americans love their cars too much.
> 
> 
> 
> That doesn't explain why people fly between many somewhat-close (i.e. drivable) city pairs.
> 
> 19 non-stop flights per day from Atlanta to Charlotte as an example (Delta and American). A four hour drive.
Click to expand...

That's because of the spoke-and-hub model of most airlines, not because there's a huge demand of flights between those two towns organically. Charlotte is a large hub for American, and Atlanta is a large hub for Delta. An Atlanta customer wanting to go to places on American likely will have to go through Charlotte first, and a Charlotte customer on Delta likely has to go through Atlanta. When you're going to have to go through airport security anyways, it doesn't make sense to drive four hours (and paying parking instead of potentially taking a taxi/bus/train to the airport) when the alternative is an hour or so flight and an hour or so layover.


----------

