# Chicago to Florida



## Frank Slocum

We need a good high speed line from Chicago to Florida. Run it down the center of Interstates for efficiency when availible. Stop, Indy, Lou,Nash, Chat, Atl, So GA, and drop into Fla. Goal 12 hours.

Frank


----------



## rrdude

Frank Slocum said:


> We need a good high speed line from Chicago to Florida. Run it down the center of Interstates for efficiency when availible. Stop, Indy, Lou,Nash, Chat, Atl, So GA, and drop into Fla. Goal 12 hours.
> 
> Frank


Thanks for posting Frank!

Although I think some of the grades on the Interstate thru the mountains might be a tad steep for HSR, or even HrSR.

Would be nice to use the medians though, like the

 does on the MoPac near Austin, TX.


----------



## AlanB

rrdude said:


> Frank Slocum said:
> 
> 
> 
> We need a good high speed line from Chicago to Florida. Run it down the center of Interstates for efficiency when availible. Stop, Indy, Lou,Nash, Chat, Atl, So GA, and drop into Fla. Goal 12 hours.
> 
> Frank
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for posting Frank!
> 
> Although I think some of the grades on the Interstate thru the mountains might be a tad steep for HSR, or even HrSR.
> 
> Would be nice to use the medians though, like the
Click to expand...


Most interstates also aren't straight enough for HSR, many meander as badly as Amtrak's shoreline route too Boston does.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> Most interstates also aren't straight enough for HSR, many meander as badly as Amtrak's shoreline route too Boston does.


Here in Texas I think they'd be plenty straight enough. It's an absolute shame that we don't have HSR out here, but all three Texan airlines helped kill it, probably for good.


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most interstates also aren't straight enough for HSR, many meander as badly as Amtrak's shoreline route too Boston does.
> 
> 
> 
> Here in Texas I think they'd be plenty straight enough. It's an absolute shame that we don't have HSR out here, but all three Texan airlines helped kill it, probably for good.
Click to expand...

Daxomni,

I freely admit that I'm far from an expert on highways in Texas, although I have been on a few. But when I say straight, we're talking straight as an arrow. No turns! Even the smallest turn at high speed means slowing down. And what seems small when one is driving can be huge to a high speed train.

Idealy if one were building high speed rail between Dallas & Houston, you'd want a perfectly straight line between the two cities with zero turns in the ROW, except maybe when one gets in very close to the actual city.


----------



## DET63

Maps show that I-45 has quite a few turns between Dallas and Houston. Whether they'd be significant enough to slow high-speed trains that were in the median or followed a close parallel route is something I do not know, however.


----------



## saxman

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most interstates also aren't straight enough for HSR, many meander as badly as Amtrak's shoreline route too Boston does.
> 
> 
> 
> Here in Texas I think they'd be plenty straight enough. It's an absolute shame that we don't have HSR out here, but all three Texan airlines helped kill it, probably for good.
Click to expand...

Southwest was really the only one that fought it back in the 90's. I don't think they will now as their market has spread beyond mainly Texas now. Plus many of their flights have gotten to be longer. They've stated they're on the fence about it this time around. Other airlines have stated the same. Now days Texas is down to only two major airlines. 

I've always heard that when they built the Interstates, they were required to have sections of straight followed by curves. It could be all a myth but maybe perhaps to land military aircraft land on them in an emergency. And curves to keep drivers awake, which does make sense.


----------



## rrdude

saxman said:


> daxomni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> Most interstates also aren't straight enough for HSR, many meander as badly as Amtrak's shoreline route too Boston does.
> 
> 
> 
> Here in Texas I think they'd be plenty straight enough. It's an absolute shame that we don't have HSR out here, but all three Texan airlines helped kill it, probably for good.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Southwest was really the only one that fought it back in the 90's. I don't think they will now as their market has spread beyond mainly Texas now. Plus many of their flights have gotten to be longer. They've stated they're on the fence about it this time around. Other airlines have stated the same. Now days Texas is down to only two major airlines.
> 
> I've always heard that when they built the Interstates, they were required to have sections of straight followed by curves. It could be all a myth but maybe perhaps to land military aircraft *land on them in an emergency.* And curves to keep drivers awake, which does make sense.
Click to expand...

Myth. I had heard it too, and was recently corrected.

Go HERE to read more


----------



## mfastx

OK maybe I'm missing something, but whay is an Orlando-Chicago route "needed?" I can understand Orlando-Miami or something, but flying is much more convienient than rail between cities that far apart. We should be focusing on closer cities, because that's where rail has the advantage.


----------



## MattW

mfastx said:


> OK maybe I'm missing something, but whay is an Orlando-Chicago route "needed?" I can understand Orlando-Miami or something, but flying is much more convienient than rail between cities that far apart. We should be focusing on closer cities, because that's where rail has the advantage.


Well why is a Chicago to Seattle route "needed?" Or a Los Angeles to Seattle route "needed?" or a New York to Miami route "needed?"


----------



## George Harris

mfastx said:


> OK maybe I'm missing something, but whay is an Orlando-Chicago route "needed?" I can understand Orlando-Miami or something, but flying is much more convienient than rail between cities that far apart. We should be focusing on closer cities, because that's where rail has the advantage.


Because a train does not take off in Chicago and land in Orlando. Examle from another route: Saw recenetly that the Empire Builder has a nominal capacity of 400 passengers, but normally serves 700 plus on each trip. How is that possible? Because there are people off and people on at all the many stops in between.

Similarly: The potential Chicago - Orlando routes would go one of the following:

Chicago - Danville IL - Evansville - Nashville - Chattanooga - Atlanta - Macon - Jacksonville - Orlando - and on to Miami, with quite few logical stops not listed: OR

Chicago - Lafayette in - Louisville - Nashville - Birmingham - Montgomery - Dothan AL - Jacksonville - Orlando - and on to Miami, again with quite a few logical stops not listed: OR

Chicago - Louisville - Cincinatti - Knoxville - Atlanta - Jacksonville - etc.,plus other places both above and not listed: OR, and its a stretch:

Chicago - Memphis - Birmingham - Atlanta - etc.

It is not just end points, but all between. Same was true for the Sunset-East. It attracted quite a bit of ridership to interneduate points, which, if reasonable timekeeping had happened, would have continued and increased to the point needed to assured its continued operation.


----------



## Heading North

And to add to this point--it's not just the intermediate stops, but the connections. The train may go from Chicago to Florida, but if it stops in Nashville for example, it may also enable someone in New York or Washington to get to Nashville through a connection with the Crescent (or Cardinal).

I'm dealing with this issue right now. There's a friend I'd like to visit in Tallahassee (along the former Sunset East), but from DC, the closest I can get is Jacksonville, and then rent a car or go across town for the bus. Without being able to go through conveniently, it's more likely that I'd fly for such a trip (if I can afford to).


----------



## mfastx

MattW said:


> Well why is a Chicago to Seattle route "needed?" Or a Los Angeles to Seattle route "needed?" or a New York to Miami route "needed?"


Those routes aren't "needed." We should focus on establishing fast, reliable service along major corridors, like Atlanta-Orlando, Houston-Dallas, Los Angeles-San Francisco, etc. After those core routes are established (preferably using HSR) _then_ we can focus on passenger service to smaller cities. That is my theory anyway.



George Harris said:


> Because a train does not take off in Chicago and land in Orlando. Examle from another route: Saw recenetly that the Empire Builder has a nominal capacity of 400 passengers, but normally serves 700 plus on each trip. How is that possible? Because there are people off and people on at all the many stops in between.


OK that works, but if you really want to serve the most people, then it would be better to establish more reliable shorter service between major cities, like I mentioned above. Look, LD trains are great, but since they are long distance, they are prone to being hours late. To move more people via rail in this country, HSR is needed between major cities, then you have your stubs linking the smaller cities. Look, I am all for an Orlando-Chicago route, but if we are going to spend lots of money on that, why not focus on the shorter distance major cities and upgrade _their_ service with that money? Dallas and Houston, the 4th and 5th largest metros in the country, respectively, don't even _have_ rail service and a fast, reliable service between those cities would generate much more ridership. I'd say the a line between Dallas and Houston is "needed."


----------



## George Harris

mfastx said:


> MattW said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well why is a Chicago to Seattle route "needed?" Or a Los Angeles to Seattle route "needed?" or a New York to Miami route "needed?"
> 
> 
> 
> Those routes aren't "needed." We should focus on establishing fast, reliable service along major corridors, like Atlanta-Orlando, Houston-Dallas, Los Angeles-San Francisco, etc. After those core routes are established (preferably using HSR) _then_ we can focus on passenger service to smaller cities. That is my theory anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> George Harris said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because a train does not take off in Chicago and land in Orlando. Examle from another route: Saw recenetly that the Empire Builder has a nominal capacity of 400 passengers, but normally serves 700 plus on each trip. How is that possible? Because there are people off and people on at all the many stops in between.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> OK that works, but if you really want to serve the most people, then it would be better to establish more reliable shorter service between major cities, like I mentioned above. Look, LD trains are great, but since they are long distance, they are prone to being hours late. To move more people via rail in this country, HSR is needed between major cities, then you have your stubs linking the smaller cities. Look, I am all for an Orlando-Chicago route, but if we are going to spend lots of money on that, why not focus on the shorter distance major cities and upgrade _their_ service with that money? Dallas and Houston, the 4th and 5th largest metros in the country, respectively, don't even _have_ rail service and a fast, reliable service between those cities would generate much more ridership. I'd say the a line between Dallas and Houston is "needed."
Click to expand...

The point also with the long distance trains as opposed to short distance ones is the travel overlaps. Yes, better timekeeping would help. Having multiple trains per day on any given route would help, but at this point,we have got to build on what we have. We will not get there by staring off with throwing away what we have now.


----------



## MattW

So you run a fast route from A to B, you also have a route between city B and C, then another one between C and D, and suddenly, it makes more sense to run a train from A to D stopping at B and C.

Chicago to Orlando gets you Chicago to Indianapolis, Indianapolis to Cincinnati, Cincinnati to Lexington, Lexington to Nashville, Nashville to Chattanooga, Chattanooga to Atlanta, and Atlanta to Orlando. Perhaps not that exact routing, but you get the picture.

Let's pretend that 140mph average (220mph top) HSR could be build Atlanta to Chicago, that's a 6 hour trip vs about a 2.5 hour air-time trip in a plane, which is really more like 5 hours counting getting to the airport, security, check in, luggage etc.


----------



## Eric S

As *George Harris* and *MattW* mentioned, long distance trains often tend to be multiple corridors strung together. Now, it may not serve each corridor or each portion of a corridor at optimal times given its long length, but a long distance train can also function as an additional frequency on various corridors, in addition to any short distance/"corridor" trains that may also exist. In the Midwest, the _City of New Orleans_ acts as an additional train on the Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale corridor and the _Texas Eagle_ is an additional train on the Chicago-Normal-Springfield-St. Louis corridor, in addition to serving as long distance Chicago-New Orleans or Chicago-San Antonio trains.


----------



## AlanB

Eric S said:


> As *George Harris* and *MattW* mentioned, long distance trains often tend to be multiple corridors strung together. Now, it may not serve each corridor or each portion of a corridor at optimal times given its long length, but a long distance train can also function as an additional frequency on various corridors, in addition to any short distance/"corridor" trains that may also exist. In the Midwest, the _City of New Orleans_ acts as an additional train on the Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale corridor and the _Texas Eagle_ is an additional train on the Chicago-Normal-Springfield-St. Louis corridor, in addition to serving as long distance Chicago-New Orleans or Chicago-San Antonio trains.


Amtrak would actually like to change that for the Eagle however, it won't run express, but they would like to drop a few of the smaller stops. That is unlikely to happen until after the high-speed work is done on that corridor and other Lincoln Service trains are added.


----------



## Eric S

AlanB said:


> Eric S said:
> 
> 
> 
> As *George Harris* and *MattW* mentioned, long distance trains often tend to be multiple corridors strung together. Now, it may not serve each corridor or each portion of a corridor at optimal times given its long length, but a long distance train can also function as an additional frequency on various corridors, in addition to any short distance/"corridor" trains that may also exist. In the Midwest, the _City of New Orleans_ acts as an additional train on the Chicago-Champaign-Carbondale corridor and the _Texas Eagle_ is an additional train on the Chicago-Normal-Springfield-St. Louis corridor, in addition to serving as long distance Chicago-New Orleans or Chicago-San Antonio trains.
> 
> 
> 
> Amtrak would actually like to change that for the Eagle however, it won't run express, but they would like to drop a few of the smaller stops. That is unlikely to happen until after the high-speed work is done on that corridor and other Lincoln Service trains are added.
Click to expand...

But even then, unless it has on/off restrictions like LD trains in the NEC, it would still function as an additional frequency in the corridor. Even now, both of those trains skip some of the stations served by the corridor trains. The _Texas Eagle_ skips Dwight and Summit and the _City of New Orleans_ skips Du Quoin, Gilman, and Rantoul.


----------



## Devil's Advocate

AlanB said:


> When I say straight, we're talking straight as an arrow. No turns! Even the smallest turn at high speed means slowing down. And what seems small when one is driving can be huge to a high speed train. Idealy if one were building high speed rail between Dallas & Houston, you'd want a perfectly straight line between the two cities with zero turns in the ROW, except maybe when one gets in very close to the actual city.


Personally I think HSR is still worth building even if it has to have a (gasp!) _curve_ in the rail once in a while, but I guess you bring up a good point about why it will never happen.


----------



## AlanB

daxomni said:


> AlanB said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I say straight, we're talking straight as an arrow. No turns! Even the smallest turn at high speed means slowing down. And what seems small when one is driving can be huge to a high speed train. Idealy if one were building high speed rail between Dallas & Houston, you'd want a perfectly straight line between the two cities with zero turns in the ROW, except maybe when one gets in very close to the actual city.
> 
> 
> 
> Personally I think HSR is still worth building even if it has to have a (gasp!) _curve_ in the rail once in a while, but I guess you bring up a good point about why it will never happen.
Click to expand...

Oh, I whole heartedly agree! I think that Acela was worth it. It reinvigerated Amtrak's NY to DC run and it opened up the world of Boston. Now instead of losing 20 to 30 minutes changing engines in New Haven, along with the associated expense, every train had that time simply shaved right off of its schedule.

And I wouldn't be remiss at all to see something somewhat better than Acela but not "perfect" HSR in Texas.

My point was simply that if you want pure 220MPH running, that means straight. And there will always be some for whom anything less and it's a waste of money.


----------



## amtrakwolverine

It's just sad. Japan has highspeed France has highspeed Germany has highspeed Australia has highspeed England has highspeed we just have the one acela and we have to fight to the death just to get any form of highspeed just to be a blueprint.


----------



## jis

AlanB said:


> Oh, I whole heartedly agree! I think that Acela was worth it. It reinvigerated Amtrak's NY to DC run and it opened up the world of Boston. Now instead of losing 20 to 30 minutes changing engines in New Haven, along with the associated expense, every train had that time simply shaved right off of its schedule.
> 
> And I wouldn't be remiss at all to see something somewhat better than Acela but not "perfect" HSR in Texas.
> 
> My point was simply that if you want pure 220MPH running, that means straight. And there will always be some for whom anything less and it's a waste of money.


Actually you can and do have curves even on HSR, it is just that they have to be gentle ones and the tracks have to be banked quite a bit more than one is used to see on your everyday lines. Also, in order for it to be workable, axle loads have to be much lower than is common in the US. Hence the whole argument about FRA buff strength requirements which tends to push things towards being heavier rather than lighter. In the design of HSR sets considerable effort is expended to minimizing weight of furnishing and fittings, almost as if it was an aircraft, for this reason.

BTW, a 220mph HSR train slowing down for 5 miles worth of curve at 190mph is not going to add that much additional running time.


----------



## Eric S

amtrakwolverine said:


> It's just sad. Japan has highspeed France has highspeed Germany has highspeed Australia has highspeed England has highspeed we just have the one acela and we have to fight to the death just to get any form of highspeed just to be a blueprint.


Isn't the "high speed" rail in Australia more akin to what exists in the US and Canada, in other words more in the 90-125 MPH range rather than the 150-220 MPH range?


----------



## Devil's Advocate

Eric S said:


> Isn't the "high speed" rail in Australia more akin to what exists in the US and Canada, in other words more in the 90-125 MPH range rather than the 150-220 MPH range?


Which is no surprise really. Just like in America, Australian media have ensured that the public will only back a tax-neutral expansion of privately funded passenger rail that will never come.


----------



## MattW

Based on the equation for cant on Wikipedia, the maximum degree curve for a 220mph train is .2656 degrees with a 6 inch difference in rail height, and .3541 degrees for a 9 inch difference. Not sure how that translates into radius of curvature.


----------



## George Harris

> It's just sad. Japan has highspeed


 Yes these are the originators of the modern high speed and in many ways the best. They just tend to get overshadowed by our Eurocentric perspective. True, they are not as fast as some of the French lines, but look at the terrain the Japanese deal with.


> France has highspeed


True, with astounding little in the way of high technology, IMHO


> Germany has highspeed


True, with some interesting points of design.


> Australia has highspeed


 No, they don't. (Anyone feel free to show me where if I am wrong.)


> England has highspeed


 One line so far as I know.


> Based on the equation for cant on Wikipedia, the maximum degree curve for a 220mph train is 0.2656 degrees with a 6 inch difference in rail height, and 0.3541 degrees for a 9 inch difference. Not sure how that translates into radius of curvature.


As should be obvious from the above, when dealing with very high speeds, calling out curves in degrees gets a little silly. Normally high speed curves are defined by radius. The formula using radius is:

SE = 4.0 V^2 / R

where: SE is balancing superelevation in inches, V is speed in miles per hour, and R is radius of curve in feet.

Normally, if you want to run 220 mph to 250 mph, you would want curve radii of at least 30,000 feet, and 45,000 feet or more would be better.


----------

