# Best Use of $10.5 Billion HSR Funding



## Ben (Dec 7, 2010)

What would have been the best way to distribute $10.5 billion in HSR funding? If politics weren't involved, I would have given Amtrak $500 million for equipment. Then I would give CA $3 billion to upgrade the Coast/San Joaquin routes to 110 mph, with the SQ route extended to LA. The Pacific Northwest, Chicago-Detroit, Chicago-Cleveland, Chicago-Cincinnati, and Chicago-St. Louis would each receive $1 billion to be upgraded to 110 mph. For $2 billion I would start basic service between LA-Las Vegas, Dallas-Houston, and Chicago-Miami.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 7, 2010)

To call anything running at 110 mph or less "High Speed Rail" is a misunderstanding of the definition. While I do not disagree with any of the things liste, none of them constitute true high speed rail. They do form improved, and sometimes improved significantly, convetntional passenger carrying rail. To achieve decent speed on just Chicago and Miami would probably consume the whole $2 billion you listed.


----------



## Shawn Ryu (Dec 7, 2010)

Improving NEC so Acela can run at max speed for almost the entire route will take at least 20 billion


----------



## Ben (Dec 7, 2010)

It doesn't matter what constitutes "high-speed" or not, the fact of the matter is that 110 mph is a fair upgrade over 79. Also, the Chicago-Florida CSX route is in excellent shape, just needs some additional capacity, which shouldn't be more than $500 million.


----------



## Anderson (Dec 7, 2010)

While I agree with handing out $100-200 million for local/regional planning and for some limited station upgrades, I do think that more of the funding should have been shot to full projects. I'm not going to disagree with the long-term project of Chicago-Minneapolis (the new Governor out there in WI is being a dolt).

That said, LA-LV should be a damn high priority. As I think has been discussed, you've got heavy traffic on a freeway in the desert. There's demand on that line, and I'll be a monkey's uncle if you couldn't find casinos interested in running promotions with attached, private cars they staff themselves. The Desert Xpress project ought to be a hint here that there's money to be had. The "feeder lines" to the NEC (Empire Service and Keystone Service in particular) are also good focuses for funding (Albany-NYC is a highly-used line, and service on the Harrisburg-NYC line has apparently been running off the charts).


----------



## gswager (Dec 7, 2010)

Passenger train at 110 mph is a no match to freight at 50-60 mph on either single or double tracks. It would be better to use dedicated line for passenger trains.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 8, 2010)

Ben said:


> Also, the Chicago-Florida CSX route is in excellent shape, just needs some additional capacity, which shouldn't be more than $500 million.


As to track condition, this is true. However, as to alignment, it leaves a lot to be desired. At the best, the Chicago to Jacksonville was right at 24 hours due to the multitudinous curves, and that with very short and infrequent stops. Many of these curves are not good for the speeds now that they were in teh 1950's.


----------



## MattW (Dec 8, 2010)

Even if the curves were superelevated to the maximum of three inches?


----------



## George Harris (Dec 8, 2010)

MattW said:


> Even if the curves were superelevated to the maximum of three inches?


The maximum where you are carrying piggyback or double stacks is usually 4 inches. In the past there were a lot of curves on railroads with 5 and 6 inches superelevation. But, for the most part cars were with the "Plate B" or "Plate C" outlines, which means no more than 15'-1" or 15'-6" high. The top of the top container on a double stack car is 20 feet above the rail.

Passenger only lines, including many transit lines go up to 6 inches superelevation. Some systems will go as high as 180 mm which is right at 7 inches.

Do you mean unbalance? That is the difference between the superelevation that it wuold take to exactly balance the centrifugal force at the speed limit and the actual superelevation in track? If so, that value *is* 3 inches, although with FRA approval up to 4 inches may be allowed. In general 3 inches, which is equivalent to 0.05 g lateral acceleration, is regarded as a reasonable comfort limit for trains since people are not strapped into or otherwise stuck in their seats so they can be and frequently are up and about while the train is moving.

So, for the 3 to 4 inch range of actual superelevation that is commonly used on this line, the passenger speeds will be about what they are now.


----------



## MrFSS (Dec 8, 2010)

George Harris said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> > Even if the curves were superelevated to the maximum of three inches?
> ...


Remind me never to play Railroad Trivial Pursuit with you.


----------



## George Harris (Dec 10, 2010)

MrFSS said:


> Remind me never to play Railroad Trivial Pursuit with you.


Dealing with this sort of stuff is part of what I do for a living.


----------

