# "The US isn't ready for High Speed Rail:"



## WICT106 (Apr 21, 2021)

The US isn't ready for High Speed Rail" Comment below. I was suspicious, but didn't know, that the Interstate Highway System wasn't complete until 1992 ! So many seem to think that the Eisenhower just woke up one day, and, quickly, in a few years, the highways were built. 35 years ? Over $ 530 billion ? Wow ! Also, that excludes all of the costs of military expenses, sending troops overseas, maintaining the navy to keep the tankers safe, bribing third world dictators to keep the oil flowing, …


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Apr 21, 2021)

WICT106 said:


> The US isn't ready for High Speed Rail" Comment below. I was suspicious, but didn't know, that the Interstate Highway System wasn't complete until 1992 ! So many seem to think that the Eisenhower just woke up one day, and, quickly, in a few years, the highways were built. 35 years ? Over $ 530 billion ? Wow ! Also, that excludes all of the costs of military expenses, sending troops overseas, maintaining the navy to keep the tankers safe, bribing third world dictators to keep the oil flowing, …



If only the position and facts in this article were more widely acknowledged by Americans.
I think I now self-identify as a HrSR advocate as opposed to a HSR advocate. America has the potential to have a great rail system. If we can electrify the majority of what we have, and create corridors where travel times can be slashed, I think Amtrak could create an "opinion-changing," system that would move people really well (without losing any aspect of what we currently have).

Only then can we really entertain true HSR.
I'm sure some would disagree with me, so I look forward to other opinions.


----------



## rickycourtney (Apr 21, 2021)

A few years ago I was impressed by the "Solutionary Rail" pitch.

It boils down to this -- electrify America's mainline railroads by combining the infrastructure with electric transmission infrastructure. That presents a natural synergy with efforts to upgrade our national energy grid... and will allow things like wind turbines and solar farms to be built in rural areas and connect them with major cities.

They also wanted to create a property tax exemption over the railroad rights of way and shift a lot of railroad tracks to semi-public ownership. They argued that nobody is collecting property taxes on interstate highways -- which are publicly owned. Since railroad tracks benefit more than just the railroads, they should be treated more like roads, especially if upgraded and allowed to host more passenger trains.



If you're interested -- the full pitch is available a free ebook available HERE with coupon code 4WRD2GTHR.

Living in Fresno, the capital of HSR construction here in the USA -- building the infrastructure is hard, expensive, and politically fraught work. I agree that most places would be better served by upgrading what already exists rather than building clean sheet rights of way.


----------



## bms (May 4, 2021)

I would love to see High Speed Rail, but I tend to agree with the author that Amtrak should spend its money on increased frequencies, new service, upgrading tracks, and buying tracks when available.

My main fear with any Amtrak HSR route is that a lot of money would be spent over a long time period, only to see the project killed by a future President, Congress, or even a single conservative governor in one of the States along the route.


----------



## Mailliw (May 7, 2021)

Higher-speed conventional rail combined with higher frequencies and more reliable schedules is good enough.


----------



## me_little_me (May 8, 2021)

redacted


----------



## cirdan (May 8, 2021)

rickycourtney said:


> A few years ago I was impressed by the "Solutionary Rail" pitch.
> 
> It boils down to this -- electrify America's mainline railroads by combining the infrastructure with electric transmission infrastructure. That presents a natural synergy with efforts to upgrade our national energy grid... and will allow things like wind turbines and solar farms to be built in rural areas and connect them with major cities.



I'm not sure if I like the idea of combining electric transmission rights of way with railroads. Or maybe it depends on what you mean when you say combine. If you mean they should follow the same general path, then why not. But if you mean carried on the same poles or otherwise positioned directly above the tracks, then no. It's never a good idea to design a system with a single point of failure. If strong winds take down say the transmission line, then not only do you have no electrical interconnection but you also have no railroad. Or if a train derails in an awkward manner and takes down one or several poles, ditto.

Furthermore, maintenance interventions on high voltage lines, such as pulling new cables, would require the ground underneath to be kept free for safety reasons and also to make it easier to work (typically they lay the cables on the ground first and then hoist them up). This would require the railroad to be closed for the duration.

I have a friend who is a retired telephone engineer and he said that back in his day it was an absolute no-go to run telephone cables and power cables in the same conduits or on the same poles. Nowadays I think there seems to be more tolerance for that sort of thing, I guess mainly for cost cutting reasons.

I guess similar safety and functional oriented separation ought to apply to trains.


----------



## cirdan (May 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> If only the position and facts in this article were more widely acknowledged by Americans.
> I think I now self-identify as a HrSR advocate as opposed to a HSR advocate. America has the potential to have a great rail system. If we can electrify the majority of what we have, and create corridors where travel times can be slashed, I think Amtrak could create an "opinion-changing," system that would move people really well (without losing any aspect of what we currently have).
> 
> Only then can we really entertain true HSR.
> I'm sure some would disagree with me, so I look forward to other opinions.



I think when you're looking for opinion changing experiences, there is Brightline. There could be the NEC if only Amtrak could get it ironed out and get it to work like clockwork (why not bring in some consultants from Japan for example?). An opinion changing system doesn't need to go everywhere. It just needs word to spread so everybody knows how wonderful it is. And then people will start asking why they can't have one too. This is what happened in Japan, in France and in Spain. Basically the pattern was that an initial line was built. It worked very well. These initial lines worked so well that they became patriotic icons of sorts. You could have asked people what's the best thing in France and maybe among the top 10 things they would have said, the TGV. Ditto for Japan with the Shinkansen. That's what you need to be aiming for. Then once it's running, sit back for a bit. In the above examples, nothing more was done for 10 years or so and then somebody stepped up and said, let's build this into a national system, and cities started fighting one another to be first.

Sometimes the better can be the enemy of the good. Maybe building LA to SF was too ambitious? Would SF to Bakersfield or wherever have been good enough for that proof of concept? Or just taking a few hundred millions and ironing out the doglegs on the NEC so trains really can go at good speeds all the way? And then running a Sinkansen type service with trains every 15 minutes or so, so you don't need to tinker your plans to fit the train schedule.

Sometimes going smarter is better than going bigger.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 8, 2021)

cirdan said:


> I think when you're looking for opinion changing experiences, there is Brightline. There could be the NEC if only Amtrak could get it ironed out and get it to work like clockwork (why not bring in some consultants from Japan for example?). An opinion changing system doesn't need to go everywhere. It just needs word to spread so everybody knows how wonderful it is. And then people will start asking why they can't have one too. This is what happened in Japan, in France and in Spain. Basically the pattern was that an initial line was built. It worked very well. These initial lines worked so well that they became patriotic icons of sorts. You could have asked people what's the best thing in France and maybe among the top 10 things they would have said, the TGV. Ditto for Japan with the Shinkansen. That's what you need to be aiming for. Then once it's running, sit back for a bit. In the above examples, nothing more was done for 10 years or so and then somebody stepped up and said, let's build this into a national system, and cities started fighting one another to be first.
> 
> Sometimes the better can be the enemy of the good. Maybe building LA to SF was too ambitious? Would SF to Bakersfield or wherever have been good enough for that proof of concept? Or just taking a few hundred millions and ironing out the doglegs on the NEC so trains really can go at good speeds all the way? And then running a Sinkansen type service with trains every 15 minutes or so, so you don't need to tinker your plans to fit the train schedule.
> 
> Sometimes going smarter is better than going bigger.



It remains to be seen whether Brightline will work well enough to be a proof of concept. Furthermore, Brightline isn’t HSR but actually HrSR. 

How often do you travel on the NEC? I would argue that it provides high level service, indicated by ridership. In terms of frequencies, they were starting to iron out more trains just before covid hit, and with the new Acelas, I assume they will make it happen. Asking a bunch of Japanese train admins to come to the US and run our trains is not a smart idea.

Furthermore, trains on the NEC provide service that is comparable to many European routes, including the Frecciarossa Milan to Venice corridor. Widely regarded as the best high speed service in a Europe, the Acela offers relatively identical time to distance ratio on its NYC to DC stretch, traveling ~200 miles in just under 3 hours.

HSR is far more expensive in the US than other places for myriad reasons, usually including unions and regulations.

We need good old RAIL before talking about HSR. A good integrated network needs to have a strong backbone to function properly.

You mentioned ironing out the “doglegs” on the NEC. There has been a lot of discussion recently over NEC improvements. Lots of good points on why major improvement is not going to happen in the short term.


----------



## MARC Rider (May 8, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> It remains to be seen whether Brightline will work well enough to be a proof of concept. Furthermore, Brightline isn’t HSR but actually HrSR.
> 
> How often do you travel on the NEC? I would argue that it provides European level service. In terms of frequencies, they were starting to iron out more frequencies just before covid hit, and with the new Acelas, I assume they will make it happen. Asking a bunch of Japanese train admins to come to the US and run our trains is not a smart idea.
> 
> ...


Another aspect of the NEC is that it has integrated connections with extensive commuter rail, rapid transit, and even bus transit at most of its major stations. In addition, it has park and ride stations that provide access to suburban areas where potential passengers might find it inconvenient to use commuter rail to get to the main downtown stations. Thus, it's part of an integrated transportation system that provides an real alternative to driving and, for distances of up to 200 miles or so, flying. That sort of system isn't available in other parts of the US. It's possible in California, as San Francisco, LA, Sacramento, and San Jose have some commuter rail and mass transit, but not so much so for some of the larger towns in between. In the midwest, only Chicago has a real mass transit ecosystem, though Saint Louis and the Twin Cities does have some light rail. Detroit, Indianapolis, and Kansas City don't have much to speak of. On the Rocky Mountain Front Range, Denver is the only place with decent transit. Dallas/Fort Worth has a lot of mass transit, and Houston has light rail, but San Antonio is completely clueless about the value of getting people out of their cars. In all of these places, any kind of rail corridors will need to be developed with a lot of park and ride stations that perhaps could eventually be developed into new city centers as transportation hubs.

As a user of the NEC, I found the pre-covid service to be pretty good. The scheduled times were certainly fast enough. My main complaint is that the fares are too high. It's not clear whether that means they need to offer a steerage class for budget travelers to compete with the Chinatown buses or offer local through trains at budget prices. There are also a few bottlenecks that need to be cleared up, which would probably do more to speed up travel times than spending zillions to increase the top speed in a few places.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 8, 2021)

MARC Rider said:


> There are also a few bottlenecks that need to be cleared up, which would probably do more to speed up travel times than spending zillions to increase the top speed in a few places.



So true. Speed has become somewhat of a red herring in the public eye. The Acela travels plenty fast enough for the most part. Addressing other low hanging fruit will do more to speed times up.

The only real offender speed wise is CT.


----------



## toddinde (May 9, 2021)

Mailliw said:


> Higher-speed conventional rail combined with higher frequencies and more reliable schedules is good enough.


Agreed. They’ve learned in France that high speed rail sucks the money out of the system and other services deteriorate. People don’t really know the difference. I know a lady who called the Amtrak Turbos that ran between Chicago and Milwaukee in the ‘70s “bullet trains.” Fast, frequent, reliable service is good enough.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (May 9, 2021)

toddinde said:


> Agreed. They’ve learned in France that high speed rail sucks the money out of the system and other services deteriorate. People don’t really know the difference. I know a lady who called the Amtrak Turbos that ran between Chicago and Milwaukee in the ‘70s “bullet trains.” Fast, frequent, reliable service is good enough.


Maybe you and your lady friend cannot tell the difference but in my experience the first thing working age people see when they research travel on Amtrak is how long it takes to get anywhere. The TGV and Shinkansen projects were not magic bullets that solved all problems but they did help save passenger rail in their respective regions by proving newer rail technology could still serve a useful and appealing purpose in the era of jet aircraft and personal vehicles. Meanwhile the Western Hemisphere has done precisely as you recommend and mostly ignored high speed rail as our passenger rail networks continue to dwindle in size and relevance as they pass into obscurity and obsolescence.


----------



## cirdan (May 9, 2021)

toddinde said:


> Agreed. They’ve learned in France that high speed rail sucks the money out of the system and other services deteriorate. People don’t really know the difference. I know a lady who called the Amtrak Turbos that ran between Chicago and Milwaukee in the ‘70s “bullet trains.” Fast, frequent, reliable service is good enough.



The problem in France in my opinion is that the success of the TGV ran away with itself .

the initial line was solidly planned and implemented and also represented a sensible cost to utility ratio.

when it’s success became apparent and even people who had previously opposed it turned around and advocated it, things started to go wrong .

Mayors of towns and populists started promising the blue sky just to get elected and then they were under pressure to keep those promises . So a lot of lines got built that were planned on the back of political convenience rather than solid analysis . And once the snowball was rolling it was difficult to stop and some of the proposals got increasingly silly

But this does not in any way detract from the fact that the principle at heart is a sound one .

in the 1990s in Britain it was decided that rather than build a high speed line from London up the west coast , which was Britain’s busiest line , they would upgrade and improve the old one . There followed years of misery for passengers as services were suspended to provide engineering access . All the safety rules on working on an operating railroad led to high costs and slow progress . At the end the project had to be scaled back, and despite the massive cost overrun not all promised benefits and improvements could be delivered .

Now 20 years later they have decided to build a high speed line anyway . They could have saved a lot of money and pain going there straight away .


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 9, 2021)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Maybe you and your lady friend cannot tell the difference but in my experience the first thing working age people see when they research travel on Amtrak is how long it takes to get anywhere. The TGV and Shinkansen projects were not magic bullets that solved all problems but they did help save passenger rail in their respective regions by proving newer rail technology could still serve a useful and appealing purpose in the era of jet aircraft and personal vehicles. Meanwhile the Western Hemisphere has done precisely as you recommend and mostly ignored high speed rail as our passenger rail networks continue to dwindle in size and relevance as they pass into obscurity and obsolescence.



This topic is more complex than speed vs. frequency.
I do think advocating for speed in America should be secondary to advocating for increased, on-time, affordable and reliable service. That said, increasing speeds could prove to be important in the future, once we get the ball rolling on salvaging what left of the passenger rail system there is. I could be wrong, but I think if we figure out plain old rail first, we will get higher ridership

Comparing America to other nations isn't very helpful. Japan, France, Spain, and many similar countries had their infrastructure networks destroyed due to war (and those who didn't like the UK really struggled to update their rail systems). The silver lining was rebuilding their networks with the newest technology. We were never forced to re-think rail for the 20/21st century like other countries were. It is easier to build afresh rather than tear down and rebuild, or update. Just look at the interstates.


----------



## cirdan (May 9, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> This topic is more complex than speed vs. frequency.
> I do think advocating for speed in America should be secondary to advocating for increased, on-time, affordable and reliable service. That said, increasing speeds could prove to be important in the future, once we get the ball rolling on salvaging what left of the passenger rail system there is. I could be wrong, but I think if we figure out plain old rail first, we will get higher ridership
> 
> Comparing America to other nations isn't very helpful. Japan, France, Spain, and many similar countries had their infrastructure networks destroyed due to war (and those who didn't like the UK really struggled to update their rail systems). The silver lining was rebuilding their networks with the newest technology. We were never forced to re-think rail for the 20/21st century like other countries were. It is easier to build afresh rather than tear down and rebuild, or update. Just look at the interstates.



I’m not sure it’s that simple . The German rail network as it was in the 1980s before the first high speed line was built was very much the same topologically as the pre war system . After the war damaged stations and rail installations were pretty much rebuilt in the previous locations and pre war service patterns were resumed. Well into the 1960s and 1970s even it was quite normal to encounter pre war locomotives and cars in everyday use . There was modernization of course , especially electrification and higher speeds and a gradual replacement with modern equipment . But the core network was the same as has been built in the 19th century .


----------



## jis (May 10, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Comparing America to other nations isn't very helpful. Japan, France, Spain, and many similar countries had their infrastructure networks destroyed due to war (and those who didn't like the UK really struggled to update their rail systems). The silver lining was rebuilding their networks with the newest technology. We were never forced to re-think rail for the 20/21st century like other countries were. It is easier to build afresh rather than tear down and rebuild, or update. Just look at the interstates.


This is a favorite American mythology repeated ad infinitum while the facts are that the Classic rail networks in the war ravaged countries were substantially restored completely before any of them embarked on their high speed rail projects. Yes they were researching HSR while they restored their pre-existing rail networks, but the actual construction and deployment of the HSR network came later, and very few of them actually were reconstruction of or in lieu of restoration of an existing route. Even today most of the classic network exists and is operated to more or less extent depending on policies developed later while the HSR network was projected upon the classic network as an add on. They did not tear down and rebuild. They rebuilt after the war and then built the HSR in addition to the original network.

It is convenient in the US to provide this narrative as an excuse for policy neglect and progressive problems with a vision of exclusive road based ground transportation in the US with no real solution in site while staying constrained by that vision.

The road network was equally destroyed in the war in Europe and yet countries like Germany now also have arguably a better high speed road network than the US. So this endless excuse mongering is not limited to railroads. The war has been over now for over 75 years. Time to move on.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 10, 2021)

jis said:


> This is a favorite American mythology repeated ad infinitum while the facts are that the Classic rail networks in the war ravaged countries were substantially restored completely before any of them embarked on their high speed rail projects. Yes they were researching HSR while they restored their pre-existing rail networks, but the actual construction and deployment of the HSR network came later, and very few of them actually were reconstruction of or in lieu of restoration of an existing route. Even today most of the classic network exists and is operated to more or less extent depending on policies developed later while the HSR network was projected upon the classic network as an add on. They did not tear down and rebuild. They rebuilt after the war and then built the HSR in addition to the original network.
> 
> It is convenient in the US to provide this narrative as an excuse for policy neglect and failure of a vcision of exclusive road based ground transportation in the US.
> 
> The road network was equally destroyed in the war in Europe and yet countries like Germany now also have arguably a better high speed road network than the US. So this endl3ss excuse mongering is not limited to railroads. The war has been over now for over 75 years. Time to move on.



I stand corrected twice.


----------



## jis (May 10, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I stand corrected twice.


I am sure you are not at fault about not knowing the history of recosntruction in Europe and Japan. It is not something that most Americans know much about. Unlike you though, many believe that because Americans won the war Americans know the history of European reconstruction much better than anyone else, and get downright hostile when the actual history is recited to them. There are odd ones that even believe that everything including the HSR was built by American through the Marshall Plan! All sorts of fun conversations over many beers


----------



## Ziv (May 10, 2021)

I wonder how much CAHSR would have saved by going with a top speed commensurate with a 3 hour trip from San Fransisco to downtown LA instead of 2:40. That would probably be a requirement of 200 mph vs the 220 mph max speed probably needed to do 2:40. But I have to admit that I have seen so many different stated probable max speeds for CAHSR that I am not sure if it was 250 mph at one point, is supposed to be 220 mph now or might be 200 mph soon. Californias problems aren't limited to the issues related to speed, they managed to shoot themselves in the foot in a plethora of non-speed related ways as well.
But it definitely seems like 200 mph max speed would give you a lot more choices for rolling stock.


toddinde said:


> Agreed. They’ve learned in France that high speed rail sucks the money out of the system and other services deteriorate. People don’t really know the difference. I know a lady who called the Amtrak Turbos that ran between Chicago and Milwaukee in the ‘70s “bullet trains.” Fast, frequent, reliable service is good enough.


----------



## JontyMort (May 10, 2021)

Tlcooper93 said:


> I stand corrected twice.


Well, maybe. But your fundamental point - that it isn’t “one size fits all” - is fair.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (May 10, 2021)

jis said:


> I am sure you are not at fault about not knowing the history of recosntruction in Europe and Japan. It is not something that most Americans know much about. Unlike you though, many believe that because Americans won the war Americans know the history of European reconstruction much better than anyone else, and get downright hostile when the actual history is recited to them. There are odd ones that even believe that everything including the HSR was built by American through the Marshall Plan! All sorts of fun conversations over many beers



Indeed, we all have our areas of expertise, and areas where we lack expertise. 
I suppose it is presumptious of me to believe every article I read regarding why America doesn't have HSR.



JontyMort said:


> Well, maybe. But your fundamental point - that it isn’t “one size fits all” - is fair.


Thanks for pointing that out.


----------



## cirdan (May 12, 2021)

jis said:


> This is a favorite American mythology repeated ad infinitum while the facts are that the Classic rail networks in the war ravaged countries were substantially restored completely before any of them embarked on their high speed rail projects. Yes they were researching HSR while they restored their pre-existing rail networks



I don't even think the immediate post WW2 period had any significant effect on development of HSR. The Japanese were already planning a new railroad aligned for higher speeds before the war and had even commenced construction. Parts of this aborted construction effort were re-used by the first Shinkansen. The Germans had developed diesel railcars that although they wouldn't count as HSR by today's standards, were definitely HrSR and contributed to the understanding of the dynamics of high speed, both in terms of train and of track. AFAIK, the Germans were also the first to do serious and scientifically minded studies on train aerodynamics. The post-war efforts could basically build on this. So basically I think it is fair to say that in both countries efforts picked up more or less where they had left off and that even without a war or its aftermath, HSR would have emerged.



jis said:


> , but the actual construction and deployment of the HSR network came later, and very few of them actually were reconstruction of or in lieu of restoration of an existing route. Even today most of the classic network exists and is operated to more or less extent depending on policies developed later while the HSR network was projected upon the classic network as an add on. They did not tear down and rebuild. They rebuilt after the war and then built the HSR in addition to the original network.



True.

Neither Germany nor Japan used HSR to replace classical routes and in fact the classical network is still operating in parallel. You can for example travel between Franfurt and Cologne on the super fancy high-speed route, but there are still intercity trains even following the classical and scenic sinuous route that follows the Rhine valley and passes by the Loreleley.

I think the only country where HSR has seriously cannibalized the classical network is Spain, where there are now routes that see only sporadic freight. But many other routes still have some minimal passenger train coverage. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with WW2.


----------



## JontyMort (May 12, 2021)

cirdan said:


> I think the only country where HSR has seriously cannibalized the classical network is Spain, where there are now routes that see only sporadic freight. But many other routes still have some minimal passenger train coverage. But that has nothing whatsoever to do with WW2.


In terms of cannibalisation Spain is a special case, because the High Speed Lines have been built on the standard gauge with little (if any) “backwards compatibility” (I’m not sure if any of the AVEs has gauge change facilities, but it would be an inconvenience at best). On the one hand, that must have made things more difficult to plan, but conversely it provided an impetus to “get on with it” - which they certainly have.


----------



## jis (May 12, 2021)

AVE train sets are not multi gauge, but there are a large number of other train sets that are gauge changing, which they can do at slow speed but without stopping, that operate partly on the high speed standard gauge lines at upto 250kph and partly on upgraded Spanish gauge lines. A quick summary can be found in the Wikipedia article on AVE..









AVE - Wikipedia







en.wikipedia.org


----------



## JontyMort (May 12, 2021)

jis said:


> AVE train sets are not multi gauge, but there are a large number of other train sets that are gauge changing, which they can do at slow speed but without stopping that operate partly on the high speed standard gauge lines at upto 250kph and partly on upgraded Spanish gauge lines. A quick summary can be foud in the Wikipedia article on AVE..
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There are (or were) also Talgo gauge sheds at Irun and Port Bou for the Paris-Madrid and Paris-Barcelona overnight trains.


----------



## cirdan (May 12, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> There are (or were) also Talgo gauge sheds at Irun and Port Bou for the Paris-Madrid and Paris-Barcelona overnight trains.



The sheds are still there AFAIK but unfortunately the overnight trains that used them (along with the two daytime trains to Montpellier that also used them) were discontinued back in about 2013 (speaking from memory).

There is now talk of bringing back the Zurich to Barcelona train. The plans are still a bit wishy washy, but it seems unlikely this would be a Talgo, 

But there are now similar sheds all over the system, with lots of Talgo trains crossing over between the gauges. They now use locomotives that can change gauge in the same shed so they no longer need to switch locomotives as they used to do in Irun and Port Bou.


----------



## JontyMort (May 12, 2021)

cirdan said:


> There is now talk of bringing back the Zurich to Barcelona train. The plans are still a bit wishy washy, but it seems unlikely this would be a Talgo,



Was it Zurich? I thought the Catalan Talgo was just Geneva-Barcelona.

OT alert...

I have happy memories of a Paris-Barcelona normal overnighter (couldn’t afford the Talgo) over 40 years ago. The train was (IIRC) non-stop to Toulouse Matabiau. Opening the train doors - even at 0500 - was like opening an oven as a great blast of heat came in. You then fetched up on the Côte Vermeille right down at the border, and changed trains at Port Bou. Reader, she married me!


----------



## cirdan (May 13, 2021)

Geneva was a day train. That was the Catalan Talgo which ran Barcelona to Geneva initially as the only TEE branded train in Spain . In the early days she was hauled on the French leg by a Spanish 353 talgo locomotive fitted with standard gauge wheel sets . Later sncf provided their own locomotives for this leg . In about the late 1980s the train was cut back to Barcelona Montpellier . The TEE branding had been dropped by this point . The onward connection to Geneva was provided by a TGV which was marginally faster because it could use a section of high speed line . the loss of a direct connection combined with airline competition led to a slow demise of this once front line service .

I think this train was one of the last to still use Talgo III equipment . Which afaik it did until the end. The train was discontinued in circa 2013 when a TGV / AVE service was introduced between Barcelona and Lyon using the new high speed line . All long distance and inter city trains on the old line via Figueres and Port Bou ceased at this point . The old line can only be travelled on local trains .

this was a different train to the Barcelona Zurich sleeper Talgo , Pau Casals , which ran combined with a Milan Barcelona sleeper on part of its journey . I think this was introduced in the early 1980s and discontinued in 2012 . I was on one of the very last runs .

There were two further talgos that crossed over at Port bou . There was the Barcelona Paris sleeper and there was a day train from Cartagena to Montpelier , the Mare Nostrum Talgo . Another old favourite of mine.

yes , I remember the non talgo night trains too . There was one from Geneva that split I think in narbonne and one half went to Port Bou and the other to Hendaye via Lourdes . It was a very long train and quite impressive to see a single locomotive handle it on the mountainous section after Geneva .

The Hendaye leg would be combined with another night train that came from Rome but was later cut back to Ventimilia . I’m not sure when all this was discontinued but I guess in the early 2000s


----------



## cirdan (May 13, 2021)

JontyMort said:


> Was it Zurich? I thought the Catalan Talgo was just Geneva-Barcelona.
> 
> OT alert...
> 
> I have happy memories of a Paris-Barcelona normal overnighter (couldn’t afford the Talgo) over 40 years ago. The train was (IIRC) non-stop to Toulouse Matabiau. Opening the train doors - even at 0500 - was like opening an oven as a great blast of heat came in. You then fetched up on the Côte Vermeille right down at the border, and changed trains at Port Bou. Reader, she married me!


Lovely story 

lovely memories


----------



## Rover (Jun 14, 2022)

What If The United States Had A National High Speed Rail Network?

The United States has never had a true high speed rail line, let alone an entire network. Instead, a quasi-governmental organization called Amtrak has provided the vast majority of passenger rail service across the country. But because Amtrak does not currently own 98% of its own track, its ability to speed up its trains or provide more service is severely hampered. But what if the United States had built out a high speed rail line? 

Posted by What If Geography June 1, 2022


----------



## MccfamschoolMom (Jun 14, 2022)

There was a lot of resistance to building a "high-speed rail" line along the Lincoln Service/Texas Eagle tracks in my part of IL, largely because the original plan was to close all but 1 railroad crossing in each community along the tracks -- which would have greatly disrupted daily life in those communities. The track was eventually upgraded without closing railroad crossings (although the crossings in my town which had been at 4-way intersections had the intersections modified so that only 2 directions of road traffic would use the crossing -- which fouled up the GPS for out-of-town clients coming to our business). We got a new (unmanned) station for our town, too, which the Lincoln Service ridership from our town didn't justify, and there has been local concern ever since about gang-bangers and druggies from Chicago coming to hang out at our station. (The local historical society got the old depot to use for a museum, though, so at least they were happy.)
And "high-speed rail" along those Lincoln Service tracks apparently only means 80mph (per the warning signs at the railroad crossings).


----------



## John Bredin (Jun 14, 2022)

MccfamschoolMom said:


> We got a new (unmanned) station for our town, too, which the Lincoln Service ridership from our town didn't justify, and there has been local concern ever since about gang-bangers and druggies from Chicago coming to hang out at our station. (The local historical society got the old depot to use for a museum, though, so at least they were happy.)


Did the "hoods from Chicago" thing actually happen, or did some paranoid locals pull this out of their ... hats? This sounds like the old "loot rail" crap from the early Internet of the Nineties defrosted and warmed over for a new decade.

Firstly, they've got cars, whether their own or stolen. The idea that "gangbangers and druggies" needed a train to go make trouble somewhere else was always more than a little ridiculous. Secondly, Amtrak fare isn't a couple of bucks like the L, nor is it only a few minute's ride to go to another neighborhood like the L, so the idea anyone was going to pay $20 and travel two hours just to "hang out at our station" borders on utter absurdity.


MccfamschoolMom said:


> And "high-speed rail" along those Lincoln Service tracks apparently only means 80mph (per the warning signs at the railroad crossings).


As to speed, the Lincoln Service trains are routinely traveling 90mph now, and they'll be up to 110mph once the signaling system is fully ironed out.


----------



## MccfamschoolMom (Jun 14, 2022)

John Bredin said:


> Did the "hoods from Chicago" thing actually happen, or did some paranoid locals pull this out of their ... hats? This sounds like the old "loot rail" crap from the early Internet of the Nineties defrosted and warmed over for a new decade.
> 
> Firstly, they've got cars, whether their own or stolen. The idea that "gangbangers and druggies" needed a train to go make trouble somewhere else was always more than a little ridiculous. Secondly, Amtrak fare isn't a couple of bucks like the L, nor is it only a few minute's ride to go to another neighborhood like the L, so the idea anyone was going to pay $20 and travel two hours just to "hang out at our station" borders on utter absurdity.
> 
> As to speed, the Lincoln Service trains are routinely traveling 90mph now, and they'll be up to 110mph once the signaling system is fully ironed out.


We were already having drug dealers coming down from the Chicago suburbs in their cars, many of them associated with some gang or another. And they don't need train fare to access the unmanned Amtrak station in our town; anyone can enter it, ticketed or not, regardless of how they got there (although train fare might be cheaper than gas now!). Granted, I haven't seen the station defaced by grafitti yet, nor have I smelled pot there nor seen drug transactions taking place there personally (although I haven't had a family member catching the Lincoln Service trains from there in 3 1/2 years, so I've only driven past the station rather than parked there since then); however, we do still regularly read reports of local drug busts in the weekly newspaper, and it's usually the case that the drugs came into town from Chicago & its suburbs.
Good to hear that the Lincoln Service trains are already traveling at higher speeds, though!


----------



## rs9 (Jun 14, 2022)

MccfamschoolMom said:


> We were already having drug dealers coming down from the Chicago suburbs in their cars, many of them associated with some gang or another. And they don't need train fare to access the unmanned Amtrak station in our town; anyone can enter it, ticketed or not, regardless of how they got there (although train fare might be cheaper than gas now!). Granted, I haven't seen the station defaced by grafitti yet, nor have I smelled pot there nor seen drug transactions taking place there personally (although I haven't had a family member catching the Lincoln Service trains from there in 3 1/2 years, so I've only driven past the station rather than parked there since then); however, we do still regularly read reports of local drug busts in the weekly newspaper, and it's usually the case that the drugs came into town from Chicago & its suburbs.
> Good to hear that the Lincoln Service trains are already traveling at higher speeds, though!



Not to go too far off topic, but I think there are assumed characteristics of drug use at play here. According to NIH studies, there isn't much significant difference in the use of recreational drugs between urban and rural areas, although there are more recreational drug overdose deaths in urban areas. Likewise, abuse of opioids is now widespread but was certainly a rural issue at the start. To put it mildly, drug sales only happen because someone wants to buy.

Drug busts also only capture drugs for sale where the drug busts are taking place. For example, I live on the north side of Chicago, in a predominantly white neighborhood. I know numerous people who have purchased and used cocaine. They do so with virtually no fear of legal consequences. People smoke marijuana in public with no fear of anything. Even before it was legalized, I have witnessed people in a public park smoking marijuana and a police officer literally walk right past them (not that I felt they should be arrested). At the bars and clubs in River North, it is an accepted fact that (wealthy) people are using "designer drugs" - stimulants, methamphetamines, etc.

To put it simply, there are no drug busts where I live. The police aren't raiding the clubs. No one seems to care. Ten miles to the south, on the south side of Chicago, drug busts are a fact of everyday life.

As for the Lincoln Service - one person's anecdotal examples only add up to so much, but for me personally, I've had a lot more problems with passengers boarding "downstate" than originating from Chicago, Summit or Joliet. Once, a woman who was clearly a ticket dodger tried to steal my phone (long story, but I lent it to her to make a phone call, she showed no signs of giving it back, tried to switch to the aisle seat from the window right before a station stop. I could put 2 and 2 together). I've also had intoxicated and fairly belligerent people in my car who boarded downstate headed toward STL, on more than one occasion.

Again, no anecdotal example is representative of the whole.


----------



## jis (Jun 14, 2022)

The main topic of this thread though would exclude Lincoln Service and whatever is planned for it from the realm of what "High Speed Rail" refers to, which would be minimally above 160mph. Lincoln Service would some day get to what is known as Higher Speed Rail maybe, on that alignment, which in and of itself would be a good thing.


----------



## toddinde (Jun 15, 2022)

Devil's Advocate said:


> Maybe you and your lady friend cannot tell the difference but in my experience the first thing working age people see when they research travel on Amtrak is how long it takes to get anywhere. The TGV and Shinkansen projects were not magic bullets that solved all problems but they did help save passenger rail in their respective regions by proving newer rail technology could still serve a useful and appealing purpose in the era of jet aircraft and personal vehicles. Meanwhile the Western Hemisphere has done precisely as you recommend and mostly ignored high speed rail as our passenger rail networks continue to dwindle in size and relevance as they pass into obscurity and obsolescence.


No we haven’t. By and large we haven’t created usable, high performance rail except in a few places like Milwaukee to Chicago. Of course, Milwaukee to Chicago is one of Amtrak’s most successful routes. Another example is the Surfliner and California’s Capital Corridor. High performance rail that is very successful. Far from dwindling, these prove the rule that high performance, conventional rail is successful and popular.


----------



## Tlcooper93 (Jun 15, 2022)

toddinde said:


> No we haven’t. By and large we haven’t created usable, high performance rail except in a few places like Milwaukee to Chicago. Of course, Milwaukee to Chicago is one of Amtrak’s most successful routes. Another example is the Surfliner and California’s Capital Corridor. High performance rail that is very successful. Far from dwindling, these prove the rule that high performance, conventional rail is successful and popular.


Its interesting that when you cite examples of high performance rail, your go-to examples are Milwaukee-Chicago, the Surfliner and the Capital Corridor, all of which fall far short of the level of service provided by NE Regionals (arguably not HSR, but just high performance, high frequency rail).


----------



## MARC Rider (Jun 15, 2022)

Tlcooper93 said:


> Its interesting that when you cite examples of high performance rail, your go-to examples are Milwaukee-Chicago, the Surfliner and the Capital Corridor, all of which fall far short of the level of service provided by NE Regionals (arguably not HSR, but just high performance, high frequency rail).


I think the Surfliner and Capitol Corridor service has frequency that approaches that of the Northeast Regionals. Certianly they're similar to the Empire and Keystone Corridors. And the Surfliner has commuter rail, too, on the route. Of course, the speeds aren't anything like those on the NEC.


----------



## George Harris (Aug 13, 2022)

Ziv said:


> I wonder how much CAHSR would have saved by going with a top speed commensurate with a 3 hour trip from San Fransisco to downtown LA instead of 2:40. That would probably be a requirement of 200 mph vs the 220 mph max speed probably needed to do 2:40. But I have to admit that I have seen so many different stated probable max speeds for CAHSR that I am not sure if it was 250 mph at one point, is supposed to be 220 mph now or might be 200 mph soon. Californias problems aren't limited to the issues related to speed, they managed to shoot themselves in the foot in a plethora of non-speed related ways as well.
> But it definitely seems like 200 mph max speed would give you a lot more choices for rolling stock.


I know this is reaching way back to make a response, however since I was involved in this project for several years, I think it needs one. Amongst other things, I wrote the alignment standards. The design speed is 220 mph, with a concept of don't close the door to going 250 mph. The difference in cost between 220 or 250 is negligible for the majority of the alignment. There are the usual "last mile" problems and political problems that prevent carrying these standards all the way into the end points. San Francisco to San Jose is to use the current Caltrain right of way, but four track it insofar as practical. A political promise to not require new right of way frustrates that last for a considerable portion. Likewise, on the LA end there are alignment constraints. Even going over Tehachapi a speed of 220+ mph is practical for most of it. The current very low speed on the ex SP route is primarily due to two things: First and obviously, minimizing earthwork for 18 whenever construction, and second, "development", that is adding curves and the famous loop in order to keep the grade down. Due to the capability of the high speed trains to easily climb a 3.5% grade, this last is unnecessary along this line. (However, gravity still rules, so even if the train starts up the grade at 220 mph, it will be going slower when it gets to the top.) Likewise, with curves designed for 200+ mph, there needs to be no concern about downhill runaways. Aerodynamics will keep you from going fast enough to derail going downgrade with loss of brakes even with a 3.5% grade.

When thinking of alignment issues, a major factor to emphasize is that, a straight line has no speed limits! If you want to by 200 mph or 125 mph rolling stock, or whatever, have at it. This can be changed, but you will be stuck forever with whatever constraints you have due to alignment geometrics.

Incidentally, this last point is one of the fallacies in the "just follow the interstate highway alignment" concept. You are OK where the highway is straight, but the defined legal design standards for the Interstate system is 70 mph. Even though most curves, particularly in relatively flat terrain can be negotiated considerably faster, "Considerably faster" on highway alignment does not get you to 200+ mph railroad curves.


----------



## TheCrescent (Aug 15, 2022)

WICT106 said:


> The US isn't ready for High Speed Rail"


The crowd on my 150-mph Acela Express trip this past weekend would certainly disagree.


----------



## danasgoodstuff (Aug 15, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> The crowd on my 150-mph Acela Express trip this past weekend would certainly disagree.


And it only makes NYC to DC or any of the other trips possible on it marginally quicker, but people are still willing to pay a high premium for that and the other things that come with it. I understand why it's used in the NEC but there are other routes where the difference in top speed between Acela and regular Amtrak would have a far larger impact on end to end times. I think we are about as ready as we're ever going to be for high(er) speed passenger rail and should get on it now.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Aug 15, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> The crowd on my 150-mph Acela Express trip this past weekend would certainly disagree.


The first high speed train averaged 86MPH in October of 1964. Today the express version averages above 135MPH. When I rode the Acela Express it was averaging 66MPH. Maybe it's more like 70MPH now but we still have yet to catch up with the very first high speed train 60 years after introduction.



danasgoodstuff said:


> And it only makes NYC to DC or any of the other trips possible on it marginally quicker, but people are still willing to pay a high premium for that and the other things that come with it. I understand why it's used in the NEC but there are other routes where the difference in top speed between Acela and regular Amtrak would have a far larger impact on end to end times. I think we are about as ready as we're ever going to be for high(er) speed passenger rail and should get on it now.


Agreed.


----------



## TheCrescent (Aug 15, 2022)

Devil's Advocate said:


> The first high speed train averaged 86MPH in October of 1964. Today the express version averages above 135MPH. When I rode the Acela Express it was averaging 66MPH. Maybe it's more like 70MPH now but we still have yet to catch up with the very first high speed train 60 years after introduction.
> 
> 
> Agreed.


Sure, but the Acela does go 150 (and certainly 125 or above) for a lot of its route in NJ and if you compare the Acela to other trains that have a lot of stops, it isn’t much slower. 

For example, Thalys can fly at top speed for a long time between Paris and Brussels because it has no stops; the Acela’s frequent stops slow it down.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 15, 2022)

The US isn't going to have European or Asian-style high-speed rail because building a true high speed rail line is fiendishly expensive and private capital will not put up the money to build it, nor does our current political culture allow for the efficient spending of the necessary funds. However, it would definitely be possible to upgrade current corridor service to and 80 mph point to point average speed. 

Most of the focus is on the Northeast because it's the only place in the country where you have a 400-mile long corridor with large cities spaced all the way through that have an ecosystem of connecting transit, walkable neighborhoods, and a culture of riding trains between those cities. Also, it helps that the existing rail line is in public ownership. This exists in California between Los Angeles and San Diego, as well as the Bay area and Sacramento, but the distances between the endpoints are less, so true high speed operation isn't really necessary. There are a lot of large midwestern cities that could be connected with true high speed rail, but, with the exception of Chicago, there really isn't the transit ecosystem and extensive walkable neighborhoods. It also doesn't help that all the rail routes are owned by private class-1 railroads that have no interest in upgrading their infrastructure for high speed service. Heck, they would like to get rid of the low-speed passenger rail they have to deal with now.


----------



## NES28 (Aug 15, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> The US isn't going to have European or Asian-style high-speed rail because building a true high speed rail line is fiendishly expensive and private capital will not put up the money to build it, nor does our current political culture allow for the efficient spending of the necessary funds.


The U.S. will, eventually, have true HSR, probably before 2030. What is unclear is which line will be first. It will probably be Brightline West, with CAHSR following. It looked for a while that it would be Texas Central. Hopefully, they will get it together again now that Texas Supreme Court ruled that they ARE a railroad, against the odds!


----------



## NES28 (Aug 15, 2022)

And Brightline and Texas Central will be, at least largely, privately-funded. All will operate very profitably when finished.


----------



## jis (Aug 15, 2022)

Let’s not count chicken before the eggs are laid and they hatch 

I of course wish both would succeed wildly.


----------



## daybeers (Aug 15, 2022)

TheCrescent said:


> the Acela’s frequent stops slow it down


Sure, but it's really the speed restrictions that slow it down: curves, bridges, tunnels, congestion, and backwards prioritization of types of traffic. Who cares how many miles of 150 there are (really only, what, 55 miles out of 457?) when there's a 60 curve here, 40 bridge there, 30 tunnel here, and commuter trains in the way there.


----------



## Willbridge (Aug 16, 2022)

daybeers said:


> Sure, but it's really the speed restrictions that slow it down: curves, bridges, tunnels, congestion, and backwards prioritization of types of traffic. Who cares how many miles of 150 there are (really only, what, 55 miles out of 457?) when there's a 60 curve here, 40 bridge there, 30 tunnel here, and commuter trains in the way there.


That was well-illustrated by the Nisqually accident. The original American Lake branch of the NP had a smooth transition between the (original) Prairie Line and the newer (1914) Point Defiance Line. That was replaced with a sharp turn when the highway over-crossing was built, contributing years later to the fatal accident and sharply restricted speeds.

To paraphrase, "30 mph here, 20 mph there, pretty soon you're talking about real travel times."

Repeatedly on LRT projects minor speed restrictions have been agreed to for political or late-found safety concerns after the rolling stock has been ordered, creating the need for an additional train operator in the cycle and starting off the line with a tight equipment situation.


----------



## Joe from PA (Aug 16, 2022)

#1 What's the rush? #2 Do you think it will actually increase ridership? Having been retired for the past 25 years, I'm not the person to answer these.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 16, 2022)

Joe from PA said:


> #1 What's the rush? #2 Do you think it will actually increase ridership? Having been retired for the past 25 years, I'm not the person to answer these.


The current ~80 mph Acela NYP-WAS and the 70 mph NYP-WAS Northeast Regional are well patronized and have the highest intercity market share of any intercity rail route in the country. Even the slower NYP-BOS trains have good business. They definitely compete with driving. They almost (but not quite) compete with flying in terms of travel time, but they divert a lot of business from the airlines despite the slightly longer travel times. I'm not sure how much extra business they could divert if they were upgraded to 100+ mph average running times.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 16, 2022)

NES28 said:


> The U.S. will, eventually, have true HSR, probably before 2030. What is unclear is which line will be first. It will probably be Brightline West, with CAHSR following. It looked for a while that it would be Texas Central. Hopefully, they will get it together again now that Texas Supreme Court ruled that they ARE a railroad, against the odds!


While I wish both Brightline West and CAHSR to succeed, I doubt that either will be true high speed rail. Brightline West as currently planned is an incomplete system anyway, with a planned termination point at Rancho Cucamonga in the middle of nowhere and will rely on CASHR to be connected to anywhere useful. CAHSR is going to have to make a lot of compromises for political and budget reasons, and I expect that even if there are a few stretches where the trains go 180 mph, the point to point averages will be much more modest.


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 16, 2022)

NES28 said:


> And Brightline and Texas Central will be, at least largely, privately-funded. All will operate very profitably when finished.


"Profitability," as I have stated before, is a very slippery term. And owning and operating a rail line is an exceedingly difficult thing to do "profitably," especially in the long term and to the standards of conventional capitalist investors. I see Brightline East as being the equivalent of a condo developer including a pool or health club in the original development. Brightline has admitted that their main focus is using the railroad as an amenity to attract business to their real estate developments along the route. Once all the real estate deals are done and the profits made, will the company still have the stomach to continue to operate the high-overhead railroad, or will they fob off the money-devouring infrastructure and operations to the state or Amtrak? Or will they keep running the railroad, but try to keep it "profitable" by reducing costs, which means deferred maintenance, low reliability, and terrible onboard serve, just like lots of other passenger railroad operators in the mid twentieth century did?


----------



## TheCrescent (Aug 16, 2022)

MARC Rider said:


> The current ~80 mph Acela NYP-WAS and the 70 mph NYP-WAS Northeast Regional are well patronized and have the highest intercity market share of any intercity rail route in the country. Even the slower NYP-BOS trains have good business. They definitely compete with driving. They almost (but not quite) compete with flying in terms of travel time, but they divert a lot of business from the airlines despite the slightly longer travel times. I'm not sure how much extra business they could divert if they were upgraded to 100+ mph average running times.


A pretty good percentage of flights from NYC airports is to other cities along the Northeast Corridor. If the Acelas had 100+ mph average running times, many of those flights could be eliminated.

With additional capacity in the Northeast Corridor, perhaps Amtrak could add a low-cost service as well, to build ridership on the low end, like some European railroads do.

The Northeast’s airports and highways are way too congested and there are slews of additional potential rail customers.


----------



## Rover (Aug 16, 2022)

Here's a case study of best Intention proposals going up against harsh realities of cost overruns, when it comes to National HS Rail in Democracies...


----------



## MARC Rider (Aug 16, 2022)

Rover said:


> Here's a case study of best Intention proposals going up against harsh realities of cost overruns, when it comes to National HS Rail in Democracies...



However, cost overruns on freeways (Hi there, Boston Big Dig!!) haven't created a situation where it's impossible to build new freeways.


----------



## TheCrescent (Aug 16, 2022)

The US is particularly bad about ballooning costs for rail infrastructure projects. The US just needs to use more cost-effective construction, and the issue doesn’t negate the desirability of HSR.


----------

