cross country high speed corridors

[Joel N. Weber II]

You build it as a railway connecting beads on a string from coast to coast. Think Washington - Pittsburg - Columbus - Indianapolis - St. Louis - Kansas City - Topeka - Amarillo - Albuquerque - Los Angeles or Pittsburg - Cleveland - Chicago - Des Moines - Omaha - Salt Lake City - San Francisco, or any of several of several other variants for intermediate points. Say, maybe Washington - Charlotte NC - Atlanta - Montgomery AL - Jackson MS - Dallas - El Paso - Phoenix - Los Angeles

This page has a list of populations of the primary census areas.

Some of those cities you mention have populations well under a million. The Amarillo metro area is roughly a quarter of a million people, as is Topeka. Des Moines is under three quarters of a million. Montgomery is well under half a million. Jackson, MS is a little over half a million. El Paso is a bit under three quarters of a million.

Is there any major terrain disadavange to Washington - Pittsburgh - Cleveland - Indianapolis - St Louis - Kansas City - Dallas/Ft Worth - Lubbock - Albuquerque - Las Vegas - Los Angeles? (Lubbock is only a bit over a quarter million people, but it looks to me like it's barely a detour at all along the Ft Worth to Albuquerque route.) It's probably not quite the most direct route across the country, which might require revising my 10 hour estimate upwards a bit.

But I think the right goal for an initial high speed rail network is to get one high speed transcon built and then worry about filling in more transcon routes if ridership is high enough that we need more track capacity or have people wanting to shave a few more hours off the travel times or want service to more western cities badly enough to spend lots of money. An initial network should also include San Diego to Vancouver, and various tracks involving Minneapolis/St Paul, Kansas City, Dallas/Ft Worth, San Antonio, and various major cities to the east of those.

 

[jmbgeg]

I would very much like to be able to get from Boston to California by sleeping car in about 24 hours or less. TGV technology ought to make something like this possible.
However, it's unlikely that a high speed track all the way across the country is going to be funded purely to run sleepers. On the other hand, most travelers who have a bit of experience with trains seem to find that if their trip happens to be doable in about 3 hours or less by train, the train is a better choice than the plane. So I've been looking at the question of whether you can build a lot of these track segments which individually will make sense to the average airplane traveler, which will happen to connect to each other for the convenience of the long distance train traveler.

If we as a country were to collectively decide that where a major city is within about three hours or less by high speed train of another major city, that building TGV quality track makes sense, I believe it is possible to come up with a route that goes all the way across the country by high speed train. I'm assuming that the train will average 170 miles per hour from station to station, and that the major cities that can be considered are the top 30 US Combined Statistical Areas.

Where I've used track miles, they come from the Amtrak timetable; a high speed route might end up being a little shorter. Where I've used highway miles, the numbers are a bit rough, in that I've gone with whatever Google Maps thinks is the city center to be used when an address within the city is not specified, and a track route might not follow a highway route at all. Still, a rough estimate is better than no data.

The times between Denver and adjacent cities are a bit on the long side; then again, the Denver airport has managed to make itself huge to help keep itself competitively slow with the extra travel time those trains encounter relative to the rest of the train segments on this list.

One possible routing:

Philadelphia is the 8th largest Combined Statistical Area.

Philadelphia to Pittsburgh is 353 track miles on the current route; that trip would be roughly 2 hours at 170 MPH.

Pittsburgh is the 18th largest Combined Statistical Area.

Pittsburgh to Cleveland is currently 140 track miles, which would be under an hour at 170 MPH.

Cleveland is the 15th largest Combined Stastical Area.

Cleveland to Chicago is currently 341 track miles, which is right around 2 hours at 170 MPH.

Chicago is the 3rd largest Combined Statistical Area.

Chicago to St Louis is 297 highway miles, a bit under 2 hours at 170 MPH.

St Louis is the 16th largest Combined Statistical Area.

St Louis to Kansas City is roughly 250 highway miles, roughly 1.5 hours at 170 MPH.

Kansas City is the 22nd Largest Combined Statstical Area.

Kansas City to Denver is 603 highway miles, a little over 3.5 hours at 170 MPH.

Denver is the 14th largest Combined Stastictal Area.

Denver to Salt Lake City is 534 highway miles, but that's a pretty indirect route. However, 534 miles at 170 MPH is a bit over 3 hours.

Salt Lake City is the 27th largest Combined Statistical Area.

Salt Lake City to Las Vegas is 420 highway miles, about 2.5 hours at 170 MPH.

Las Vegas is the 25th largest Combined Statistical Area.

Las Vegas to Los Angeles is 271 highway miles, a bit over 1.5 hours at 170 MPH.

And Los Angeles is the 2nd largest Combined Statistical Area.

There are some other possible variations on this theme. I was looking at Pittsburgh to Philadelphia because that's where the tracks go now, but Pittsburgh to NYP and Pittsburgh to WAS tracks might also be viable options for routes that would take less than three hours at 170 MPH. I think Pittsburg to Columbus to Indianapolis to St Louis is a viable option for meeting all of the basic criteria, but if not all relatively nearby large cities get high speed track connecting them, focusing on the very largest cities is probably best, even if that makes the cross country route a bit less direct.

I just wish Amtrak had train service of any type into Las Vegas. Their current service is a Thruway bus from the Bakersfield, CA Amtrak station.

 

[user 1215]

Does the Tyler, TX airport, at ranking 234 with about 78,482 enplanements a day, have 24 hour car rental? The looks like the largest airport in the 48 states with lower ridership than the New London, CT train station (if we ignore Shore Line East trips).

(Psst: That's per year not day.)

 

[ralfp]

All this talk about Combined Statistical Areas full of people that would never go for this kind of project.

High speed trains run on electricity. Airplanes run on petroleum.

Right, they both run on fossil fuels. After we're done paying for the trains you want, we won't be able to afford to change that reality.

Maybe biofuels will someday power airplanes, or maybe someday batteries will power enough automobiles to leave a plentiful supply of petroleum for the airplanes, but those technologies are unproven. Meanwhile, 220 MPH trains are a working technology,

Turning the former into proven technologies would probably be cheaper than building a 220mph cross-country HSR network.

If we're going to invest a good fraction of a trillion dollars on a project, let's make it something that's not proven. Make it revolutionary, game changing, that sort of thing. Something that allows the US to lead in a new technology.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Make it revolutionary, game changing, that sort of thing. Something that allows the US to lead in a new technology.

You mean, like long enough contiguous segments of high speed track for traveling 2000 miles by high speed sleeper in one night to be practical? Or leading the world in train speed by laying out our high speed track with gentler curves than France and Japan are stuck with on their older high speed routes?

 

[ralfp]

You mean, like long enough contiguous segments of high speed track for traveling 2000 miles by high speed sleeper in one night to be practical? Or leading the world in train speed by laying out our high speed track with gentler curves than France and Japan are stuck with on their older high speed routes?

You justify your idea by saying 220mph is a "working technology". You just seem to want slight improvements and huge distances, but nothing radically new or better.

Is your idea about something radically new and a major advance or or not? If it is, don't criticize other ideas for requiring radically new technology. If it is not, don't claim that we'll lead other countries in some way.

You can't have it both ways.

 

[PRR 60]

Make it revolutionary, game changing, that sort of thing. Something that allows the US to lead in a new technology.

You mean, like long enough contiguous segments of high speed track for traveling 2000 miles by high speed sleeper in one night to be practical? Or leading the world in train speed by laying out our high speed track with gentler curves than France and Japan are stuck with on their older high speed routes?

The French TGV high-speed network is designed for what is just about the fastest possible conventional train operation. The practical limit to conventional train speed is not the degree of curvature of the alignment, but hard limitations involving wheel, rail and catenary dynamics. Those are not issues that can be mitigated by design. They are inherent to conventional technology. For those reasons, conventional rail will be limited in maximum operational speed to about 350kph (220mph). Even that speed is a technical stretch and pushes the conventional technology to the limit. LGV Est, for example, is designed for 350kph but is running at 320kph. LGV Est is the TGV line east from Paris to Germany. The first section opened last year.

For a one time shot it is possible to setup a special train and a section of line for a high speed record, but that type of setup requires a lot of work and just the right weather conditions. It is not repeatable day-in and day-out. It is in no way practical to actually operate a steel wheel on steel rail, overhead catenary line at more than 350kph in actual, day-to-day service. Speeds greater than 350kph requires something different, such as magnetic levitation. But mag-lev has all kind of other issues that, to date, have precluded any widespread adoption.

 

[ralfp]

You mean, like long enough contiguous segments of high speed track for traveling 2000 miles by high speed sleeper in one night to be practical?

I have a radical idea that would provide high capacity coast-to-coast sleeper service with far lower costs. Propeller aircraft. A red-eye without the red.

 

[sky12065]

You mean, like long enough contiguous segments of high speed track for traveling 2000 miles by high speed sleeper in one night to be practical?

I have a radical idea that would provide high capacity coast-to-coast sleeper service with far lower costs. Propeller aircraft. A red-eye without the red.

You wanna talk radical, let's get even more radical where the traveller would just say "beam me over Scotty" instead of "beam me up Scotty." :unsure:

On the down side you gotta hope that a fly doesn't land on you just as the beaming begins! "Help me... help me"

 

[Kramerica]

High speed trains run on electricity. Airplanes run on petroleum.

Right, they both run on fossil fuels. After we're done paying for the trains you want, we won't be able to afford to change that reality.

Electricity is not neccesarily fossil fuels. Right now in the US we mostly use coal and natural gas, but that doesn't have to continue. And those aren't imported, which is half of the argument against petroleum. (the other half being pollution) In the future, we can get our electricity from clean & domestic sources such as nuclear, wind, hydro, and solar. Plus fusion when it is developed. And since we're building power plants all the time, don't say we won't be able to afford the changeover. It is going to happen (regardless of HSR) and will happen over many, many years.

Meanwhile, airplanes have no technology remotely close to near-term or mid-term future development which will get them off of petroleum. Trains can run on clean electricity NOW.

 

[TVRM610]

I'm as pro-rail as they come but why would you spend the money involved in this project when airplanes can make this treck already?

High speed trains run on electricity. Airplanes run on petroleum.

The majority of petroleum consumed in the US needs to be imported, which is not ideal from a national security perspective. While there is probably something that can be done in the way of better intracity mass transit (more efficiently than building high speed intercity rail, even), we will eventually exhaust all those possibilities, and probably still want to be using less petroleum; far too many buildings in the US have been built in places and dimensions not compatible with mass transit.

Furthermore, electricity has the potential to use energy sources that are more environmentally friendly than burning fossil fuels.

Maybe biofuels will someday power airplanes, or maybe someday batteries will power enough automobiles to leave a plentiful supply of petroleum for the airplanes, but those technologies are unproven. Meanwhile, 220 MPH trains are a working technology, and I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the reason trains in other countries aren't going faster is a lack of imagination for how fast things might get when the curves were laid out on the existing high speed track.

Airport and highway capacity are also issues that can be addressed with high speed trains. I think Chicago, New York City, and Boston are all cities where the main airports are near capacity, and there isn't necessarily space readily available for expansion in ways that the neighbors are happy with. Moving some of those passengers to rail could help.

If high speed track is built along lesser-used routes, there's the potential for high speed Auto Train like services on those routes which could simultaneously save people time while reducing petroleum imports and reducing air polution.

I don't think you understand my POV... I'm all for higher speed corridors (I'm sorry but I refuse to leave reality behind.. the USA is not going to get anything faster than 110ish on any sections of long distance trains, the cost is too high). But the idea of building a transcontinental 220mph corridor solves nothing except it spends a whole lot of money. Spending money on a New York to Chicago corridor where much of the travel can be done at 100-110mph is worth the money. This is not builind right of way from scratch... this is adding 2nd or 3rd rails where possible that are capable of this speed... and spending some money for general track and signalling upgrades on existing CSX and NS Right of way... this to me is possible. (Again let me stress the fact that I know that the entire route could not be this way.. but several portions could be).

 

[George Harris]

110 mph limit now and forever in the US: NOPE

220 mph the practical limit for speed on rails? Don't think so.

Varying but ever increasing numbers have been trotted out as the maximum practical speed on rails since 1830 or thereabouts.

California High Speed is being designed for 220 mph operation, with the idea of ultimately being able to run at 250 mph. At this point it looks reasonably certain that it will be built.

Part of the French very high seed test runs were for the purpose of seeing what happens about 220 mph. The "standing wave" travel rate in the overhead line is stated as being somewhere above 320 mph, and may be able to be forced higher.

Adhesion does decrease with speed, hence the desirablity of 2/3 to all axles powered at very high speeds. horsepower per axle requirements are not unreasonable even at 250 mph.

Ballast being lifted by the aerodynamics does become a considreation at speeds above about 150 mph, but track at higher speeds should be on a concrete base. Maintenance is much easier. I know this is not French practice, but in reality their track practices for 220 mph are about the same as those that make sense at 80 mph, except obviously much closer tolerences on alignment defects. Obviously, they work, which says there is no real technological breakthroughs in getting to 220 mph. There are certain things that the French don't do that would be "nice to haves" at that speed which when done should enable the system to be carried to a significantly higher speed.

Tunnels are a major issue. If not done large enough and with quite a few extra features to deal with the aerodynamic issues, you will have the wonderful experience of feeling your eardrums slap each other in the middle of your head. There is also a hefty jolt if the track centers are too close.

I am quite willing to be in the first train to get to 250 mph or higher in California if they do it and I am still above ground and able.

As to building additional main tracks along the traditional New York Central Water Level Route between New York and Chicago: Up until post WW2 most of that line was 4 main tracks. It is now all 2 mains, with possible some sections of 3 mains. However, the track centers are very close, so simply replacing the tracks that have been removed would not permit 110 mph, but might permit 90 mph ON THE STRAIGHT PARTS. There are quite a few curves that would require speed reductions.

 

[TVRM610]

110 mph limit now and forever in the US: NOPE220 mph the practical limit for speed on rails? Don't think so.

Varying but ever increasing numbers have been trotted out as the maximum practical speed on rails since 1830 or thereabouts.

California High Speed is being designed for 220 mph operation, with the idea of ultimately being able to run at 250 mph. At this point it looks reasonably certain that it will be built.

Part of the French very high seed test runs were for the purpose of seeing what happens about 220 mph. The "standing wave" travel rate in the overhead line is stated as being somewhere above 320 mph, and may be able to be forced higher.

Adhesion does decrease with speed, hence the desirablity of 2/3 to all axles powered at very high speeds. horsepower per axle requirements are not unreasonable even at 250 mph.

Ballast being lifted by the aerodynamics does become a considreation at speeds above about 150 mph, but track at higher speeds should be on a concrete base. Maintenance is much easier. I know this is not French practice, but in reality their track practices for 220 mph are about the same as those that make sense at 80 mph, except obviously much closer tolerences on alignment defects. Obviously, they work, which says there is no real technological breakthroughs in getting to 220 mph. There are certain things that the French don't do that would be "nice to haves" at that speed which when done should enable the system to be carried to a significantly higher speed.

Tunnels are a major issue. If not done large enough and with quite a few extra features to deal with the aerodynamic issues, you will have the wonderful experience of feeling your eardrums slap each other in the middle of your head. There is also a hefty jolt if the track centers are too close.

I am quite willing to be in the first train to get to 250 mph or higher in California if they do it and I am still above ground and able.

As to building additional main tracks along the traditional New York Central Water Level Route between New York and Chicago: Up until post WW2 most of that line was 4 main tracks. It is now all 2 mains, with possible some sections of 3 mains. However, the track centers are very close, so simply replacing the tracks that have been removed would not permit 110 mph, but might permit 90 mph ON THE STRAIGHT PARTS. There are quite a few curves that would require speed reductions.

I'm all for 220 or more in California, but I will also believe it when i see construction start. I'm not saying that it won't happen, but I still think we are a long way off from that, but that is just IMHO.

As for your comments on the Lake Short Line... there are already portions of this line where the LSL runs 100... so the idea that speeds could not be above 90 is just not true. I'm not an expert on any of that right of way, but I am certain there could be some nice sections of track where an average speed of 90, top speed of 110 could be done. I never said the entire line was suitable for 110mph operation.

Also I was using the city pairs as an example, basically any of the NEC cities to Chicago could be considered once you get to DC, Philly, or NYC, the rest of the NEC is there as well. The Capitol right of way is much too windy through MD, as evidenced by the many sections of 30-35 speed limits. But the old Pennsylvanian could be a possbility... basically just keep extending the Keystone to Pittsburgh.. then take it from there step by step as is practical.

 

[George Harris]

I'm all for 220 or more in California, but I will also believe it when i see construction start. I'm not saying that it won't happen, but I still think we are a long way off from that, but that is just IMHO.
As for your comments on the Lake Short Line... there are already portions of this line where the LSL runs 100... so the idea that speeds could not be above 90 is just not true. I'm not an expert on any of that right of way, but I am certain there could be some nice sections of track where an average speed of 90, top speed of 110 could be done. I never said the entire line was suitable for 110mph operation.

If the Calif. HS does not happen, I will have spent the last few years of my working life generating useless paper, which is the sort of job I HATE.

I think all the high speed parts on the Lake Shore route are between New York City and Albany, but I would be happy to find out that I am wrong. About half the speed ups and additional track required to get the Lake Shore route to be made faster lie within the power of New York State to do if they should so choose. That it has not and seems to have no plan to do anything other than whine for federal money for rail just plays into the west coast opinion that New York is beoming a dying entity of historical interest only.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

Part of the French very high seed test runs were for the purpose of seeing what happens about 220 mph. The "standing wave" travel rate in the overhead line is stated as being somewhere above 320 mph, and may be able to be forced higher.

Is that approximately 320 MPH the limit for trainsets which have both a raised pantograph on the lead locomotive and a raised pantograph on the trailing locomotive, or is it the limit when there's only a single raised pantograph on the trainset?

Adhesion does decrease with speed, hence the desirablity of 2/3 to all axles powered at very high speeds. horsepower per axle requirements are not unreasonable even at 250 mph.

But I assume adhesion matters most when going uphill, and matters more for steeper grades than gentler grades, and is a bigger problem in rainy weather. (Do typical track maintenance standards keep leaves away from high speed tracks?) So in the worst case, maybe if all the axles are powered and you still don't have enough adhesion, maybe you take the uphill sections at slower speeds than the rest of the route on rainy days.

Does braking adhension ever become a major issue?

 

[TVRM610]

I'm all for 220 or more in California, but I will also believe it when i see construction start. I'm not saying that it won't happen, but I still think we are a long way off from that, but that is just IMHO.
As for your comments on the Lake Short Line... there are already portions of this line where the LSL runs 100... so the idea that speeds could not be above 90 is just not true. I'm not an expert on any of that right of way, but I am certain there could be some nice sections of track where an average speed of 90, top speed of 110 could be done. I never said the entire line was suitable for 110mph operation.

If the Calif. HS does not happen, I will have spent the last few years of my working life generating useless paper, which is the sort of job I HATE.

I think all the high speed parts on the Lake Shore route are between New York City and Albany, but I would be happy to find out that I am wrong. About half the speed ups and additional track required to get the Lake Shore route to be made faster lie within the power of New York State to do if they should so choose. That it has not and seems to have no plan to do anything other than whine for federal money for rail just plays into the west coast opinion that New York is beoming a dying entity of historical interest only.

For California high speed... great, sounds like we are further along then I realized I would say I would be the first one to buy a ticket, but unfortunately I waited about 8 years until I finally took a ride on the Acela.. and loved it I might add (just a few weeks ago).

As for LSL... you are most likely right.. I have NO idea where the 100mph running is... is that not CSX track where they run 100?

Also perhaps you know... would a route on the old Pennsylvanian be a possible high speed corridor? Again the entire route would not need to be high speed... but enough to make a difference obviously. I'm extremely unfamiliar with that route and do not know if there are any windy/steep sections that would prohibit a basic extension of the Keystone route.

 

[AlanB]

I've been told that there are one or two sections of 90MPH running west of Albany, but I'm not sure how long they are or just where they are.

 

[Neil_M]

Is that approximately 320 MPH the limit for trainsets which have both a raised pantograph on the lead locomotive and a raised pantograph on the trailing locomotive, or is it the limit when there's only a single raised pantograph on the trainset?

TGVs on high speed lines only have 1 pantograph raised, normally on the rear power car.

There is a busline along the roof that supplies the other power car.

On Eurostar sets both pantographs are raised because they are spaced 18 vehicles away and there is no busline.

 

[PRR 60]

220 mph the practical limit for speed on rails? Don't think so.

With all due respect, I think real-world operating practice suggests otherwise. Over the last 25 years or so we have seen a rather modest increase in the maximum speed of scheduled rail service from 300kph to 350kph. This despite multiple tests that showed that conventional trains could go faster. The reason, in my opinion, is simple. Speeds above that, although technically possible, are not practical or justified for everyday operation. As you stated, even California HSR, still in the preliminary engineering stage, is shooting for that same speed range.

The key word is practical, not possible. What is worth doing, not what can we possibly do if money were not an issue. My contention is that overcoming the technical challenges to moving speeds over the 350kph neighborhood are so great and so costly that, as things stand today, it is not going to happen for anything other then technical tests. I liken it to the supersonic transport. The Concorde was an enormous technical achievement. It was a marvelous transportation vehicle. But, in real world operation, it made little sense. An an engineer, I hated to see it retired. Also, as an engineer, I understood completely why it had to go. In 2008, and for the foreseeable future, forcing steel wheel on steel rail with overhead catenary to speeds above the 350kph range falls into that same category. At least that is my opinion.

 

[Joel N. Weber II]

For trains whose top speed is 185 MPH or faster, what is the longest running time from downtown to downtown anywhere in the world for the full length of the high speed routes?

 

[ralfp]

For trains whose top speed is 185 MPH or faster, what is the longest running time from downtown to downtown anywhere in the world for the full length of the high speed routes?

I think you're looking for the longest distance, not time. For a single train journey, my guess is the that Tōkaidō and Sanyō lines together would be up there (over 1060km from Tokyo to Hakata), though the Tōkaidō line is limited to 270kph. That's over half the total distance of France's TGV network.

As for the longest non-stop trip, I'm too lazy to look, but the Nagoya-Shin-Yokohama trip (316km) that I took a few years back was pretty long, though Paris-London is probably longer.

 

[VT Hokie]

I've been told that there are one or two sections of 90MPH running west of Albany, but I'm not sure how long they are or just where they are.

There's about 15 miles of 110 mph track between Hudson and Albany, several more miles between Albany and Schenectady, and then some 100 mph track between Schenectady and Amsterdam.

 

[spacecadet]

For trains whose top speed is 185 MPH or faster, what is the longest running time from downtown to downtown anywhere in the world for the full length of the high speed routes?

I think you're looking for the longest distance, not time. For a single train journey, my guess is the that Tōkaidō and Sanyō lines together would be up there (over 1060km from Tokyo to Hakata), though the Tōkaidō line is limited to 270kph. That's over half the total distance of France's TGV network.

And if he really does want time, that's about 4.75 hours to go that distance.

Why are there no "through" Shinkansen connecting Tokaido and Tohoku lines at Tokyo? Is Tokyo like Chicago, where it's pretty much impossible to run through trains without major maneuvering? It seems like you should be able to ride one shinkansen pretty much the full length of Japan.

 

[ralfp]

Why are there no "through" Shinkansen connecting Tokaido and Tohoku lines at Tokyo? Is Tokyo like Chicago, where it's pretty much impossible to run through trains without major maneuvering? It seems like you should be able to ride one shinkansen pretty much the full length of Japan.

I don't think it's the layout; the tracks are adjacent. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Station

The trains are run by different companies. The Sanyo trains ran to Tokyo before the breakup of JNR. The Tōhoku line started Tokyo service after the breakup.

 

[spacecadet]

Why are there no "through" Shinkansen connecting Tokaido and Tohoku lines at Tokyo? Is Tokyo like Chicago, where it's pretty much impossible to run through trains without major maneuvering? It seems like you should be able to ride one shinkansen pretty much the full length of Japan.

I don't think it's the layout; the tracks are adjacent. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tokyo_Station

The trains are run by different companies. The Sanyo trains ran to Tokyo before the breakup of JNR. The Tōhoku line started Tokyo service after the breakup.

So every line requires a transfer? There's no sharing of track rights? (I thought the government actually still owned the tracks.) The JR web site makes it seem like you can ride one train from Tokyo to Hakata, if you go to "hyperdia" and actually look up the itinerary. (There's also just one JR web site, so they must share some things.)

I have been to Tokyo station many times but just have never ridden anything other than Tokaido line trains.